besieged communities, line travels to the front lines of the climate crisis in central america to see how it's up ending lives and fueling migration exit on during a climate in crisis on our jazeera, ah no, i. mariam was in london with a look at your main stories. now. you as president joe biden says he thinks he's secured support for signature $1.00 trillion dollars spending program. he took the rest type of meeting with senators on their own tough capital to urge them to back his economic and climate focus package. you'll need all democrats to support it for the bill to pass in the evenly split senate. these are not about lead versus right or moderate versus progressive or anything else to pitts americans against one.

this is about competitiveness versus complacency, competitive versus complacency about expanding opportunities, not opportunity. and i smile leading the world or letting the world pass this by and all the headlines, the u. k. summoned the french ambassador amid a deepening route of a post breaks it. fishing rights comes out off the french authorities seized the bushes stroller operating in french territorial waters. the sky with georgia was escorted to the northern ports of the hover. when its crew fell to prove they had the correct fishing licenses. the united nations security countless calling on sedans, military leaders to restore the civilian lead transitional government. a council issued its 1st statement on the christ is expressing serious concern about the takeover that stopped short of condemnation, coolly the other hotel. hon has dismissed at least 6 on bass. it is after they spoke out against mondays, takeover rebels. and if you have his northern tech why region say at least 6

civilians have been killed in another government as strike? the european army claims it target is cited mikella used by to grind forces to make repair weapons. but a spokes person for the rights for the liberation front, as a civilian residence was hit instead. farmers insurance have been protesting against the government plan to go 100 percent organic. they say there is, it's no fertilizer for this. just as the cultivation season gets on the way government is now banned or imports of chemical facts. so i says that the social networking giant, facebook has rebranded itself the company is now named matter. it comes and they've increasing scrutiny from politicians and regulators over facebook market power and the policing of abuse on its platforms will bring you much more on that story in the news hour that's coming on myself at 2100 gmc, i'll see you then boom, boom, this is the story about

a group of men who wants you to doubt climate change, the story of a campaign, but it's impacted our world forever. ah, back to naomi arrest his oh, we left her with a pile of papers. this pile became the beginning of a big investigation. she also gets hold of the strategy paper. it was my alice through the looking glass moment when my whole life kind of changed. a risk is drops everything and decides to find out who's arguing against the climate scientists bit by bit. she begins to understand why these pundits a so effective in general, they're much better at communicating then real scientists are because real scientists are. well, i don't want to insult my call, but you know, most scientists are scientists. they like to be left alone. so you take

a group of people who are intrinsically actually pretty poor at communicating. and now you put them up against professional communications. professional p, r. people, somebody who might go against me on t v or radio, i might go more than i do. they may be scientist. i'm not a scientist. ah, but they're not necessarily good communicators. and if you put a board communicator up against a good communicator, even garbage arguments tend to went out. 2 ah. 6 i started doing research to try to find out who are these people that are attacking me and why are they saying these extraordinary things about me? and that was the investigation that led to the book commercials of death, merchants of doubt, she calls the climate skeptics. but that doesn't stop the attacks on the contrary. so they, i sent out an email chain to each other,

talking about what they could do to get me to discredit me. they called me all kinds of names. me one day. something happens radically changed jerry taylor's life. i was in the debate in the early 2, thousands with joe rome, the and on this tv show where we were debating, i said, look, joe, it's been more than a decade since james hanson testified him from the united states about global warming. we've only seen about a quarter of a warming that james hanson says we should have seen by now. and if this continues to play out, there's no reason to take a while climate change, it'll be a relative so we left the studio and went in the green room. and joe said, did you even read james hanson's test for your?

do you just, you know, is there you are these just talking point somebody wrote for you what you're talking about here, what a scenario to scenario be in a scenario c. so if you look at scenario be you'll find that the emissions we've seen since is testimony pretty much crack what he hypothesized under scenario b. and if you look at the temperature projections, the pretty spot on. so when you go on television, you say that the models are running hot, that's complete garbage. so here's what i challenge. we say you go back to your office and you, we read hands in his testimony and you tell me if what i'm saying is it right? he says or be a hack. i don't care. i said, because i'm not debating you again, i don't, you know, i hate this kind of so i went back to my office. i looked at the hands and testimony thinking, well, i'm not going to let joe rob, you know, walk away thinking he got the better of me in the green room. right. and i read the

