>> thank you very much. i must say i've never done one of these before. and chances are after today is over i may never do one again. i may never be asked to do one again, i should say. it's very much my pleasure to review this book and to provide some discussion on it. ..

>> in particular what happened was not something initiated by the governor. in fact, in or guns case the governor's eventually said cease and desist and get lost. it was not quite that way. i want to clear that up in the book. my situation is of little different. the design an associate professor of sociology these climatology but also serve as

a delaware state climatologist it is the second phrase that got the.net newspaper sideways. they wrote the editorial that said i should be fired as the climatologist and implying but i should be fired at the university faculty member because that is a state employee we cannot have the state employee disagree with the governor. i got into a discussion but the governor's office issued a letter in part at my request and she quoted recently recovered of events of social of the subjects of climate change has generated some confusion as to the role of the state climatologist she said when i speak to make it clear i am not speaking as the state climatologist which i know that you have not. but they say that the reports of my work with private groups

and privately backed publications have generated some confusion this is the climate of extreme that things are not said are reported as if they are now everything said the governor told me i could not speak on climate issues which makes you wonder base state climatologist cannot speak our and climate issues what am i supposed to speak garn? politics? that governor is gone and we have a new governor i am not sure how we will get along with him but we will see. the scientist on the other side you will notice it is james hansen. he liszt himself at the nasa goddard institute for space studies and you will notice nobody called him out for disagree with the president and if they had i am sure there ribby the uproar.

i will leave you with the disclaimer with i do not represent any branch of government nor do i speak for the governor or any other state agency. start off with "climate of extremes" what does the book, what is it about, what is the climate of extremes? one is it could be a climatology of extreme weather events. i hope it was more than just that otherwise would just be a textbook. it could also be about the political climate around extreme weather events after all that is where the action is that is our people lose their houses, their homes and their lives. it is not the field that destroys the so it is the extremes of its of the political climate. on the other hand, climatology of extreme behavior by climatologists? we have seen a lot of that going on in.

finally, the political climate of extreme behavior by a climate scientist acting in a political realm and i am pleased to report in fact, i think the book in all four cases does that. yes, yes, yes it is all about the above. it is not overburdening there are some things that have to be done in a technical nature but it is not a textbook of climatology. it gets as much as it needs to do. i am fully bank given 15 minutes but the first thing you will do is pick on the epigraph. but it is important. he was asked about how you get the numbers and what goes into a? yay says we have a 25 years is so invested in the work why should make the data available to you when you're a mr. try

and find something wrong with that? people will say that he has cheery picked and it will just be those articles that agreed and not the articles that say something different this is filled jones caught on a weak afternoon he was probably upset and just saw something of but not everybody cites him. but if you go back to the sec and assessment report i had almost the same deal with santer. the balance of evidence to just influence on the climate. number of us looked at ' if he gave us references that were very political he receives support from a mess the american geophysical union but nevertheless the idea was in this case the balance of evidence suggest influence on climate and has provided research to argue that yes in fact, that is what happens.

in a letter written to the proposing body from virginia had done some research that proved that this research was bogus and you could start with two fields that are exactly the same and go in opposite directions. in reality, what happens when he wrote a letter that he said no. that did not have been so they said if the data from santer and see if that occurred. we approached him and the official line from him he got data from different sources they promise not to redistributive but the real factor is that he does not trust you with the data provide want to point* out there are lot of stories, a lot of the events in is not that these are the only things that ever happened. there are a number of these exelon and a number included in the book and if they had it would probably run several

volumes. the book starts out chapter one is a global warming science primer i was hoping that would not be the attempt to make you a climate scientist and it is not prepared is bringing you up to speed what is going on in the climate world of you have not been paying attention for at least it brings you up-to-date on what is taking place on global air temperature trends comment changes in model observations and things such as that. the second chapter is changing climate history. do with data one of the things we recognize it is it is inherently problematic we like to think it is measured and come equipped with observations and it is important to see the difference between first order weather stations, balloon resolutions, satellite base temperatures and what it means. the third chapter is fairly big on hurricane warning and you can guess why that is there. there's a lot of interest in

hurricanes and discussion and politics particulate after katrina and of the 2005 and 2006 season there's a lot of discussion and the book sums it up nicely. also the book does go back and time. if you notice from one of the chapters 270 years, then 800 years, then 5,000. a lot of people look at paleozoic time histology which is a famous word for looking at historical events looking at sea level rise you can see their lot of sub cuttings at of that under that. i want to point* out why chapter three and four are so big delaware interested and one of the things that my own college to be has produced this is what will look like

ultimately 21 o hundred we are a small archipelago by lends at that point*. this is obviously a ridiculous extreme scenario but nevertheless the scientists portrayed as being correct. the delaware paper said of the sea level rises two feet, a think for a moment, a two ft.? what is the normal titled range of delaware? it is six feet so at high tide there should be the area that isn't inundated because that would be less than the tidal range. but nevertheless, what you see they have done is actually measured at 20 p by tried to play it off as two feet. number five, extreme climates floods, fires and droughts one of the things that is missing in this discussion of extreme climates are tornadoes by think of those because i spent nine and a half years in oklahoma and that scares

