from a change look like the counter claim climate change is gale that we've been witness capturing change on our just there is challenges getting people to engage. ready the me. ready it's 600 hours gmc here on our to 0. come all santa maria with your headlines after 5 months of uncertainty, talks to revive the 2015 iran nuclear de la schedule to resume again is set down for the end of november. indirect negotiations between all signatories in vienna stalled last june after the hop on abraham racy won the presidential election. so now the united states is welcoming this announcement by its european allies, reiterating the possibility of reaching

a deal. we believe every means possible. so quickly reach and implement an understanding on a mutual return to compliance with the jcp away by closing the relatively small number of issues that remained outstanding at the end of june. when the 6 round concluded, we believe that if the iranians are serious, we can manage to do that in relatively short order. but we've also been clear, including as this pause has dragged on for some time, that this window of opportunity will not be open forever. but the announcement of the new talks happened just hours after iran reported and naval incident in the gulf of a man. it accused united states for trying to capture a tanker carrying its oil. though the u. s. 9th, declining the pentagon, said its bogus and ridiculous fil lavelle has this update from washington

d. c. drilled due date was coming. we were told that the deputy foreign minister would announce one by the end of the month. but now we actually have that date to put into the calendar and they, the americans are welcoming this. they are cautiously optimistic. i mean, they sort of given a run, a very gentle warning, but they put it in diplomatic language because they talked about how great results receivable. but it also said that the window will not remain open forever. and that is their way of saying, look, we will talk, but you cannot store because that is one of the concerns that tech around might try to store things here. but in terms of what both sides, once the radians want the americans to give them a cast iron guarantee, but they will not walk away again. whereas the americans are saying, well, you know, we are very committed to this, but we reserve the right. so explore our options if we are given evidence, clear evidence that you are in any way violating this agreement. also they want iran to, to fulfill its obligations or to comply with this agreement before sanction lifted

. so now we're in this position where there is a little bit of pastry. we've had the secretary of state, anthony blink, and talk about how there are other options. if the talks fail, read into that what you will. and we have this video that the irradiance have released from this incidents their accounts. and what they say happened just over a week ago. obviously this has been released on the day that they have also given us the state. so i, some analysts wondering if this is perhaps to around saying, look, we are a strong nation, we are not scared of america. we are going to come to this table as a proud, strong nation, and we will not be bullied. we will knock how before you, you know, the news, the united states is out of these ready, spyware firm. and so group to it's cyber activities, blacklist the comments department says it's because of the development of spyware and trafficking in malicious online tools. it limits the company's access to american components and technology. also, a russian software company into the foreign businesses were added to the list. the humans accusing all sides of atrocities in ethiopia and investigation, says the government and the rebels and the to grow conflict of violated human

rights laws. and in some cases may amount to war crimes and crimes against humanity . at the top 26, i'm at the u. k government says dozens of nations have agreed to and they use of coal. signet trees include poland. it now i'm and chalet, but some of the world's major uses are reported to be missing from the deal. looking for more details to be released later on thursday. in the u. s. new jersey democratic governor phil murphy's narrowly won reelection murphy, the states 1st democratic governor to win a 2nd term in 4 decades. but his republican challenger, one more votes than expected victories, is seen as a bright spot in an otherwise concerning night. for the u. s. president's party is the promise by dan john and that of african writer david down at winning the booker prize. his 3rd nomination. and his 9 book finally took the prestigious prize home for the promise. a depiction of a white family living in post apartheid south africa. there you go. you're up to date with the headlines on al jazeera, next,

the campaign against the climate. ah, georgia. you want to talk to me, right? doing a commentary about climate change? well this is simple science look up, the higher c o 2 levels are leading to a greening of the earth. and so i don't, you know, do you think that's a bad thing? so, so more in depth most fear is a good thing. yes, i think so. absolutely. imagine a world where you can't trust science. let me tell you about

a group of men who's tried to convince you, adjust that a group who wants you to doubt climate change? ah, this is the story about how these men were promoted by the world's largest oil companies. ah, the story of a campaign is impacted our world forever. i. this is a scientist from nasa who's come to the american senate with a message to the world which you here in a moment. while you hear it, try to guess what year it's for. dr. hanson, if you started off,

