ah, ah ah, the campaign against the climate returns in a moment, but 1st we'll check the headlines and after 5 months of uncertainty talks to revive the 2015 iran nuclear deal. a scheduled to resume at the end of november, indirect negotiations between all signatories and vienna stoled. last june. after hyde lana, abram racy won the presidential election. the united states has welcome the announcement fights european allies reiterating the possibility of reaching a deal. we believe it remains possible to quickly reach and implement and understanding on a mutual return to compliance with the j. c. p. 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, ah, we can manage to do that ah, 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. pulling out sort of more talks happened, dallas after re ron reported the naval incident in the gulf of oman. it accused the use of trying to capture a tanka carrying its oil. the u. s. denies the claim though, the pentagon says it's all bogus and ridiculous. in other news, the u. n. is accusing all sides of atrocities in ethiopia. and investigation says the government and rebels and the ticker conflict to violated human rights laws. and in some cases they amount to war crimes and crimes against humanity. at the top 26 summit,

the u. k. government has said dozens of nations of agreed to end the use of coal. a signature is at the summit in glasgow include poland, vietnam, and chile. but some of the world's major uses are reported to be missing from the deal more details expected. later on thursday. the new jersey governor phil murphy's narly 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, the victory has been seen as a bright spot in an otherwise concerning night. for the u. s president's party and the south african writer daemon gallagher has won the booker prize. he was awarded the prestigious at price for his novel, the promise, which is a depiction of a white family living in post a part $8.00 south africa. emily angland along in half an hour to take you through the next few hours of news here on out 0. that's my love for to day. thanks for your company. ah, life is never scripted. never foretold. it's never

known. no matter what happiness never stole open. you read between the lines. listen, always, listen, never stop asking, never stop question a wanting to know, discover the unknown. here the human story. be impartial. be courageous. finding the untold story. celebrate excellence. keep alive the pioneering spirit. never stop. we haven't for 25 years, we've never stopped on our journey. never stops when our commitment to you al jazeera, 25 years, a unique path 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? 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 what went out. 2 ah, 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 call 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, 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've left the studio and went in the green room. and joe said, did you even read james, kansas testable here? do you just, you know, is there you,

are these just talking point somebody wrote for you. what you're talking about here was 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 re 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 handsome 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

test morning 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 a look at the 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 and 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, 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 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 donors. 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 o an 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, as 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 you. peace, governors, clueless you tears, you, sweetie, catherine. oh no. 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. 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 the credible argument. one 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 there say, oh, don't look at him,

hanson. look at me over here. pay attention to this report that i wrote, that 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 create 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 or are coquettish. oh, the oil industry strategy of sewing doubt. has it been done before? i believe nicotine is not addictive. yes, mr. john, our congressman, cigarettes and nicotine clearly do not meet the classic definitions of addiction. there is no attack, lot will take it out of 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, 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 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 frederic sites

many years before he headed research projects for the tobacco industry. in the sixty's the, the tobacco company 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, they wanted to keep up sales. 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 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 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 to 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 increase 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 i needed to be involved and they will consent to my climate change it. garvey passed his measurements onto the scientist to analyze data. but scientists and exxon, the modelers, mathematicians and the physicists were modeling climate change modeling the impacts of increased c o. 2 in the atmosphere. and 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 says 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 scientists and say of his needs a truthful facts that we're putting out. but i think that the statements they were making were clearly misleading, 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 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, 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 i just listened 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 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 turn on 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 could a lake do not reset it so to speak. we don't get a reset button on the planet. don't get a reset button. and that's,

that's really frightening. down 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 it on mobile. wyatt funded

climate skeptics and, and add some statements as cost doubt 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. what if other kinds of plans captured it to if reduced carbon emission levels

to the lowest in a generation? let's make tomorrow better together. ah, b on dog light beyond petroleum b, b. but how green are the oil companies actually today? we asked the world's 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 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 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 a 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 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 ah, how low they will have a look at the weather in africa in just a moment, but 1st to the middle east. and that unsettled weather has pushed away from the mediterranean, taking a lot of the rain to turkey, to northern parts of iraq and on to iran. those coastal showers around the caspian sea are set to intensify as we go into friday in a row. that rain will trickle down to most central areas of iran. we've also got some cold wind blowing down, and that's going to bring the temperature down into iran. if we take a look at the 3 day, we've got quite a dramatic drop. by the time we get into saturday and the rain comes into play,

no further south of this, it is looking lot finer, locked. why are lots of sunshine and heat across the gulf states, the temperature in kuwait katara and the u. a. sitting in the early thirty's for the felt that is looking rather dry as it is for more than parts of africa. it's upper on coastal areas of morocco, algeria, and to news. yeah. that we are seeing the showers intensify and the temperature is set to dip down in algiers for example. now across central africa, it's not looking as wet as it has been recently, but we are seeing the showers intensify across the democratic republic of congo. by the time we get into friday, and lot of a lot of that rain will push down south that to weather update. ah, ah, 25 years ago, a least. ah, or 2 part documents with the story of the

channels pulled out became recognize the global brand. ah, the story are unique. oh, more fighting in ethiopia as u. s. embassy officials leave addis ababa because of concerns the violence could reach the capitol. ah, hello, i'm emily anguish. this is al jazeera alive from dough. how also coming up talks to revive the 2015 iran that nuclear deal are to resume at the end of november. after months of uncertainty, flags in nepal have killed hundreds of people and destroyed homes and businesses. we look into.