really brain, something they didn't even see the 2 women are still fighting for justice against some of the most powerful forces in the world. the people versus agent orange. on al jazeera, the u. s. is always of interest to people. all right, the world people pay attention to what goes on here. now does either very good. they're bringing the news to the world from here. ah, and again, peter darby here and there are the top stories from al jazeera. well, he does have agreed to end deforestation. by 2030 handing the you and climate summit and glasgow is 1st major deal. it is part of a greater push to limit the rising global temperatures to $1.00 degrees celsius in the coming decades. if we want to keep the paris goal of 1.5 degrees in sight and support communities in the front line of climate change,

we must protect and restore the world's forests them. i believe we can do it as we saw in this declaration today. let's also galvanized a radical shift in public and private finance. let's channel funds toward securing the rights of indigenous peoples and local communities and shipped trillions towards supporting sustainable jobs. to large explosions have gone off near a military hospital and cobble before rounds of gunfire. at least 19 people are confirmed dead as be no claim responsibility for the attack. so far. ethiopian state media is reporting that all residents of addis ababa have been asked to register their weapons in the next 2 days. this comes with rebel forces from me to grey region captured several key towns near the capital, addis ababa. these 10 people have been killed in an attack in bettina faso. it happened in the countries north close to the border with nisha official say for

other people may have been kidnapped. troops have been deployed to the area at the search now underway. the white house is welcomed, a private mission to me and mob by a former us ambassador to the un. washington isn't sponsoring bill richardson's trip, but says it hopes his efforts will help get aid supplies in to me in law. the u. n . says about 3000000 people are in need of assistance that he can say of jamal, how shogi will testify before the people's tribunal on the murder of journalists in the hey, cathy changes says she wants to make sure the world does not forget a shoji. he was killed inside the saudi counsellor in a stumble in 2018. he tribunal isn't legally binding. australia's prime minister has pushed back at a manual macro after the french president accused him lying about a severed submarine deal, australia scrap the multi $1000000000.00 agreement in september. scott morrison described microns accusations as an insult. those are your headlines back now as the campaign against the climate i'll have been use are in 30 minutes. we'll see

that me. this is the story about a group of men who wants you to doubt climate change. the story of a campaign, but is impacted our world forever. ah, ah, back to naomi arrest. guess. we left her with a pile of papers and this pile became the beginning of a big investigation where she also gets hold of the strategy paper. it with my alice through the looking glass moment where my whole life kind of changed 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 are so effective. in general, they are much better at communicating then real scientists are because real

sciences 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 describe me. they call me all kinds of names. me one day, something happens. i will radically change jerry taylor's life. i was in 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 for the united states about global warming. we've only seen about a quarter, a warming that james hanson says we should've seen by now. and if this continues to play out, there's no reason to think, wow, 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 away we had a scenario be in a scenario c. so if you look at the scenario be you'll find that the emissions we've seen since his 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. busy 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. this is how the conversation we had on the 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 that he had 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 publishing 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 get 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 bath, 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 to be given by the oil and energy industry to think tanks and organizations among recipients. see fact marano work was the best thing to do is it had the courage to do nothing but 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 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? 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, 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 as fred singer, the man behind the leipzig declaration, the danish broadcasting corporation investigated that list in 1997 among europeans going as clueless you, tears you,

sleepy catholic or older european sciences. there. 15 of him that say that they are not climate scientists, blue tubes. 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. ah, what's your question? i mean, you present them as climate scientists. i was told i was told that with climate scientists, french singers 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. which

is the earth getting warmer and there's a lot of discussion about that. is it? ah, i think it is 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 telling you the truth about climate change and they're saying, oh, don't look at him, hanson. look at me over here, 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. eric cocora. 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 or talk lot, we'll take that of know 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 in 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. the very clearly said that there wasn't a direct linkage if people want to 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, then was it irresponsible on the part of the tobacco company? it was irresponsible, a 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 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, who 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 the man was it 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 the increase c o 2 and on the planet and which contributes 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 they 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 increase c o. 2 in 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, exxonmobil says it's data on climate change was published in scientific journals. however, exxon fails to mention the ad sit, lay to put out, calling the science unsettled. i mean the, as they have, they put out, i don't think anyone in their scientists, scientific division can support them as a scientist and say of this, these are truthful facts that we're putting out. i think that the same as they were making were are clearly misleading designs of 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 in this 1978 confidential report for exxon's management. a senior scientist says it's