would appreciate it. ok, thank you for the opportunity to present the results of my research on the greenhouse effect. the global warming is now large enough that we can ascribe with a high degree of confidence, a cause and effect relationship to the greenhouse effect. ok, this is from 1988. that was when a phone look like this, the internet look like this. and it was when the world realized that climate change had to be taken seriously. that's what side was called the greenhouse effect, and i have a longer all that good mean devastating changes to all life all her. it's largely a problem of our own making. we're running out of time to find a solution. scientists predict arise in temperatures that will eventually melt, the polar ice caps forest fires in the west. food riots as the sahara desert spreads the land of if it's been prevented code if it cost and to play who defeated

in 1988 the you and established the climate change organization i. p. c. c. where scientists from the whole world agreed with james henson with and well cletus listened. those who think were powerless to do anything about this greenhouse effect, or forgetting about the white house. and then the evidence is that the damage is being done. we can just do nothing. this is more than 30 years ago. the only the world was ready to act on global but something happened at dublin to the seo to counter to the atmosphere will produce

a tremendous greening of planetary in the years following james hanson's speech, critics appear on tv. the theoretical speculations about future warming a have no good scientific basis. we would like critics who question climate change the average weight of this global warming thing? it sounds like a scam. well, i think you're seeing it now. we told you this was, this is one of them. i spent most of my time in newspapers and magazines, and on t v and radio to argue against climate action against panic. the economy would actually improve if we have a doubling of background. greenhouse gas couldn't improve well, because we might have a longer growing season. i'm fairly glue, i'm fast on my feet. cool on tv, and i also do my homework. in the years after james,

hence his speech, jerry taylor was hired by the think tank kato, my name is jerry taylor, i'm the director of natural resource studies here at the cato institute, kato hired people like me, primarily to change public opinion. and that's what i did. there may be some extreme events that occur down the road and we don't know what the chances for that might be. the climate skepticism is entirely dependent upon the promotion of doubt about the underlying science. james, hans and it nasa thinks it's maybe 710121520 percent. other scientists think there's probably more like 0.3 percent. the denial about the underlying sciences. the critical is the critical juncture that event while taylor takes a sip of water meat mock marano, what i'm going to like, yeah, i'm going to be looking at you can be sitting there. so my job essentially is covering the global warming movement and communicating to the public,

the latest findings. you look at the, the satellite data we're, we actually had no significant warming since 1998. actually no warming, we've been cooling and recent years. you had a background as a salesman, can just well, that was, i was adored. i worked at the door to door salesman, which is a actually a great background to build narratives in the meat. now, when you only have 1520 seconds, you gotta work on your sound bites and you've got to work on your you're building a narrative to a customer. i. that was a great training ground for being and media and communication. marana is communications director for committee, for constructive to morrow, or c, fact an organization whose focus is on communicating that climate change. isn't that big a problem? so how does it do that time? i believe that the television and the base as you have to make the other person defend their stupid idiotic comments. bill nye say global warming will cause many

bad weather events. and guess what? bad weather events happen all the time? and then i also go in with rapid fire facts, bottom line, we've done the longest period without a major u. s. category 3, your larger hurricane hitting the us since at least 1900, maybe the civil war, bottom line, new study in the journal nature. peer reviewed, no change, and you, i believe in what bill nye just did was waste everyone's time explaining that c o 2 is rising. i believe you should get some crush. you're a live. wait a minute. are you a scientist? i'm not a scientist, but i do play when on tv. occasionally, people don't take positions because they find themselves reasoned into those positions. they take positions that they want to take for emotional or india, logical reason. and then they mobilize their reasoning power to justify taking the positions they want to think we can get. and this is jerry taylor's recipe for

doing just that. today's a lot of people who don't know what to think about climate change are being told by people like me. there's a relative non event. it's the same sort of wolf crime that the environmental movement is done from time immemorial. you know, 1st we were told there was a population bond that was going to wipe out humanity and that bomb never went off . and we were told we're going to run out of fossil fuels and agricultural commodities, rog and star, that never happened. and this is just the latest iteration of the usual story from environmentalists that if we continue to go down last a fair capital, this roads we're going to blow up the planet and just re mankind. maybe there's something in the pictures you can't see. it's essential to live and breathe it out and bring it in. oh c o 2.

