know much loudly malia says this season is bad, the gods is terrible to which i, shortages are with the city council will continue limiting supplies to conserve water. no matter, probably more. you must wait a few more days before she receives the week. us the carriage austin in de la, the top stories on i'll just here not to nation security council has met to discuss the deteriorating humanitarian situation in gauze. that becomes as a agencies one that simon is imminent into the northern part of the strip you an agency for palestinian refugees says a number of 8 trucks entering garza has forwarded to us lowest level in 11 months. gabrielle is on though, has moved from united nations in new york, 113000 palestinians in guys of face catastrophic levels of hunger.

just one step away from famine. and that number could triple in the coming months, un official readings, the security council, and told them it is real, continues to ignore calls for more. a to come in is a brief view, is rarely authorities of looking humanitarian assistance from entering north and gaza. we are fighting continues and around 75000 people remain with jingling water and food supplies. the re augments, or palestine. sam baset or the un says israel's intentions are clear, is an, has decided and implemented famine as a method of war for the purposes of ethnic cleansing. and to advance its colonial object, slovenia and deanna are 2 of the security council members, the called for this meeting. stories of children and gaza, unable to cry,

due to hunger, should force us to act. now, their silence must be deafening for their families. the doctors, their communities, the only silence louder is the one of these consul, not acting to prevent the worst from happening. the apocalyptic humanitarian situation in the gaza strip is entirely attributable to the persistent violation of international law, including international humanitarian law. the un says october solve the lowest amount of a getting into gaza. then at any other point this year, gabriel's on to how does it at united nations in new york. israel some boxes that to the you and says the report warning of imminent funding and gaza is false either through mazda of glass, in music, information by us, and dishonest reporting. so if you take even a moment to examine its claims,

rationally, that might slide zones to the floor, exposing the emptiness and liable. it didn't be nice. it is an exercise in slender . these guys that you many tell you on the concerned diabetes latest people, it goes to one of the most on the founded slanderous accusations against the state of evil. throughout this conflict, i mean wanted garza and as try cuz hit palestinians living and a makes is 10 to the central part of the strip and try and miss all strike lights on. choose day trigger. the huge fire at the camping down, but not least 2 people have been killed with several children among the injured is where the forces have hit the southern side, the evidence capital for a 2nd time in the past hour. the assignable could be seen in the here in very tough to 1 in the morning local time. that's part of the strike for less than

an hour. earlier this rose defense minister, so kat says ruled out to cease far. so israel as well goes on that the us cortez awarded $42000000.00 to $3.00 of rocky men torch in abu ghraib prison. 2 decades ago, the jury found an american civilian defense contract was legally responsible for the miss treatment of detainees. the prison was the us army detention center for capture. the rock is from 2003 to 2006. they had of the case under control which has resigned of the accusations of failing to investigate. historic allegations of child abuse, pressure had been mounting of the archbishop of canterbury, just invited me to quit since last week. on is continues hair on that i'll just say are off to the campaign against the climate state was the

is your chance or you want to talk to me right now we're doing a commentary about climate change as 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 know. do you think that's a bad thing? so so multi o 2 in depth most. here's a good thing. but 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 that just that a group,

once you did that kind of change the, this is the story about how these men were promoted by the world's largest oil companies. the, the story of a campaign is impacted our wells fargo. the, this is a scientist for nasa. he's come to the american center with a message to the world which you here in a moment. why do you hear it? try to guess what year it's frank. dr. hanson, if you'd started, so i would appreciate it. the 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. okay, this is from 1988. that was when a phone book like this, the internet looked like this. and it was when the well realized the climate change had to be taken seriously. this website is called the greenhouse effect. and then the longer all that good main devastating changes to all life on, or it's largely a problem of our own making. we're running out of time to find a solution. scientists predict our rise in temperatures that will eventually melt. the polar ice caps forest fires in the west to dry us as the sahara desert sprints needed land. if it's being prepared as quoted for tv, it cost entity, which vehicle in 1988, the un established the climate change organization. i pcc with scientists from the

whole world agreed with james henson and well cletus list. it seems like we're powerless to do anything about this greenhouse effect or forgetting about the white house. in fact, the evidence is that the damage is being done. we comp just do nothing. this is more than 30 years ago. the world was ready to act on clothing, but something happened at dublin to the c o. 2 content to the atmosphere will produce a tremendous greening of planet or in the is following james hands and speech critics appear on tv. the theoretical speculations about future warming have no

