confederate icons conference from james madison university in harrisonburg, virginia. speakers include christy coleman, ceo of the american civil war museum and the museum's historian john koske, john walker, ceo of the battlefield foundation and james robertson, author of the book after the civil war, the heroes, villains, soldiers and civilians who changed america. watch the confederate icons conference saturday morning starting at 10 eastern on american history tv on c-span 3. supreme court nominee brett kavanaugh continues to meet with senators on capitol hill. follow the confirmation process on c-span leading up to the senate confirmation hearings and the vote. watch live on c-any time on c-span.org or listen with the free c-span radio app. : amy

army harder is r at our table this morning, energy and climate change reporter for axios here in washington to talk about climate changes. amy, i want to begin with our visit to alaska and we spoke with john wolf, chief scientist for the international arctic research center. here's what he had to say about climate change and the impact it could have on alaska. them and its impact on >> a new state would be one where there is essentially no ice on the arctic ocean during the warm season and that season of no ice would actually lengthen. it would accelerate into say the shoulder seasons, spring and autumn. r seasons, like spring and autumn. we would end up with a climate we'd end up with era climate where there's maybe two months less snow cover in the winter. snow comes a month or two later, leaves a month or two earlier. we would see more hot days in the summer. in fact, one of the projections is that if climate trends continue at their present rate, we'll have a number of hot

days. the state is not equipped for air conditioning. there could be days when air conditioning would be called for and we may well see some opportunities in terms of a longer growing season. right now the growing season in fairbanks is on the order of three or four months. if that lengthens to five or six months, there's some new possibilities for agriculture. >> amy harder, the impact of climate change on alaska and the arctic could be -- and we're seeing it already -- more than anywhere else. why is that? >> well, alaska really is ground zero for climate change. the arctic region in general and people like to say what stays in vegas -- what happens in vegas stays in vegas. what happens in the arctic does not stay in the arctic. climate change is warming the oceans and causing impacts in the fisheries and sea level rise. that's having an impact around the world and we're seeing the impact greatest in alaska because the temperatures are rising twice as fast there than

around the world of 3 degrees fahrenheit over the last 60 years. that number is pulled from a u.s. government report issued by the trump administration. nment report issued by the trump >> what does n that mean, then, for the rest of the united states? >> well, it means a lot. so what does that mean for the rest of the united states? no. 1, the impact in the arctic that is impacting the u.s., for example, 95% of wild salmon comes from alaska and many people like to eat salmon. so that's an impact that people are experiencing today now, but also alaska is experiencing climate change today in a way that a lot of the country will eventually -- some parts of the country and other parts of the world will experience even more over the coming decade. so it's sort of a canary in the coal mine. >> in what way? >> because of the impacts there are already happening. the warming is happening twice as fast there. it's almost a preview of sorts, what scientists say is likely to happen around other parts of the world.

of course, alaska is not the only part of the u.s. that's experiencing climate change. i think florida is another prime example of where climate change, particularly sea level rise, is already happening. >> take a look at this interactive map on the nasa website, nasa.gov. as you scroll across, what happens with the level of sea rising? in that red area is where the sea comes up and it looks on that map miami and new orleans are covered in water. >> right. that's why i spent a good part of this last week covering the coming introduction of the first carbon tax legislation by a republican lawmaker, congressman carlos cabella who represents that very part of florida, the tip of florida, and the florida keys. he's up for reelection this year. he's one of the top targets for democrats to take and he sees climb change as a political win for him. his constituents care about

that. that's not the case for most republicans, but it's definitely starting to be an issue and congressman karabell low carbeo is seeing this. >> what are we seeing internationally, too, extreme weather? what are we seeing? >> the way that i and a lot of the scientists i talk to describe climb change, they say it's like diabetes for the planet and by that i mean it doesn't usually wholly create new problems. it exacerbates already existing problems. so when somebody's diabetes makes their other health conditions worse, that's how climate change is. so it makes heatwaves worse. it makes drought worse. it makes hurricanes and other storms more powerful because there's more moisture in the air because of the higher temperature. so that just makes hurricane harvey, for example, would have happened regardless of climate

change and human activity burning fossil fuels. however, scientists have found the rainfall was about 11% worse because of climate change than it would have been without it. so that's an example how we're seeing it today. >> when we talked with john walsh, the chief scientist for international arctic research center in alaska, he talked about what's already happened because of climate change and you were just saying it exasperates what's already happening, makes it worse. let's listen to what john walsh said about how climate change is already impacting alaska. >> our climate is changing. that's pretty clear. in fairbanks, for example, our winters have become warmer by about 8 degrees just since 1950. changes are in the other seasons as well, not quite as high. we're seeing that showing up in the oceans around alaska. we now have a much shorter sea ice season. it turns out there's a couple months now of additional open