everybody to death out there. but there has not been much thrust for a number of reasons and that is why maybe in this case left off of the table. one of the things the chapter does point* two is the environment america report when it rains it pours i have seen this all over the place particularly with the rising frequency of extreme participation in the united states. just before tom carper our senator was expected to vote on the lieberman warner build the idea was delaware's precipitation is rising by 37%, the extreme participation in it is more than two inches per day over the entire period. the interesting thing is we had two articles of the paper, at a press release and everybody was up in arms. 37% is a significant rise the

only problem when you look at the actual document you will find it is really not statistically significant. they admit it is not. but they have alerted the delaware populous and have got tom carper to vote for it web and even in their own publication it was not statistically significant. these are the extremes that we do with. death of our climate is a chapter six. pat has talked of lot about this year's levels get on bad and chapter seven, a pervasive bias and climate extremes b-12. appeared talking about professional organizations, the ans and the american geophysical union have way dan and i remember back in university of oklahoma and 89 bob carell gave a talk and said this is a red letter

day for a climate scientist everywhere we will get lot of money let's not kill the goose laying the golden egg and a particular i'm afraid that is what will lead towards keep finding us and we will tell you what you want to hear. one of the interesting things is how things change. this is the famous hockey stick braff i will not make too much of it except one thing you have not noticed it is the pre-publication version you notice the value that 2000 was point* three degrees celsius then you'll notice a few extend that it was exceeded twice previously. by the time it came out it was at o.7 and in this case we inflated the number at the end so now we can say this is the warmest year of the millennium and 1998 was the warmest year of the decade of the millennium. over time we notice

publications have changed in 2002 you will see a 0.3 at 2,003 it is 0.4 and 2,003 have pushed all the way that 0.6 negative o.7 by the time we got to the third assessment report this is published in 2004 and we got away with it because we did not make a big deal of it. of we would have it would have been picked up. the final chapter is a balancing act. this is where i have to disagree on best. they ask the question what can be done to modify the climate of extremes in the proposal is to reduce the publication bias eliminate anonymous the review the massive expansion of cyberspace makes that possible. i do agree ipcc shows that review does not matter. you can make these available online and it comes down to

the editor, the author and the reviewers and if the editor wants to ignore reviews they can do that. they can bend the review even if you allow anybody to comment on any paper you'll still get the same effect taking place so i think it is a good idea but i do not think it will solve the problem. the issue is what we really need is some form of ability to keep turning over the stones and keeps saying this is not the way it is it is the true thank-you carping over and over. i will leave you with the end that i think it should happen not that he would have stolen the idea so i am bar wing it. scientist is the triangle of mormanism. scientists make meaningless statements which leads advocates to make media to make statements to alarmist declarations the politicians

respond to alarm by feeding scientists more money now without the final arrow there is another boxes as politicians respond to alarm by trying to do something. that is even worse and that is where we are now when politicians try to do something on things that they really cannot effect there will effect there will have major damages elsewhere but will not affected to where climate stabilization is useless and that is where we are unfortunate. i will skip that. thank you very much [applause] >> we have tendered 15 minutes for questions and we will be happy and i will choose from the audience. >> i am the press secretary

with union of concerned scientists did you are probably familiar with our work i work for scientists to take a very opposite view from where you come from but i wanted to pick up on something that the natural accusation that you are cherry picking and i thought i saw a lot of bad in your presentation i would be interested in your response you are accusing other scientists the jury picking but yet you seem to be doing a lot of cherry picking of individual pieces of research and interviews to anecdotally make your case in a particular i want to focus on your sea level rise data from the ipcc. hope you are aware that the only accounted for thermal expansion of the ocean and it ignores the sea level rise that comes from melting glacial ice. but is something a lot of contrarians do and i would hope you stop doing that and accurately account for how the ipcc accounted for the sea level rise data.

>> . >> it does account for the fact of glacial ice but it does not allow for the notion that agreement and would rapidly shed its ice field which is the climate crisis of the day. this is the notion that jim hansen has popular is that the sea level could rise 20 feet by the year 2100 because because the warming of greenland will create a water flow underneath the ice cap that will accelerate the disintegration. this is well and good except as we point* out in the book, at a very large study that is indisputable because of the geographical link shows that in

eurasia, siberia, scandinavia, etc. for millennia i did not say 100 years, for millennia july temperatures were as much as seven degrees celsius warmer than what is called modern by the chairman of the geography department at ucla he looked at trees that have fallen into the tundra of a tree falls in the tender it is preserved because it is very acidic and it can be carbon dated you can see it extended days the tree line extended all the way to the arctic ocean representatives 100 miles south and extended into the arctic ocean because it was more shallow and a less expansive because of large areas of brandeis. we know how warm it has to be in the summer for the trees to be there. having said that had you get your ratio that warm? with you take a look at the map of the globe from the poll