good scientific basis. we would like critics who question climate change wait a minute, 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. how can i improve? well, because we might have a longer growing season. i'm fairly live, i'm fast on my feet of cool on tv, and i also do my homework in the years after james henson's speech, jerry taylor was hired by the think tank kate. so my name is jerry taylor,

i'm the director of natural resource studies here at the cato institute. kate, are 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 doubts about the underlying science. james, hands on it now. so thinks it's maybe 710121520 percent. other scientists, i think there's probably more like 0 point for the present. the denial about the underlying sciences. the critical is the critical junction that event a while taylor takes a sip of water meat mock murano. like, yeah, i'm going to be looking at, you just do this. i'd be like, my job essentially is covering the global warming movement and communicating with the public. the latest findings, do you look at the, the satellite data? we,

we actually have had no significant warming since 1998 actually no warming. we've been cooling and recent years. you had a background as a salesman. can you do that? how is that? well, that was early on, i was a door to, i worked at the door to door salesman, which is a actually a great background to build narratives and the need. now, when you only have 1520 seconds, you got to work on your sound bites and you've got to work on your, you know, you're building a narrative to a customer. i. that was a great training ground for being and media and communications. murano is communications director for committee for constructive tomorrow, for c fact an organization whose focuses on communicating that climate change. isn't that big a problem? so how does it do that? i believe the television in the base strategy, you have to make the other person defend their stupid idiotic comments. bill. nice . a global warming will cause up many bad weather events. and guess what bad weather events happen all the time?

and that also go in with rapid fire facts, bottom line, we've done the longest period without a major us category 3 or 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 that's what building i just did was waste everyone's time explaining that c o 2 is rising. i believe it's in getting some crush. you're a pallet from the wait a minute. are you a scientist to a lot of scientists, but i do play one on tv. occasionally. the people don't take positions because they find themselves a reason into those positions. they take positions that they want to take for emotional or india, logical reasons, and then they mobilize their reasoning power to justify taking the positions they want to take. and this is jerry taylor's recipe for doing just that. today's a lot of people who don't know what the think about climate change are being told

by people like me. that is a relative non event is the same sort of uh, wolf, crying that the environmental movement is done from time to memorial. you know, 1st we were told there was a population bond that was going to wipe out humanity and that bomb never went off . then we were told we were going to run out of fossil fuels and, and the agricultural commodities were august starved that never happened. and this is just the latest iteration of the usual story from environmental us that if we continue to go down laws, a fair capital is roads, we're going to blow up the planet and destroy main memory. there's something in his pictures. you can't see it's essential to light. let me bring that out. plants breathe it in 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 tank competitive enterprise institute and so is myron able it's clear that the earth is granting and so i don't, you know, do you think that's a bad thing? a competitive enterprise institute is a conservative americans think tanks and my own people hits it's department of energy, climate and environment. i are unable believes the climate debate started like this . global warming as a political project was initiated in sweden, in the early 19 eighties. they needed reason, essentially to increase tax revenue. i mean, remember, i think you're aware of this and in denmark that the welfare state that needs a lot of money and it needs more and more money as it goes on. the

bullet climate, skeptical pundits you've just met with the interest organizations and the 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 and radio. and so kato was extremely influential because it was one of the largest right of center. think tanks of the united states still is had a lot of business building because again, invested in communications. 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 of patrick michaels also employed by k to anyone 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 better arguments from a group of climate. skeptical scientists physicist and climate scientist pricing is behind the organization, science and environmental policy project s e p p s e p. p is behind the so called leipzig declaration. for some 100 scientist raised doubts about global warming. some 100 as of climate scientists actually signed an appeal, put their names down, and the warrant about taking hasty steps that goes to global warming and global warming. there's still an, a, a defensive problem the global warming art. so on one side we have james henderson and

a lot of you and scientists. and then we have a number of scientists and pundits who say the exact opposite facing how is that possible? they owe me a risk, is how that professor decided to investigate just that. so in the early, 2000 and 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 undertaken 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 pose the question, how many papers published in peer reviewed scientific literature, disagree with that statement?

