computer, which would be connected to the library of congress. there are fact checkers at the bbc who could connect with the british museum. or whatever. 1953, the journal arctic volume 6 pages 35-43 by l. irving the names of birds by the nunamiut eskimo robin equals koyapigaktonuk. nobody bothered to check. ..

>> and you will find out that we don't agree. everything. we agree on some things.

he is the associate professor of climatology at the university of delaware also the style of art -- estate dollar climatologist from 2002 through the president and his governor joined him on speaking out against climate change they have state climatology's so i am sure he will have nothing to say for pro governor kaine asked me to do the same which is what i will be full time at the cato institute speak being freely starting july 1st. is also the director of the world's most unique micro and meteorological networks the delaware observing system in which people learn a tremendous amount of fine scale distribution of climate within a small city and a large city and farm to farm this is the high-tech stuff.

he holds the be a and ph.d. really love their to go to the university of oklahoma for nine and a half years and delaware which is the only institution in the united states that gives a ph.d. in climatology wanted him back and that is why he is there now. david? you're commentary. >> thank you very much. i must say i have never done one of these before and chances over -- chances are i may never asked to me due one again but very much my pleasure to review this book in provide discussion on it. my thought was first of all, the first thing i did as most

people do is turn to the back of a book and try to figure out where you have been cited. i was a little surprised to find a was only side did in two places and pat found no reason to cite my research come with a two. [laughter] but he found than the two talk about the state climatologist did one of the issues that pact and i signed on to this is security brief with the u.s. epa with the commonwealth of massachusetts. it turned out as we were at work the on the epa cited the governor and the state put themselves on the massachusetts side that put me on the one side of the coin relative to the other. what happened was not something initiated by the governor -- governor.

governors eventually said cease and desist and get lost but it was not quite that way. i want to clear that the. my situation is a little different for you will notice is as i am a professor of climatology at university of delaware. i also serve as a delaware state climatologist for it is the second phrase that got the news journal it got it side raised. so they wrote the article even to leave the editorial that said i should be fired as a state climatologist implying i should be fired as the university faculty member because after all that is a state employee id we cannot have a state employee disagree with the governor. to make a long story short in fact, that governor office issued a letter it been parked at my request and she quoted recent media coverage of

events a session with the subject of climate change has generated some confusion as to the role of the state climatologist. she said when i speak i am not speaking as the state climatologist which i know that you have not. the "journal" reported it that she said the third birds of my work with private groups and privately backed publications disputing some change had generated some confusion this is the climate of extreme that things are not said are reported as if they are so not everybody thinks the governor told me in one case it was reported i cannot speak on a climate issues with makes you wonder if the state climatologist cannot speak on climate issues am i supposed to speak on politics? [laughter] but in any event that governor is gone, i am not sure how we will get along with him but i will point* out this is the other brief for you will

notice james hampton, james hansen and the list themselves at the nasa a daughter is a two for space studies in a particular nobody called him out for disagreeing with the president and if he had i am sure there would have been the uproar. i will be be with this disclaimer i do not represent any other branches of government nor the governor or any other state agency. starting off with "climate of extremes" what does the book talk about? there are four possibilities it could be a climatology of extreme weather events. that would not be the only answer because then it is no more than a textbook and that is not something you'd be interested in and i have seen enough of those in my day. to be about political climates.

extreme weather events is were the action is. people lose their houses, their homes, their lives. it is the extremes that destroys things summit is it the political climate? could be the climatology of extreme behavior? obviously we have seen a lot of that going on or finally come to the political climate of extreme behavior by climate scientists acting in the political realm and i am pleased to report in fact, i think the book and all four cases does that, yes, all of the above. bank is overburdening on the climatology end of things that there are certainly things that have to be done in a technical nature but it is not a textbook and i'm glad to see as itrst is a low level yes needs to do. start with a graphite know i have only been given 50

minutes but here's a quote from philip jones hughes had asked him about the colt air climatology and his quote is we have 25 years or so invested in the work was shy make the data available to you when you're a mr. try and find something wrong with it? people will say they have cherry pick to this that the science will just be the articles that agree ignoring the thousands of journal's the say something different. this was filled jones caught on a weak afternoon he was probably mad and accused now everybody cites him but if you go back to the sec and assessment report and if you remember the quote balance of evidence suggested human influence on the climate we tried to look wide network came in it was very

political, he received support from a mess and the american reader logical society but nevertheless the adr was in this case that the balance of evidence suggest human influence on client and he has provided research to argue that yes, that is what happens. but we have an article or a letter written to the proposing body that bob davis and i had done that proved that this research was bogus. that if you start with two fields that are exactly the same and go in opposite directions. in reality, what happens when we wrote a letter that said know that did not have been. the board said why don't you get the data from ben santer and see if that occurred. we approached him and the official line i got from a friend of his is he got the data from different sources india's promise not to