there's only one gateway to get all of that warm water into the arctic basin that is the greenland story you cannot go through the bering strait because of the peninsula, russia obstruct the flow. you cannot do it west because of the island. that means that more water several degrees warmer than modern and mcdonald's view had to be flowing by a greenland for millennia and it did not shed its size. case ] next question? >> [inaudible] you're misrepresenting the ice sheet and spec i just talked about the former issue of the millennia. >> i am an actuary and enjoy the statistical part of that

but i think one of the ugliest words in the english language unfortunately has become the word green. i think it has been misused so many times the issue that i do not see you commenting on which i think is one of the key issues of this whole debate is what is the fact of humans on all of the things that happened to be our people clamor happening to the universe and what the effect of humans is on whatever warming or an warming we're having. that is the key in the whole debate. >> first of all, and make it very plain i think much of the second warming of the 20th century does have a human component and my colleague i will let him respond and also with regard to the notion that

the warming has stopped which we have heard since 1998, i show that the people who said that have not really, i had a computer model i applied seven years ago and i applied it to the recent years and largely the reason in my opinion my computer models opinion is because the sun has been extremely inactive and because the el nino a huge el nino the big warm thing and 1998. scientists are great. we follow the data rather than the debt. by 1998 when there was a huge el nino we said they have become more frequent as a result of forming. as soon as we said that of course, the el nino is pretty much went away and we went into the cold phase in the same way we said that they

would continue to increase it started to do is it -- decrease. doable disagree of the magnitude and i think the audience would appreciate that. >> there is a coupling problem there is the carbon dioxide and methane of the gas increases and the feedback that incorporates water vapor in the atmosphere and what that means i have a tendency to feel the water vapor is estimate by this ipcc is over estimate the doubling of the co2 will not be as great but i do not believe it will be zero either. on the other hand, one of the things we have seen in the service i am always asked is the climate changing in delaware and in particular are we seeing more floods and droughts? the answer to both is yes. has everything to do with land surface change if more people demanding a limited resource and when it runs scarce you will see more demand for water

and more drought and more water rationing. on the other hand, with more people in the area you will see more asphalts and when it rains it runs off faster and you would get a faster flood peak and a higher flood peak so those events occur more and has nothing to do with changes in the climate but has everything to do with changes in the way and service so we agree humans do play a key role in the climate and changing our environment with the conditions we have seen the difference is how much of the carbon dioxide issue is due to warming we have seen? >> i see a question right here. >> greenland correspondent, mr. dave legates have you read the book? if not i suggest for mankind

is sake you should write a book because everything has a another side and we need to know something. something i wanted to get very basic to both you and the audience uc climate change coming from a 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 for i have not written a book and have no plans to do so prepare written a couple of chapters what i do is much more technical and those people are more gifted on both sides of the aisle that can translate to the general public they're much more gifted at that and i will let them do that and i will stick to the more scientific banks brother has been a lot of assessment changes of

urbanization and industrialization and some are available the intergovernmental panel but the issue is how does that change the landscape how does that translate back into climate models. people are trying to work on that and forecast what human behavior will look like in the future which is nebulous at best there's a lot of data but how do forecast what that is likely to change in the future? those other kinds of things that almost nobody. >> that is precisely the problem and that touch on it in the book. if this were 1908 and i was a seer and you said dr. michaels what will happen two energy in the next 100 years? imagine if i said we have the periodic table worked out it ends with uranium and we will in finns a new element called plutonium and if i get this

much of it in a confined space for this short amount of time the entire city blows up and is vaporized but if we disperse the reaction into a large area of the entire city could be lit with electric lights my god everywhere and things called refrigerators and computers do know that is i have a little box in my pocket the you can access to every piece of information in the world instantaneously. when we make the 100 year projections for things going in the atmosphere we make, we have no idea whether that is real. i will get back to greenland because that is one of my favorite places. in the model for greenland melt which does not include all of the ice falling off at once, it is a more uniform process and i think we have dealt with that it assumes the

carbon dioxide concentration goes four times its background which is 1100 parts per million is started out at 280 we started off at 385 right now. it goes over 1100 and stays there 40,000 years. in other words, we will burn fossil fuel at an enormous rate for 2000 years. let's just try 1,000 years this is like this is the exact same science. the romans were smart as the people who make the computer models for greenland and they could have said based upon current trends in the year 1,000 we believe there will be 300 and 308 to billion catholics by the year 2000 and 98% of the world will be catholic based on trends we have seen this is what happens when you project being felt for 1,000 years.

it is silly widely base policy on projections like that? i have not a clue. >> mr. michael seven years ago i came here as a trial lawyer [inaudible]