now some politicians want to label carbon dioxide a pollutant. imagine if they succeed, they call it pollution. we call it life. this tv commercial is from the think tanks, competitive enterprise institute, and so is myron evil. it's clear that the earth, his granny and so i don't, you know, do you think that's a bad thing? competitive enterprise institute is a conservative american think tank and myron eagle headsets department on energy climate and environment, iron able beliefs. the climate debate started like this. global warming as a political project was initiated in sweden, in early 19 eighties. they needed a recent, essentially to increase tax revenue. i mean, remember, i think you're aware of this and in denmark that the welfare state at needs

a lot of money and it needs more and more money as it goes on. all the climate, skeptical pundits you've just met, work for interest organizations and think tanks, think tanks are like the arsenals for the war of ideas. there are the places where ideas are then weaponized and public policy terms. and then they are vigorously argued and promoted on capital hill, and on t v radio. and so kato was extremely influential because it was one of the largest of right of center thing tanks of the united states still is i had a lot of visibility because again, invested in communication. so taylor is spreading climate skepticism from one of the most influential think tanks in the usa. jerry taylor tells us that his arguments build on calculations from research

a patrick michaels also employed by kato, any one who goes around and says that carbon dioxide is responsible for most of the warming of the 20th century, hasn't looked at the basic numbers, the climate, skeptical pundits get bare arguments from a group of climate, skeptical scientists, physicists and climate scientists, fred singer, is behind the organization, science and environmental policy project, s e p, p. s e p. p is behind the so called leipzig declaration, where some 100 scientist raised doubts about global warming, some 100 a soap climate scientists actually signed it, appealed, put their names down and warned about taking hasty steps. the guest global warming and global warming was still a and a they phantom problem the

global warming no marker. so on one side we have james hanson and a lot of un scientists. and then we have a number of scientists and pundits who say the exact opposite of these things with ours, that possible be naomi arrest. guess harvard professor decided to investigate just that. so in the early, 2000 at the american media were presenting climate change is a big scientific debate. and that struck me as weird because none of the scientists that i knew thought it was a debate. so i decided to undertake an analysis of the peer reviewed scientific literature. the i p. c. c. had already stated that most of the observe warming was likely to be due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations. so i posed the

question, how many papers published in peer reviewed scientific literature? this agree with that statement? i'm to answer that question. naomi arrest his looks up, research papers for global climate change. from the words appear in 937 scientific papers to arrest his read them all and what i found was none. there was no dissenting public publish i to a period literature on the basic question of whether not man me climate change was happening. and i am a professional historian of science. so i thought, well if i don't know this, then probably a lot of other people don't know it too. and so i wrote a small paper in 2004 called the scientific consensus on climate change. that paper changed my life because immediately the paper was published i started getting hate mail, threading, phone calls, people filing complaints against me to my university. people accusing me of being

a communist. stalinist rescues comes on to a huge criticism and she doesn't understand why until she's at a conference in germany shortly after over beer after the sessions. one day i was just chatting with some colleagues. i mentioned how this very strange thing had happened to me. and one of the people there was eric conway, i mention the name of one of the people who was attacking me. and eric said, well, they only, you know, is the same person who attacked shari roland over the ozone hall. and he told me this amazing story that i knew nothing about at the time that the scientists who had worked on the ozone hole had been the target of attacks in which people had claimed that there was no ozone hold that the science was wrong. that the scientists were fraudulent, that the scientists were communists. all the things that i was being accused of

these great nobel prize winning scientists had also been accused of. and so eric said to me, yeah, when we get back to mark, i'll send you. i'll send you an envelope with a bunch of stuff. so he sent me this package arrives a few days later and i take out these papers that he sent me and it was like you could take out the word o town hall and put in climate change and he could take out the word roland, imprint, riscas and otherwise, it was identical awe on a spring day in 1998, a group of men meet at the oil industry organization, american petroleum institute.