testimony to look like it actually reflect what joe told me. so i went down the hallway to the scientist and explain what it averages to joe. and this is, you know, the conversation. we had looked testimony in. looks like joe's right. so what am i missing? so i was certain i was missing something and it turned out it wasn't missing anything. me. it became clear to me in the course of the back and forth that he was knowingly misleading people. would that narrative, they offered that i had offered on television. but it was from that point forward that i began to do a little bit more of the due diligence that i should have been doing all along with

regard to scientific narratives, i was offering sometimes it was in conscious disingenuousness. sometimes it was your cherry big data that worries knock apart. sometimes you would find that the, the papers which you look so impressive were never published in or peer review journal though it looks like they were published in peer review journal, but they weren't. if you bother to look at the response to the paper, you find it gets shot full of holes, but these are things which i never done. and when i began to do that due diligence, which i should have been doing in the past, i found that the story i just told you played itself out over and over and over again. oh, oh. we presented taylor's critique to patrick michaels, who rejects taylor's account. he says his facts were scientifically documented,

and he still thinks james hanson is wrong, and denies misleading. the public kato has not replied to the critique in spite of repeated requests. let's take a look at the economics. the oil industry strategy paper describes her large sums of money had to be given by the oil and energy industry to think tanks and organizations among recipients see fact well around the work was the best thing to do is it had the courage to do nothing might get any money from the oil companies, we might get some and competitive enterprise institute. we don't disclose our diners. however, some of our donors disclose that they fund us. the most notable being exxon mobil, which funded a number of groups for probably a decade. tax records, financial reports, and other documents show who exxonmobil funded after the strategy meeting from 1998

to 2006. 0 sh. the data shows that the world's major oil company in the years after the meeting donated at least $12000000.00 and probably much more to climate critical organizations and think tanks. and they're not the only ones funding. the skeptics an american research project has mapped out how other oil companies and many wealthy conservatives have donated billions to climate skeptics. mm. mm. scientists, and it's like, i've been paid by the oil industry. does this influence their work? one such climate skeptic, steve malloy, who was present at the i p i meeting as described his relationship with the

industry like this. are you in bed with big oil and if so, how good and bad are that? ha, not better than he was just trying to do the right thing on climate change. myron able also rejects that the oil money his thing tank receives has any influence. we develop our policies based on what we think are based on our principles and what we think the evidence and the facts are at. once we done that, we try to find funding for it so. so if someone wants to fund it, i would like to find a want more funding for what we do then as fred singer the man behind the leipzig declaration, the danish broadcasting corporation investigated that list in 1997 minute. your piece honestly was you tears you sleeping as kind of an older european sciences there. 15 of them that say that they are not climate scientists

blue? did i have not seen any evidence for that, but they have told us we've talked to everyone, they said they're not climate scientists. what's your question? i mean, you present them as climate scientists. i'm told i was told there were climate scientists. fred singers, organization s e p, which is behind the list. well, they also received money from exxon mobil. oil industry was a main bank roller and cheerleader for opposition and climate action. their financial support of the climate skeptics in the scientific community ensured that we had the references and the citations that we needed to make the credible argument me. oh,

is the earth getting warmer and there's a lot of discussion about that. is it? oh, i think in it the answer to that is in some voices. yes. and, and others know, patrick, michael's doesn't want to comment on the critique that he is received money from the oil industry, climate, skeptical scientist willie soon didn't respond to the critique that he's been paid by the industry. fred sing as lawyer has been presented with the critique of singer, but hasn't replied steve. malloy dropped an interview at short notice and has declined to comment on the critique. many of them have previously said that their research isn't influenced by money from. for instance, the oil industry. this is all about deflection. it's all about distraction. you know, jim hanson is here to tell you the truth about climate change and they're saying, oh, don't look at jim hanson. look at me over here or pay attention to this report that

i wrote, the claims that we don't really know if there's climate change. so it's all about distraction deflection. i'm to create confusion to crate, smoke and mirrors so that people don't really know what's going on. and then they say, i don't know, you know, i don't know what to think. i'm just going to get my kids to soccer sugar coquettish. oh, the oil industry strategy of sewing doubt? has it been done before? i believe nicotine is not addictive. yes, mr. johnson, our congressman, cigarettes and nicotine clearly do not meet the classic definitions of addiction. there is no attack, lot will take that of no. in the mid 19 hundreds, scientists realised that smoking was dangerous. the tobacco industry made every effort to counteract the new knowledge. and internal documents says,