redistribute it but the underlying factor is the real reason is he does not trust to. i want to point* out in the book there are a lot of stories. it is not that these are the only things that ever happened. there are a number of these that go on and if i could of included them in the book it would run several volumes and that was not desirable. chapter one a global warming science per a was hoping that was not an attempt to make a climate scientist and it is not in this review up to speed in the climate world of you have not been paying attention since the last book or at all it brings you up-to-date what is taking place on the global air temperature trends as we have seen changes in ma observation. the second chapter is changing climate history. i do with the data. recognize the data are inherently problematic. live like to think the data

has been measured and come equipped with perfect observation the book is very important to demonstrate the differences between cooperative networks, balloon resolutions, a satellite based temperatures and what it means. the third chapter a fairly big chapter on hurricane warning and you can guess why it is there. a lot of discussion and politics particularly after katrina and the 2005 and again the 2006 season there's a lot of discussion that came up about it and the book sums it up very nicely prepare also point* out the book does go back in time to notice, a 270 years of eight -- hurricane history, 800 years, 5,000 years, looking at the leo tub histology would is a fancy word for looking at the historical extreme events.

chapter for the sea level rise and the great unfreezing world. but is also a very big chapter and also done very well. and i will point* out why i think chapter three and four are so big. here you can see one of the things that my old college to be has produced. this is what it will look like ultimate the 2100 we are a small archipelago by lends at that point*. this is obviously ridiculous extreme scenario but it even scientist portrayed as being correct. delaware shoreline if the seat level rises to free. fink for one moment, a two ft. what is the normal tidal range of delaware? it is six we so at high tide there should be the area that it is inundated and then it is less than the tidal range but nevertheless they measured

420 feet but played it off as to. number five, the extreme climate floods and fires and droughts one thing that is missing is tornadoes i spent nine and a half years in oklahoma and that scares everybody to death about their. but there has not been much for a number of reasons and that is probably why in this case left off of the table. when of the things the chapter does point* two is the environmental america report when it rains, it pours. i have seen this all over the place reported time and time again with the extreme precipitation in united states. in delaware just before tom darfur, our senator was expected to vote the idea was

delaware precipitation is rising by 37% that defense occurring more than two inches per hour i am sorry two inches per day over the entire period the interesting thing we had two articles and the paper everybody was up in arms 37% is a significant rise and it is. the only problem when you look at the actual document you will find it really is not statistically significant and they admit that but the delaware populace they have tried to get tom carper to vote for it even in the of publication it was not significant. these are the kind of extremes that we do with. climate of death and the death of our climate is chapter number six. pat talked about this so i will skip that. chapter seven, up

versace -- pervasive bias and here is restored to give in to the politics the peer review of the but organizations and did geophysical union have weighed in and remember when the university of oklahoma in 1989 bob carell gave a talk and he said this is a red letter day for the climate scientists everywhere. we will get lots of money, let's not kill the goose laying the golden egg and a particular i am scared that is what we have led toward. keep funding as we will tell you what you want to hear. this is the famous hockey stick braff i will not make too much of it except something you probably have not noticed it is the pre-publication version the value is that 2000 was o.three degrees celsius but if you extend that back across you will lotus that was the temperature that was exceeded once previously or twice

previously. by the time it came out, it was now up at o.7 and in this case we have done is inflated the number at the end so now we can say this is the warmest year of the millennium and 1998 when it was the warmest decade of the millennium. we also noticed over time in various publications you will see a o.three at 2,003 it is o.four and 2,003 it is pushed almost as o.six know it is about o.7 by the time we got to the report. we published in 2004 and got away with it because we did not make a big deal of it i'm sure if we had it would be picked up. of the final chapter is a balancing act which alludes to a modest proposal which is where i think i have to disagree with pat and bob ast

question what can be done to modify the climate of extremes? the proposal is to reduce the publication by is to eliminate anonymous peer review. massive expansion of cyberspace makes that possible. >> baidu agreed to get rid of be repute but it does not matter. you can make these things available online. comes down to the editor and the author and the review were. of the editor wants to ignore reduce they can do that they can bend the review even if you make in the open and allow anybody to comment on any paper used to get the same effect taking place so i think it is a good idea but i do not think it will solve the problem. i think the issue is what we really need is some form ability to keep turning over the stones and saying to the public this is not the way it is, this is the truth and keep harping on that over and over

i will leave you briefly what the end should have been i don't think he would have stole the idea but unlike his wife barring it. he says science has the triangle of alarm they make ambiguous statements which allows advocates to make all warmest declarations then politicians respond to feed more money and instead of the final arrow as going back to the scientist we should have another arrow buses politicians respond to alarm by trying to do something. that is even worse than that is where we are now when politicians try to do something on things that they really cannot the fact, they will, they will have major damages elsewhere but will not affect climate the fact of stabilization is useless. and i will skip that. thank you very much [applause]