a number of oil companies are represented. companies like exxon. let's it exxon c, e o at the time. explain who they are. we are the largest private company in the world. our company sells a 1000000 barrels a day of products. that's a 1000000000 gallons every 3 dates. back to the american petroleum institute, a p, i where some of the biggest players in the oil industry meeting. one of the participants is myron able and they solicited advice because we had certain kinds of expertise that they didn't have a it was an industry effort with some help from people like me in documents from this meeting, you can see a clear purpose. victory will be achieved when average citizens understand uncertainties in climate science. and when these uncertainties become part of conventional wisdom, according to the documents, big oil, once the public,

to doubt the science behind climate change. and it wasn't scientists who were invited to the meeting. i'm not an energy analyst expert and i'm not a climate expert i. i have a certain amount of experience in translating a policy into into action. and i suppose that was what they are interested in. be at the meeting strategies worked out. that paper was lay to leaked and it shows how the oil industry plans to spread doubts about science. ah, i strategy paper describes a national media relations program, which in 8 different ways will influence the media by recruiting and training scientists. it also explains that they will try to influence journalists. this one

john stossel is even mentioned in the paper title. this program shall out because after i researched the global warming scare, that was my conclusion. we ought to just chill out them. the paper from the meeting shows the mindset of the world's largest oil companies. despite the fact that the un, several world leaders and most scientists clearly point in another direction, the oil industry wants to raise doubts about the science behind climate change. me. a strategy paper explains how schools are to be influenced by an initiative called national direct outreach and education. ah, many universities like harvard regularly receive funding from private companies.

this is a perfectly legal, common practice many prestigious universities. jeffrey superman is a ph. d. student will join him at a film, screening in $21700.00 bill for kennedy center announced a screening of a film time. and essentially, until it tells the audience about how for the foreseeable future, we're going to be relying on fossil fuels, how renewables of way off in the distance, not right now, not really reliable. and frankly promoting hoss truth at best, about inevitability of continued fossil fuel usage grange them, what are what we're seeing or right? well, with your susan's, if you has imprimatur hovens, surely this is a reasonable film until we dug just

a little bit beneath the surface the academic talking heads, the ones that were presented as professors universities, without exception actually will have deep ties to the oil and gas industry from consultancy relationships to running sensors, reliance and fossil fuel funding to literally being on the boards of natural gas companies. and producer of the film was show oil company, the director of the film. he was a v p of oil and gas company that's taken $300000.00 from shallow oil company. so you see a pass and emerging hit episodes like the film screening prompted jeffrey superman to write a ph. d was naomi rescues as his supervisor about the connections between the oil industry and academia. let's see what he found out. have at receives massive funding from several oil companies. stanford's energy department also gets millions

from the oil industry. the university denies that sponsors control its research and on its website the university emphasizes its academic independence. but a few lines later, it's described who really decides what research to fund. the final decision about funding is made by the management committee, which includes one person from each of the responses and the main sponsor that has a say in what research is funded, is exxon mobil berkeley birthplace of the 1968 student uprising as an energy research center in which the oil company be p as invested millions, according to jeffrey super and b. p has a say. and what will be researched. exxonmobil said at funds, universities to promote green technologies. and shell tells us that wants to help

solve the serious climate challenge. why is this a problem? i mean, if they use their money for doing some research for good, what was the problem when the very people, the very institutions, the supposed to be solving the climate crisis, a fundamentally reliant on the industry that has the most to lose from their work. that's a pretty big conflict of interest. jeffrey super thinks that the many millions are intended to influence students, teachers, and scientists. this strategy come straight out of the playbook. the a p i. strategy paper also states informing teachers and students about uncertainties and climate change will erect a barrier against efforts to impose kyoto like measures a measure put in place to limit the emissions of c o 2. and that's why in the medical research community, there are a stablished practices. there are established rules by which one must disclose these kinds of conflicts of interest. many universities used to receive millions

from the tobacco industry, but in 2131 universities including harvard, decided not to let tobacco companies sponsor health research. we have nothing like that in energy and climate. ah frank assessments is likely to change biking behavior at all. it's not going to change their behavior. they are going to continue to do what they do. and in depth analysis of the days global headlines inside story on al jazeera, the climate american sea 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 further inaction could meet that. now, the cabinet, by 20 picnic, none of them have a theory in how to do it. crisis, what crisis own al jazeera? ah, with

with the campaign against the climate returns in a moment, but 1st we'll check the headlines and off to 5 months of uncertainty talks to revive the 2015 iran nuclear deal. a scheduled to resume at the end of november indirect negotiations between old signet trees and vienna stolz. last june. after hired lana, abram racy won the presidential election. the united states has welcome the announcement by its european allies, reiterating the possibility of reaching a deal. we believe it remains possible to quickly reach and implement an

understanding on a mutual return to compliance with the j c. p. away i'm by.