to answer that question, naomi, a risk is, looks up, research papers for global climate change. the words appear in 937 scientific basis. so risk is read some. oh. and what i found was none. there was no dissenting public, publish sides of a peer review literature on the basic question of whether or not madame a climate change was happening. and i'm 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, threatening phone calls, people filing complaints against me to my university, people choosing me of being a communist stalin, us rescues comes on the 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 and mentioned how this very strange thing had happened to me. and one of the people there was eric conway. i mentioned the name of one of the people who was attacking me, and eric said, when they only, you know, it was the same person who attack shari rhodes over the ozone hall and he told me this amazing story that i knew nothing about at the time that the scientist who had worked on the was on hold had been the target of attacks in which people had claim that there was no ozone hold at the science was wrong. that the scientists were fraudulent, that the scientists were communist. 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 america, 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 i take out these papers that he sent me and it was like you could take out the word. oh it's on the whole. i'm putting climate change and you can take out the word role and, and put in a rest because otherwise it was identical. the on a spring day in 1998, a group of men meet at the oil industry organization, american petroleum institute. a number of oil companies have represented companies like exxon. that's it, ex on c 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 product. that's a 1000000000 gallons every 3 dates. back to the american petroleum institute, dpi, with some of the biggest players in the oil industry. i'm meeting one of the participants is myron people, they solicited advice, we guess we had certain kinds of expertise that, that they didn't have. 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 on seventy's 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're interested in them at the meeting. a strategy is what kept that paper was late to late, and it shows how the oil industry plans to spread doubts about science. i'm strategy paper describes the national media relations program, which in different ways will influenced 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 show out because

after i researched the global warming scare, that was my conclusion. we ought to just show out the paper from amazing shows the mindset of the world's largest oil companies. despite the fact that the un, several world leaders and most scientists clearly pointed in another direction, the oil industry wants to raise doubts about the science behind climate change. for the strategy paper explains how schools ought to be influenced by an initiative called national direct outreach and education. many universities like have it regularly receive funding from private companies. this is a perfectly legal, common practice many prestigious universities. jeffrey supervisor is

a ph. d student. we'll join him at a film, screening in 2017 how that spell. so kennedy sensor announced screening of a film essentially, it tells 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 and not right now, not really reliable. and frankly promoting hoss truths at best about the end of its ability of continued fossil fuel usage with your students, if you has information of how the truly this is a reasonable film until we dug just a little bit pennies the surface the academics talking heads,

the ones that were presented to this profession as universities, without exception actually will have deep ties to the oil and gas industry from consultancy relationships to running census reliance on fossil fuel funding to vitro, anything on the boards of natural gas companies. and producer of the film was shown loyal company, the director of the film. he was a vp of an oil gas company and it's taking $300000.00 from show royal company. and so you'll see a pass and emerging hit the episodes like the film screening prompt to jeffrey superman, to ride to ph. d is naomi rescues supervisor about the connections between the oil industry and academia. let's see what he found out of it receives massive funding from several oil companies. stanford's energy department also gets millions from the or the industry. the university denies that sponsors controlled its research

and on its website, the university emphasizes its academic independence. but a few lines later, it's describe who really decides what research to fund. final decision about funding is made by the management committee, which includes one person from each of the sponsors. and the main sponsor, as i say in what research is funded, is exxon mobil buckley best place 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 se, and what will be researched or exxon mobil says it 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 go to what's possible when the

very people, the very institutions they're supposed to be solving the climate crisis are fundamentally reliant on the industry that has the most to lose from the work. that's a pretty big conflict of interest, jeffrey super and thinks that the many millions are intended to influence students, teachers, and scientists. the strategy come straight out of the paper, the api 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, a stablish 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. us. we have nothing

like that in energy and climate. the reporting in the field means i also get to witness not just news as breaking, but also history as it's unfolding. dropping from one day i might be covering politics covering focus. what's most important to me is understanding what they are going through so that i can convey the headlines in the most human way possible. just here to we believe everyone has a story worth hearing. showing the doc chapter in the cause of the war. they just

took our id cards, mailed them, they asked him about his name. we killed the prison, the scene of unspeakable horrors. so i saw a pile of bodies. we had a lot of questions about how these men come to be dead. it goes of a deep breath, i must have shut. those are just either from the impact of the us selections, escalating conflict in the middle east. and the urgency of climate action upfront sets the stage for serious debate on out jersey or the

