in such as justice ah, an epic saga of truth seeking and a refusal to be gagged. rating of silence, a witness documentary on out to sierra. ah, american, into the top stories on al jazeera, the u. s. and french presidents have held their 1st in person meeting since that countries my serious diplomatic dispute in years. joe biden acknowledged the handling of a security agreement with australia and the u. k. was clumsy. we have your order for no more loyal, no decent ally in france. it's been with us in the beginning reason, in part where we came before we did was quantity was done with

a lot of grace. i was under the impression, certain things that happened that had been done, but i made a clear ranch re streaming. now what's important is precisely to be sure that such a situation will not be possible for all future congo coordinations hunger cooperation. but for me, what's important is that we built during the past week, some very concrete actions north or to strengthens a partnership in the hell is clarification between what european defense means and how this is completely compatible with nato. what's your been sovereignty means and how it is important for goals, security, the un humanitarian chief is wanting that half of the finest thorns population is facing salvation. so here head of this weekend's g. 20 summit,

martin griffith's called on the world's most powerful countries to immediately release age of histone and thousands of people are again walking through mexico, hoping to cross into united states. unlike previous migrant caravans. mexican authorities are not stopping them instead hoping the war becomes too much and they give up. saddam's armed as forces chief at general abdel thought albert han has relieved several diplomats including ambassadors to turkey, the u. a and south africa of their roles. it comes as tensions escalate of monday's village and co act of his say, 11 people have been killed and britons, queen elizabeth, has been advised by doctors to rest for at least the next 2 weeks. it follows an overnight hospital stay last week, shall avoid any official visits and undertake any light duties during this time. those the headlines now it's back to the campaign against the climate blue. oh,

this is the story about a group of men who wants you to doubt climate change. the story of a campaign that has impacted our world forever. ah, back to naomi arrest. guess. we left her with a pile of papers and 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 are much better at communicating then real scientists are because real scientists are. well, i don't want to insult my car, 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 know 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 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 have 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 call me all kinds of names. one day, something happens that will radically changed. jerry taylor's life i was in the debate in the early 2, thousands with joe rome 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 for the united states senate about global warming. we've only seen about a quarter, a warming that james hanson as we should've seen by now. and if this continues to play out, there's no reason to think that while climate change, it will be a relative the. 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 the 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 reread 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. i think he got the better of me in the green room right. and i read the

testimony to look like it actually reflect a joy to 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 and 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 pick data that worries knock apart. sometimes you would find that the, the papers which you look so impressive were never published in their 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. 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 workers. the best thing to do is, is have the courage to do nothing. well, get any money from the oil companies. we might get some and competitive enterprise institute. we don't disclose our dinars. 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 fin tanks. and they're not the only ones funding the skeptics. oh, and american research projects has mapped out how other oil companies and many wealthy conservatives have donated billions to climate skeptics. mm. mm. scientists, and it's like, have been paid by the oil industry. does this influence their work? one such climate skeptic, steve malloy, who was present 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? the 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 lot more funding for what we do then is fred singer, the man behind the leipzig declaration, the danish broadcasting corporation investigated that list in 1997 among you piece going as clueless you. tears you sleeping as kind of an older european sciences there 15 of him that say that they are not climate scientists,

blue thieves. 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 that with climate scientists tried to sing as organization s e p p which is behind the list. well, they also received money from exxon mobil. they, the oil industry was a main bank roller and cheerleader for opposition to 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 a credible argument with

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 places. yes. and, and others know, patrick, michael's doesn't want to comment on the critique that he has 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, tell you the truth about climate change and they're saying, oh, don't look at him,

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 kind of coquettish. oh, the oil industry strategy of sewing doubt hasn't 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, we'll take that as a no. in the mid 19 hundreds, scientists realized 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 that 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 on climate 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. one of the believe that it was their own doing. but do you think that was also political on the part of the tobacco companies? well, i wanted to keep up sales. was it irresponsible on the part of the tobacco company? 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 a p 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, that the epidemiological evidence has been form 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 now, but what did the industry know about climate change? when it launched this campaign, when 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. the 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 effects of increased c o 2 and on the planet. and it should contribute to the science of climate change. 40 years ago, almost 10 years before james henson's speech, an internal scientific department at exxon researched global warming. they funded the project because the thought the science was important reflects on needed to be involved. and um, they were concerned about climate change, et garvey passed his measurements on to the scientists who analyzed data. the scientists that exxon, the modelers, mathematicians and the physicists were modeling climate change modeling the impacts of increased c o. 2 in the i was really, i know a very clear that they knew that c o 2 increase was changing the climate on the

planet. on its website, exxonmobil says it's data on climate change was published in scientific journals. however, exxon fails to mention the ad system to put out calling the science unsettled. i mean the, as they have, they put out, i don't think anyone in their scientist, scientific division can support them as a scientist and see if it needs a truthful facts that we're putting out. but i think that statement they were making were, are 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 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 that 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 as 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's 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. ok, 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, which we don't get a reset, but that's, that's really scary. dish. oh. right now with exxon mobil denies withholding data on climate change. it's website states that the risks of climate change are real and that exxon mobil through such has been published in scientific journals. we'd like to ask exxon mobil. wyatt funded

climate skeptics and an add. some statements has cost bouts on 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. it spreads doubts about climate science. but a p, i hasn't replied nor agreed to an interview. when exxonmobil and api, i writes 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 if reduced carbon

emission levels to the lowest 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 influence 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 it 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 nice have why that in 19 any age em, 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 the political well 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 this information mainstream. they made it 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 ah yes, with people all right, the world people pay attention to what was on here and i'll just he was very good at bringing the news to the world from here. ah. now nor'easter traditionally brings a lot of snow with us later in the season at the moment you've had what could

dakota dories to bring a huge amount of rain damaging winds to a big system. now in this eastern side of the u. s. the action being off the coast, so if you look at it more closely for saturday, the rain is now moving slow. you know, it was a better looking picture. the warnings will be dropped, not the end of it, though you can follow them up to re massachusetts and probably eventually towards m . nova scotia. this is during sunday with better weather to come, but rather a cold breeze, i suspect on its way through for the next couple of days on the inside the u. s. where it's been so wet recently, there is more rain coming in slowly from the pacific, but the time being is just a scattering of shouts, but a snout in the mountains. there's the cold breeze coming down out of the canadian interior. hasn't it affected toronto but there is no in it? i think it'll be a cold blast. for this as an active weather is a soup specific line to the bahamas for cuba, and down towards honduras. but that line is marching slowly eastward was generally dry to the west drawn yucatan drive through most of next guys you can safe,

but sunday takes the potential for shaft towards haiti, eastern side of cuba, jamaica, and abbot fed assess, intern nicaragua. ah, yes, oldest muslim. undertakers working here is just 7 days a week job that's grown with the community. my father purchased a black emberly's fan and started to do the funerals in london and the family. we saw a stop being part of it. gotcha. and began, is this partners the stories we don't often hear told by the people who did them? jeff is such a level of nice, east and undertakers. this is europe. now to sierra world is experiencing unprecedented extreme weather. reco temperature. the being said, glass isn't i feel for deteriorating. busy for the never the clock running down world lead is amazing. gloss. go in the u. k. in a bit of fresh out

a deal to flash a mission to port to late follow the you and climate summit on al jazeera. ah, so we did was comedy was done with a lot of grace. the u. s. and french presidents appeared to turn over a new page after the fallout from a security pact between washington d. u. k. and australia. ah, i mean we're on call this out there a life and also coming up.