water. it's just offshore. that's affected communities, how they get around offshore, how they hunt for whales, walrus, that type of thing. it's affected the navigation. the tourist industry now has a couple extra months for navigating the arctic. we're also seeing changes on the landscape. snow tends to be coming later in the fall, melting earlier in the spring. so we're having a shorter snow season. we're getting wetter snows than we have in the past. that means road conditions are et different from what they were 20 years ago. we have more freeze/thaw cycles, that type of thing. >> take a look at what nasa put together on their website when it comes to what john walsh was just talking about and that's the sea ice and how it changes when you scroll across and you interact with this graphic, how it changes over the years due to climate change. amy harder, your thoughts?

>> yeah. i mean i think in alaska nobody there, climate change is real and it's having an impact and that human activity is playing a big role. i think just this summer we saw record low sea ice in the bering sea. that's having, of course, a lot of negative impacts, erosion of where native americans live. 40% of america's native americans live in alaska. they're really on ground zero for this impact and also sort of ironically a lot of the sea ice melting is creating more waterways for more offshore energy development. i think there's been discussion of that as well. so it's having a lot of different impacts. >> let's hear from viewers. julian in bridgeville, pennsylvania, good morning. question or comment? >> comment. thanks for taking my call. i love watching this show. i wanted to talk about the irony inside the republican

party just basically how we look back in history. look at teddy roosevelt, all that he did for the environment. look at richard nixon and the republican party established the enviromental protection agency and i think it's really ironic today how they've seemed to sell out the oil and gas industry and the koch brothers being their biggest political contributors and i think that now it's just a form of tribalism where we're all going to buy into the idea that oh, climate change isn't real because that's what the head of our party, donald trump, said. because that is what so we're living in a time where facts aren't even facts. we're just going to choose what facts are to us because they don't align with our party's agenda. true >> great. thanks for your call. i think the caller made some good points in that about how republicans have ignored this issue. i think it's really not about the science at the end of the day. i think republicans privately

to me and others acknowledge that climate change is real, that fossil fuels, the burning of fossil fuels is causing the earth's temperature to go up. i think the question is what is the solution? most solutions do require some big government role and that idea is inherently not what republicans generally stand for. i think president trump dismissing climate change, he certainly has. the epa and other government agencies have wiped climate change off of their websites, but, in fact, polling that i've seen and republican poll sterlings i've talked to -- pollsters i've talked to have shown that voters are not voting for trump because of his beliefs on climate change, but because of his trade and immigration policies. i think the very beginning of a subtle shift on the politics of this issue, a very slow and

it's not a straight line, but i think it's shifting, in part because trump is in office and highlighting his comments about how climate change is a hoax when most people know that it's not. chris in tennessee. caller: yes >> chris in tennessee. >> yes, ma'am. climate change has been climate change has been happening geologically speaking throughout the world's history. since the last ice age the oceans have risen 10 inches on average every 100 years. i saw an article in national geographic. the three biggest co2 polluters were china, india and the amazon rainforest. how do you fix that? cut the rainforest down? and another point is all the information that's gathered on climate change should be released to the public and let some of these independent universities and stuff go through the data.

i was listening to a gentleman maybe about a month ago. climate change, all these predictions, are produced from computer modeling and he said the further away you get from, you know, it's hard to predict the weather next week the further away you get. how can you predict something by computer modeling 50 years away? >> let's take that point, chris. >> yeah. thanks for your call. i think i should start by saying i'm not a scientist, but i do spend a good bit of my time talking to scientists and reading the science about climate change. you know, the united nations, the u.s. military, the u.s. government, even trump through the big annual report that he released earlier this year, they all acknowledge the scientific consensus that says fossil fuels are the main contributor to the human activity that's causing the earth's temperature to go up.

fossil fuels account for about 75% of the greenhouse gas emissions that humans are emitting that's causing the earth's temperature to go up. now the caller uses the term climate change which i also use, but it raises an interesting point about the words people use. climate change implies that the climate has always been changing and it has been and there's certainly some natural variability in climate patterns over decades and centuries and that's important to point out as well. it's not all human activity. global warming is a more politically charged term, but it's more accurate in the aggregate temperature of earth is going up and so i think as a reporter, i try to be careful about which words i choose. i try to carefully say that climate change influenced largely by human activity is causing the earth's temperature to go up. >> we'll go to bob in baldwinville, massachusetts. to go up. host: we go now to massachusetts. caller: good morning. >> good morning.