news . the other one carried johnston into one of the top stores on i was just here, not a nation. the security council has met to discuss the deteriorating humanitarian situation in gaza. it comes as a agencies one that simon is immune into the northern parts of the strip. you an agency for palestinian refugees says a number of a trucks entering gauze that has forwarded to us lowest level in 11 months with just the 2 trucks a day on average in october. not a nation says at least 600 trucks a day on needed to meet basic needs. meanwhile,

an s tri cuz hits of palestinians living in a make shift tenant in central garza, the drawing this house trying because they to on tuesday, triggered a huge fight at the camp. and they all belong, at least 2 people have been killed as several children among the image. it is where the forces have hit the southern sub of lebanon's capital it for a 2nd time in the past hour. but assignable to be seen in the here in they rotate folders a strike less than an hour and 20 minutes to is a caps has rules down to cease father to is rose. all goes on that the us court has awarded $42000000.00 to $3.00 iraq, he meant tortured in abu ghraib prison. 2 decades ago, jerry found an american civilian defense contract who was legally responsible for me in his treatment of detainees, the prison, the bad dad was a us army detention center for capture. the rock is from 2003 to 2006 or

another and sounds to them as mat has survived and no confidence motion put forward by far right party. she's been criticized for a handling of bonding confrontations last week. involving funds from is very football, come more rights on monday. police have made several more arrests connected to the violence last week. that's when it's very football fans charging racist slogans against our ups and burned palestinian flags. the head of the case anglican church has resigned. was the accusations of failing to properly investigate historic allegations of child abuse. especially had been mounting on the archbishop of canterbury. dustin will be to quit since last week. that's when the report was published, stating it taken, and sufficient action on these continues headed off to the campaign against the comments.

this is the story about a group of men who wants you to doubt climate change the story of a campaign, but it's impacted out well for us on the a back to naomi risk is we left her with a pile of papers and this pile became the beginning of a big investigation, but she also gets hold of the strategy paper. it was my alice through the looking glass moment when my whole life kind of changed. the risk is drops. everything decides to find out who's arguing against the climate scientists. bit by bit. she begins to understand why these pundits us 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 co issue, but you know, most scientists are scientist. 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 tv or radio might know more than i do. they may be scientists, i'm not a scientist, but they're not necessarily good communicators. and if you put a poor communicator up against a good communicator, even garbage arguments tend to uh, went out. 2 the 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 the merchants doubt. she calls the time it's skeptics, but that doesn't stop the attacks on the country. so they uh send out an

email chain to each other, talking about what they could do to get me to describe it me. they call me all kinds of names in one day, something happens that will radically change 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. and for the united states and about global warming, we've only seen about a quarter, a warrant that james hanson says we should've seen by now. and if this continues to play out, there's no reason to take a while climate change, it'll be a relative so we've left the studio and within the green room. and joe said, uh, did you want to read james hanson's testimony?

or do you just, you know, is big, are these just talking points somebody wrote for you, what you're talking about here or the scenario way. we have 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 track what he hypothesized under scenario b. and if you look at the temperature project, the pretty spot on. so when you go on television, it you say that the models are running hot as complete garbage. so here's what i challenge. we say you go back to your office and you, we read hanson this test, and you tell me if what i'm saying is upright. 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 to me. so i went back to my office where i looked at the hands and the testimony, you know, thinking well, i'm not going to let joe rob, you know,

walk away thinking he got the better of me in the green room. right. and i read the testimony and it looked like it actually reflect to enjoy the home it. so i went down the hallway to the scientist and explain what it averages to joe. and you know, this is, you know, the conversation. we had looked testimony, looks like joe's right. so what am i missing? that was certain that was missing something and it turned out it wasn't missing anything. it became clear to me in the course of the back and forth that he was knowingly misleading people with that narrative that he had offered that i had offered on television. but it was from that point for 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 wasn't conscious disingenuousness. sometimes it was your cherry picked out a reasoning doc part. sometimes you would find that the, the papers which look so impressive were never published in a peer review journal though it looks like they were published in peer review journal, but they weren't. if you bothered to look at the response to the paper, you're fine to 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 past, i found that the story i just told you played itself out over and over and over again. the . we presented taylor's critique to patrick michaels, who rejects taylor's account,