doubt is our product. since it's the best means of competing with the body of fact, it exists in the minds of the general public. the industry succeeded in delaying regulation of tobacco for decades. that successful campaign was now copied by climate skeptics. when science established the danger of smoking, tobacco companies published ads against it, oil companies did the same after james hanson's presentation. so the idea is to make it seem that we don't really know for sure if this is a palm, because if we don't know, then it would be premature to allow the government to say regulate tobacco. and then the same argument is used car change. and who did this for the tobacco industry? some of the scientists and pundits who, indirectly or directly got money from the tobacco industry reappear in the climate debate. one of the 1st prominent climate skeptics was frederick sites.

many years before he headed research projects for the tobacco industry in the sixty's, the tobacco company very clearly said that there wasn't a direct linkage is teeth to want to believe that it was their own doing. but you think that was also political on the part of the tobacco companies? well, they wanted to keep up sales. was it irresponsible on the part of the tobacco companies that it was irresponsible part of the smokers? me and fred singer, co author to report downplaying the danger, patrick smoking, the pundit, steve malloy, who was present at the api i meeting concurrently worked for both tobacco and oil companies. and the organization which myron able directed politically also worked for the tobacco industry. and jerry taylor,

the arguments that i made at the time it was that when it comes to 2nd hand smoke at the epidemiological evidence has been for, was not particularly persuasive. but the fact is, is the same kind of arguments, the same stylized arguments that were made against to action to regulate tobacco are pretty similar. the arguments that we used against climate change, ah me. but what is the industry know about climate change? when it launched this campaign, the answer can be found on board a ship off the coast of texas in 1979. a man on the ship did something so important to exxon that this presentation film was produced for the company's

management. and a man was ed garvey. and today it looks like this. the videotapes were taken to show to the corporate board about this really exciting research project that the company was doing to study the impacts of the increased c o 2 and apply to contribute to the science of climate change. 40 years ago, almost 10 years before james henson speech an internal scientific department at exxon researched global warming. they funded the project because i thought the science was important that alex on needed to be involved. and they were concerned about climate change, et garvey passed his measurements on to the scientists who analyzed data, scientists and exxon. the modelers, mathematicians and the physicists were modeling climate change modeling the impacts of increased c o. 2 and the atmosphere that i know a very clear that they knew that c o 2 increase was changing the climate on the

planet. on its website, exxon mobiles says it's data on climate change was published in scientific journals . however, x on fails to mention the ad sit later put out calling the science unsettled. i mean, the, as a day they put out, i don't think anyone in their scientist, scientific division can support them as a scientist and say of his needs a truthful facts that we're putting out. but i think that statement they were making were clearly misleading and designed to, to, to mislead people. so while the oil industry publicly spread doubts internal documents show that its own scientists had warned of global warming. and this 1978 confidential report for exxon's management. a senior scientist says it's scientifically accepted that fossil fuels influence climate. he also writes that within 5 to 10 years,

humanity may have to make tough decisions in this field. a few years later, in 1981, the head of exxon's research department warns that the consequences of global warming may be catastrophic for a substantial fraction of the population. that was almost 40 years ago. yet exxon's ceo later says that this was on tv. there is a natural variability that has nothing to do with me. with that a climate the climate has changed every year for millions of years. another oil company also knew early on the climate change was underway. in the eighty's shells, scientists warned of alarming consequences when the global warming becomes detectable. it could be too late to do anything or to stabilize the situation. yet for decades, shell has continued to finance. organizations that spread doubts about climate

science. the global warming is now large enough that we can ascribe if the oil industry, after the hansen testimony, it said, you know, we're not going to argue with james, hans, because we think he's right. we think this is correct. had they done that? it would have cut the legs out of climate denial ism and skepticism. right? well, if you can persuade exxon mobil and so we, then i'm not sure why edge and listen to you, right? but that's not what happened as a human being. and as a father and grandfather and hopefully a great grandfather graph someday it's, i'm really scared for children and their future was not to do with changes on a planetary scale. we can't just turn on go back to the other way. you can. i mean, for my own experience, you can clean a river in clean and se where a clear lake do the reset it so to speak. we don't get reset button on the planet. we don't get a reset button. and that's,