>> we have 10 or 50 minutes for questions and i will choose from the audience. >> . >> i am a press secretary with concerned scientists and he both are familiar with some of our work their work with scientists to take the opposite view of where you are coming from. i want to pick up on something with the accusation that you are cherry picking and i thought about your presentation i would be interested to hear your response you're accusing him as a cherry picking the yet you seem to be doing that of individual pieces of research to anecdotally make your case. in particular i wanted to focus on your citation of sea

level rise data from the ipc sea i hope you are aware that only accounted for thermal expansion of the ocean ignores the sea level rise that from the melting glacial ice. and i would hope you stop doing that and honestly account for how the teeth three presented the sea level rise data program like your response specifically. >> it does in fact, allow for the loss of glacial ice, it does not allow for the notion that agreed land will rapidly shed the ice field which is the climate crisis of the day. and in the book this is the notion that jim hansen has popular is that the sea level could rise 20 feet by the year 2100. because the warming of three

dreamland will create a water flow under the ice cap that will accelerate. but this is well and good as we point* out in the book a very large study that is indisputable because it is geographical links shows that in eurasia, siberia, scandinavia, , etc., that for millennia, i did not say 100 years, for a millennia, july temperatures were as much as seven degrees celsius warmer than what is called modern by mcdonald the chairman of the geography department at ucla and he looked at trees that have fallen into the tundra. if it does it is preserved so it can be carbon dated and you can see that the tree line extended all the way to the arctic ocean. present era it is 100 miles south and in fact, extended

into the arctic ocean because it was more shallow and less extensive because of the large areas of land ice and we know it has -- house last -- how borman has to be in the summer for the trees to be there. how do you get your ratio that warm? if you take a look at a map there is only one gateway to get all of that warm water into the arctic basin and that is the other agreements straight. you cannot go the bering strait because of the peninsula it cannot go west of greenland because of the island's so that means that warm water several degrees warmer than presence of modern had to have been flowing out by greenland for millennia and it did not shed its eyes. case closed. next question.

>> bree you are misrepresenting what the ipcc said. >> but i just dropped to the are broader thing from the millennia. >> my name is mike jones i am the actuary and enjoy the statistical part of that i think one of the ugliest words in the english language unfortunately is the word green. i think it has been missed used so many times. the issue i do not see you commenting on which i think is one of the key issues is what is the effective humans is on all of the things that have been that people claim are happening to the universe and what the effect is on what ever warming or on warming we're having? that is the key in this whole

debate. >> first of all, i make it very plain i think much of the second warming of the 20th century has a human component. my colleague by will let him respond. also with regard to the notion that the warming has stopped witchy have heard since 1998, i show that the people who say that i had a computer model i built several years ago and in fact, largely the reason in my opinion, my computer models opinion that we have not seen the warming because the son has been extremely inactive and the el nino which a huge el nino the big one thing in 1998.

we thought, scientists are great. we follow the data rather they and lead it but by 1998 when there is a huge el nino we said all the news have become more frequent as a result of forming. us soon as we said that of course, , the el nino is pretty much went away and we went into the coal face just the same way that we said that they would increase it started to decrease. david will disagree with me and i think the audience would appreciate that. >> there is a problem with the carbon dioxide, methane and greenhouse guest increases and the feedback group that incorporates water vapor in the atmosphere and what it means. i have a tendency to feel the water vapor estimate by that ipcc is the overestimate the doubling will not be as great i do not necessarily believe it will be zero either.

on the other hand, one of the things the change of a serviced by am always asked is the climate changing in delaware are we seeing more floods and droughts? the answer is yes but it has nothing to do with climate change to have more land surface change to have more people demanding a limited resource when it goes scarce you'll see more demand for water and more drought and more water rationing but on the other hand, with more people in the area you will see more asphalt, when it rains it runs off faster and you would get a faster flood began higher flood peaks of it occurs but it has nothing to do with changes in the climate but everything to do with changes in the land surface. in that sense we agree that humans do play a key role in the climate and changing our environment. the difference is how much of the carbon dioxide issue is

what we have seen? >> i see a question right here. >> free-lance correspondent. mr. dave legates have you read the book? then i suggest you should write a book because everything has the other side and we need to know. something i want to say something basic both to you and the audience, climate change comes from human behavior and industrial production. do we have any data on those things? thank you. >> i am not sure i would be the person to write a book like this. i have not written a book can

have no plans to do so by average in a couple chapters. my stuff is much more technical people on both sides of the aisle are more talented that can translate to the general public without the coming down the science they are much more gifted at that i will try to stick to the scientific things. there has been a lot of assessment with change of urbanization and industrialization and some are available on the panel of climate change. the issue is how does that change the landscape and how does it translate back into climate models? there are people trying to work on that and forecast what human behavior will look like in the future is a nebulous at best. there's a lot of data but how do you forecast what that is likely to change in the future? those of the kinds of things. >> that is precisely the problem. itouch on it in the book that if