and he says his facts was scientifically documented, and he still thinks james hanson is wrong, and denies misleading. the public kato has not reply to the critique in spite of repeated requests. let's take a look at the economics. the oil industry strategy paper describes how large sums of money to be given by the island energy industry to think tanks and organizations among recipients see fact, well a month around the works. the best thing to do is, is have the courage to do nothing, get any money from the oil companies. we might get some and competitive enterprise institute. we don't disclose our daughters. 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, the tax records financial report. so now the documents show who exxonmobil funded

off to the strategy meeting from 1998 to 2006. the data shows that the wells, major oil company in the is off to 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 and american research projects has mapped out how other oil companies and many wealthy conservatives have donated billions to climate skeptics. scientists intended to like, have been paid by the industry. does this influence? there was one such climate skeptic, steve miller,

who was present the i time 18, has described his relationship with the industry like this. are you in bed with big oil and if so, how good and bad are that? not better as anyone just trying to do the right thing on why would change my are unable also rejects that the oil money hits 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've done that, we try to find funding for it. so, um, so if someone wants to fund it, i would like to find a lot more funding for what we do then this freight thing, the man behind the leipzig declaration, the danish broadcasting corporation investigated that list in 1997. your piece going us to us, you to use us kind of all the european sciences, the 15 of and let's say that they are not climate scientists

dates. 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 traipsing this organization s e p, which is behind the list. well, they also receive money from exxon by the oil industry was a main bank roller and cheerleader for opposition to climate act and their financial support of the climate skeptics and the scientific community ensured that we had the references and the citations that we needed to make the credit board the

is the earth getting warmer and there's a lot of discussion about that. is it? uh, i've and 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 will assume didn't respond to the critique that he's been paid by the industry. the 1st thing as lawyer has been presented with the critique of thing, 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 the 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, so i'm looking to enhance and 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. 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 the the oil industry strategy of sewing doubts hasn't been done before. i believe nicotine is not addictive. yes, history johnson, congressman, cigarettes and nicotine clearly do not meet the classic definition. civic dictionaries, no attacks. ok. we'll take that as a know, in the mid 19 hundreds scientist realized that smoking was dangerous, the tobacco industry made every effort to counteract the new knowledge. and

internal documents says, doubt is all product, since is 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, a oil companies did the same after james henson's presentation. so the idea is to make it seem that we don't really know for sure if this is a problem, 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 and 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, the tobacco companies very clearly said that there wasn't a direct linkage is teeth. one of the believe though, as 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. yeah. was it a responsible on the part of the tobacco companies? it was irresponsible, a part of the smokers in fred, seeing a co author to report down playing the danger of passive smoking depended steve malloy who was present w i p. i meeting concurrently. well, for both tobacco and oil companies and the organization which might enables directed, politically, also worked for the tobacco industry. and jerry taylor,

the arguments that i made at the time it was that when it come, the 2nd hand smoke that the epidemiological evidence has been full was not particularly persuasive. but the fact is, is the same kind of arguments. the same stylized argue that were made against the action to regulate tobacco are pretty similar. the arguments that we used against climate change, the but what did 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 and 1979. a man on the ship did something

so important to x on that this presentation film was produced for the company's management demand was paid coffee. and today, he looks like this, the videotapes are taken to show to the corporate board about this very exciting research project that the company was doing to study the impacts of increased c o 2 and on a planet and that contributed the science of, of climate change 40 years ago, almost 10 years before james henson speech and internal scientific department, i'd like some researched global warming and they funded the project because i thought the science was important. the products i needed to be involved and they were concerned about climate change. it gobby past is measurements onto the scientist to analyze data. scientist x on the modelers, mathematicians and the physicist remodeling climate change. modeling the impacts of increased c o. 2 in the atmosphere. i know a very clear that they knew that c o 2 increase was changing the climate on the

planet, on its website, x on mobiles. so this data on climate change was published in scientific journals. however, x on fails to mention the ad safelite to put out calling the science. i'm settled. i mean, they, as they have, they put out, i don't think anyone in their scientist, scientific division can support them as a scientist and say of this needs a truthful facts that we're putting out. i think that the statements they were making were, are fully misleading and designed to, 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 excellence 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 1991, the head of excellence research development wants to the consequences of global warming may be catastrophic for a substantial fraction of the population. that was almost 40 years ago. yes. for excellence, ceo not relate to says that this is on tv. there is a natural variability that has nothing to do with. but with that, a climate the climate has changed every year for millions of years. another oil company also knew early on foot climate change was underway. in the eighty's shells, scientists warmed of alarm and consequences. when the global warming becomes detectable, it could be too late to do anything to stabilize the situation. the for decades