that's really frightening. we don't get a reset. that's. that's really scary. dish. oh. right now in exxon mobil denies. withholding data on climate change. it's website states that the risks of climate change are real and that x on mobiles research has been published in scientific journals. we'd like to ask exxon mobil. wyatt funded

climate skeptics, and in add some statements as cost bout some climate science. but exxon did not answer these questions and declined an interview. we'd also like to ask a p, i about the critique that it spreads doubts about climate science. but api i hasn't replied nor agreed to an interview. when exxonmobil and api i right, that they are working on technologies that may reduce climate change. they've also said this in commercials, plans capture c o 2. what if other kinds of plans captured it to is reduced carbon

emission levels to the lowest in a generation? let's make tomorrow better together. ah. beyond dogs, light beyond petroleum. b, b. but our green ah, the oil companies, actually today we asked the wells 5 largest oil companies, how much they invest in green technology and how much they invest in extracting fossil fuels. chances that it now spends 5 percent of investments on green technologies. the french oil company total says it spends 10 percent b, p, chevron, and exxon mobil did not answer. so we asked influenced map an organization who

analyzes key climate issue figures to review their investments. the figures show that all 3 oil companies are at the low end and chevron is less than one percent. 2 combined figures show that the wells, 5 largest oil companies, fossil fuel investments, are at 95 percent on average blue . i think it's fair to say that the climate change nurse have why that in 19 any age im, hanson tells us the climate change is underway. so if it had not been for the denial campaigns, i think it's pretty clear the political momentum was there with a political will, was there. they have succeeded in preventing climate action

for several decades where it would have occurred earlier, had it not been for their efforts. today, we could be living in a world where $6080.00 maybe even 90 percent of our energy would be from renewable energy. we've had 30 years, that's a lot of time to make technological change. and we'd also be living in a different world politically. and in some ways, maybe this is even the more horrible thing about the effects of what these folks did. they made disinformation mainstream. they made an okay for the president united states to say the climate change was a hoax. my name is my irony bill and i'm leaving the trump transition team on environmental matters is an avid climate change deny or. well, mr. trump, when he ran for president i, i did the environmental protection agency. i was the leader that

ah news. news. news. news. news. news. hi there, good to view. here's your weather report for age i will get taught straightly on new zealand in a 2nd. remnants of tropical depression moving across into china plague in western parts of thailand on friday, bursts of rain, northern and also southern sections, vietnam and you know,

towards central areas of vietnam. more than 7000 people have been displaced from flooding. rain is organizing across central southern areas of china. grey lane grabbed the umbrella on friday, a hive $21.00 degrees. plenty of sun for japan. a typhoon is moving across toward the east. you're not going to notice it. sunshine for tokyo. me. the only thing you'll notice is those winds gusting to about 50 kilometers per hour, southeast asia, plentiful, rain and storm stop bottom end of sumatra across java, borneo western and northern side. and now i'll take you down under a cha strayer. we had some severe storm south australia. it's now march toward the east, over victoria and tasmania. but it's not just the rain hobart, we'll see wind gusts up to 78 kilometers per hour range ripped over queen. so look at sydney 35 degrees but it's southerly buster is going to knock your temperature down all the way from 35 to 20. and now we'll take you to our new zealand. some heavy falls, auckland, around the bay, plenty out toward the south pacific. wallington has a height of 18. ah.

told to al jazeera in the field goes to one of the world's most dangerous migration that are crossing still this dangerous jungle. can make it to north america and meet some of those trying to cross the columbia, panama borden, in search of event online. they say the only thing left or there expired passport on al jazeera, the climate emergency is upon us. but why have government left? it's so late to act. we've allowed climate change to get out of control. people impala investigates why so little has been done. a systemic threat requires systemic change, and asks what by the reaction could meet that. now the cabinet by somebody, none of them have a syrian how to do it. crisis, what crisis own al jazeera,

a showcase of the best documentary films from across the network on al jazeera. ah, this is al jazeera ah. hello i marianna mossey. welcome to the news our life from london coming up in the next 60 minutes. the art of the trillion dollar deal president joe biden thinks he has a plan for so.