scientifically accepted, but 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 earth's population. that was almost 40 years ago, were yet exxon's, c, e o. not later says that this was on tv. there is a natural variability that has nothing to do with man. what would 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. a global warming is now large enough that we can ascribe if the oil industry after the hansen testimony and said, you know, we're not going to argue with james and because we think he's right, we think this is, had they done that? it would have cut the legs out of climate, denial, lism, and skepticism. right. well if you carry or persuade exxon mobil and so we, then i'm not sure why as you listen to you, right? but that's not what happen as a human being. and as a father and grandfather and hopefully great bread follows graphs some day it's, i'm really scared for our children and their future. we start to do with changes on a planetary scale. we can't just to long go back to the other way. okay, you can, i mean for my own experience, you can clean a river,

been clean enough to where he quit a lake, you know, reset it so to speak. we don't get a reset button on the planet. we don't get a reset button. and that's, that's really frightening. now we don't get a reset, but it's really scary. dash a like in 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 x on mobile, wyatt funded climate skeptics. and in add some statements has cast out 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 down about climate science. but a p, i hasn't replied nor agreed to an interview. 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 seo, tim would have other kinds of plans captured it to if the deuced carbon emission levels to the lowest in a generation. let's make tomorrow better together. ah, be on dog light beyond petroleum bp. but how green ah, the oil companies actually to day 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 to tile 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. wow. oh, i think it's fair to say that the climate change deniers have why? that in 1988 jim 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 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 may just information mainstream. they made it ok for the president united states to say the climate change was a hoax. my name is marnie bell and i'm leaving the trump transition team on environmental matters is an added climate change. deny your well, mr. trump, when he ran for president i, i did the environmental protection agency. i was leader that

me ah, i ah into a world of comfort im services without any business class which way your privacy is paramount and your experience can

sit back, relax in your own private space and let us take care of everything. catera weighs the airlines you can rely on ah look forward to brighter skies the winter sponsored my cattle. it weighs hollow. we've got the chamber to eating now for northern part silva, argentine a little more cloud just coming through here just around the river place so that it is not there to face. temperature is 24 celsius the high here on the tuesday afternoon and want to sarah still warm in santiago, around 30 degrees. although less warm as we go on into wednesday was still pleasant enough to hang on to that kind of temperature over the next couple of days as i wet weather moving for uruguay to the far south of brazil, heavier rain, they're just eas into the north savoglio heading up towards salvador, i'm punching its way across. good parts of the amazon basin. are you right up

towards the columbia? towards a van is where the northern parts of south america will cease in heavy progress of rain. think habeas is going to be around panama, or actually some pretty nasty showers, just lurking here. we go through the next couple of days, quite a rash, a shower there, into a nicaragua, into honduras, easing up towards belize, line of cloud, and rain here stretching right? the way across a good part of keyboards, lingering there is it go on through wednesday. could see some localized flooding. they noticed just around police at vast state rest of the islands, sunshine and showers. not too bad at all. got some weather weather into the deep south of the u. s. over the next couple days, one or 2 showers to for the eastern seaboard. ah, the weather sponsored by catera always. the corona virus has been indiscriminate in selecting its victims. it's devastating effects of plague, every corner of the globe, transcending class creed and color, put in britain,

a disproportionately high percentage of the fallen have been black or brown skins. the big picture traces the economic disparities and institutional racism that is seen united kingdom fail, it citizens britain's true colors, part one on al jazeera. ah, this is al jazeera ah lauren, welcome on pete. adobe. you're watching the news out life from go ha, coming up in the next 60 minutes. the 1st deal is done at the cop 26 climate talks is more than 100 leaders pledge to en deforestation by 2030.