show 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 gonna argue with james hanson, because we think he's right. we think this is correct. how they've done that. it would have cut the legs out of climate denials, them in skepticism. right. well if you can persuade exxon mobil is that we, then i'm not sure why i should listen to you, right? but that's not what happens as a little vague and as a father and grandfather and hopefully great bread for all this past sunday. it's, i'm really scared for our children and their future. we start to deal with changes on the planetary scale. we can just try and go back to the other way. okay. even, i mean for my own experience, you can clean a river in clean and as to where a clear lake, you know, reset it so to speak. we don't get a reset button on the planet. i'm going to reset. and that's,

that's really frightening. then i'm going to reset that. that's really scary. the, or exxon mobil denies withholding data on climate change. it's website states that the risks of climate change are real and the x on mobiles research has been published in scientific journals. we'd like to ask some more

about why it funded climate skeptics and, and add some statements as cost out some time at science with exxon did not answer these questions and declined an interview. we'd also like to ask dpi about the critique, but it spreads doubts about climate science. a b, i hasn't replied nor agreed to an interview. the x on mobile and 80 i right. they are working on technologies that may reduce climate change. the . they also said this in commercials, plants caps or c,

o 2. what is other kinds of plants scattered it to? is reduced carbon emission levels to the lowest kind of generation. let's make tomorrow better together the b on dog. like beyond petroleum b, b. but how green all the oil companies actually today, we are the world's 5 largest oil companies, how much they invest in green technology and how much they invest in extracting fossil fuels. the chances that it now spends 5 percent of investments on green technologies differential company to tile says it spends 10 percent. b, p, chevron, and exxon mobil did not answer. so we asked influence map and organization who

analyzes key climate issue figures to review their investments. the or the figures show that both 3 oil companies uh, at the low end and chevron, is it less than one percent? the combined figures show that the wells, 5 largest oil companies, bustle, fuel investments are at 95 percent on average. i think it's fair to say that the climate change tires have. why? that in 1980 age enhancing 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 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 present united states to say that 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 or? well, mr. trump, when he ran for president i did the environmental protection agency that was the weed or is that the

the pilot size is like this will be we have only 10 minutes to take our belongings and leave the office so they can shut it down for the victory for the government, get this one of those containing refugees coming. the actions of israel's government, the military detection has been described as the closing of the had a lie that high pressure has been in charge across

a central parts of north america. so we've seen lots of quiets and fine weather here, but there's a change to com. thanks to a cold front, which is going to work its way across most central parts of the us. bringing some storms to the mid west. we'll see that what weather attaching down as well into the deep south. so intensive storms to come here from the remnants of a hurricane line in the gulf of mexico is much dwyer, close the east coast of the us seems to cool down here, but we have got some file where the warnings out for the likes of new jersey and we could see the return of some fine with a warnings the coast southern pots of california were expecting the santa ana winds to come back in, not as strong as they were last week to the north. however, we are expecting the 1st a significant snow of the season to road into northern parts of california. you can see that wintery wave continuing to effect the pacific northwest and west and pots of canada on such day as long as you're dry and sunny across the south west of the us and those conditions pull into northern parts of mexico. it is set, however,

to hunt, very west across the yucatan peninsula. we've got something of a system trying to develop in the caribbean sea, and that will push the rain further west on thursday. the are around 3 quarters of sub saharan africa is cultural. heritage is on display in western museums. it didn't happen overnight. we were rob cover time. the 1st episode reveals how europe and color lines ation remove. tens of thousands of on the effects of the young people struggle to reclaim restitution. africa stolen episode one. 0 no, just 0. just weeks of to the us selections. brazil will host the global leaders of the g. 20 summit design to seek agreement on the global issues, but with an outgoing us president vladimir putin refusing to attend. how much can

be achieved in these on certain times? followed the g. 20 summit on out just the era. the, the state, the not to nations demands. israel allows more agent to gauze as phase grove at a minute's time in the carry johnston. this is, i'll just share a lie from though. so coming up on his ready drive and hits the 10 to the make shift compton, central gaza children are among the victims us president elect donald trump announced this is latest cabinet choices, reveals tends to create a new departments edit funded wells, which is not.