>> good morning. >> i'm pretty sure that america being 2% of the world's population and we signed onto that accord there in france, right, about climate change, we are 2% of the world population and we are going to be the ones that pays for everything, everything. all the other countries, china, all them, they're going to be able to increase their pollution for so many years like decades down the road. so like they'll be 110%, even worse than they are right now before they actually have to start doing anything. >> bob, i'm going to jump. in amy harder is going -- jump in. amy harder is going to answer your question and give you an update on the paris climate deal. >> the caller raises one of the top sticking points of the paris climate accord, a brief prime early on that, back in 2015 virtually all countries in the world have agreed to it now except for now, of course, president trump has vowed to withdraw the u.s. from that deal. the caller raises a good point

in that there's been longstanding frustration and tension between more developing countries like china and india versus the united states. the united states is historically more responsible for the global warming and climate change that we're seeing today because we have this huge industrial revolution built upon fossil fuels. fossil fuels have had a humungous positive impact on the world and u.s. economy. i think we should emphasize that in this larger discussion, but i think the reason why the paris accord was agreed to by all these countries, no. 1, because it wasn't legally binding. so it's easier for countries to agree to, but also because every country was able to put on the table what they thought was possible. china has still been growing its economy and has billions of people. they want to get electricity to and even more so india. they put it out their agreements a little bit further out. that's why president trump thinks it's a bad deal for the

united states. >> we're talking about climate change on this saturday morning as part of our alaska weekend here on the c-span network. the c-span bus visited the last frontier state as part of our capital cities tour. the last time that we were in the state of alaska was 22 years ago with our bus. take a look at the image that we captured then of the mendenhall glacier. that was 22 years ago. when our bus returned this year, we took more video of that glacier and you can see it there now on your screen. the mendenhall glacier in alaska. stay tuned to the c-span networks over the weekend for all of our alaska coverage. you can go to www.c-span.org for more details. amy harder is here to talk about the impact of climate change on alaska and across the country as well. john in maryland, hi. go ahead. >> good morning. yeah, a couple of points here.

a couple of points. i am i'm not disputing that there is such a thing as climate change and global warming, whatever you want to call it. what i do take issue with is that it's primarily caused by manmade activity. there are charts that you there are charts that you can find that show the change in global temperatures that follow the change in the sun's radiation activity, ie, sun spot activity and they correlate very, very closely. another point, when temperatures do warm that, actually causes more co2 to evaporate from the oceans. oceans so. point so point no. 3, the main greenhouse gas is

actually water vapor. so i think the focus is misplaced that we're hearing today. >> let's take those points, john. >> well, the caller's comments remind me of a call i had a few weeks ago with the headline why climate change is the easiest news to fake. in this era of fake news exacerbated under president trump, we've seen more fake news. i think one good example is when the president bragged about his record inauguration crowd size. it was very easy to show viewers that that was actually not accurate because you saw a crowd size from another inauguration with a larger crowd. with climate change it's so much more difficult than that. there are charts out there that can show a conclusion that's actually not scientifically based, but for most people they aren't going to spend their time learning about climate science. it's complicated and not very sexy. so it's easy to manipulate data

to come to your own conclusion. that it is easy to manipulate data a to the ncaller's point about human activity not being the primary cause, i constantly go back to this idea that the u.s. military, the u.s. government, the united nations, every country in the world all agree that human activity is the primary cause of the earth's temperature going up over the last century. now all of those people could be wrong, but i tend to think that they're not. it's a fact that consensus exists. that's what i go back to as a reporter. >> we'll go to texas, matt watching there. matt, good morning. >> good morning. great discussion. i want to encourage everybody and i want to know if this axios reporter is familiar with katherine haho, at texas tech university in the panhandle and one of the things that really makes me impressed with her,

she doesn't just use the numbers that nasa uses and 97% of climate scientists have used, but her husband owns a church and she makes the argument -- she just came out with a book that talks about this is our planet. whether you believe in god or not, especially those evangelicals who still want to deny that climate change is ream, that this is our planet and we have no other place to go. can't go to mars. we can't go to the moon. so if we don't take care of our planet the way it is and if we continue to ignore the data and all the warnings of stronger hurricanes and stronger tornadoes and longer wildfire seasons and melting glaciers, that it's going to be too late. so i just wanted to know if the axios reporter was familiar with dr. katherine haho. >> yeah. thanks for your call. i'm a little bit familiar with her work. thank you for bringing her up. there's two points i would like

to say. one, the religious side of this debate is actually quite compelling. putting aside the fact i don't like to use the word believe. nobody believes in climate change. they acknowledge climate change, but, for example, pope francis has increasingly gotten involved in this debate. in 2015 he did his cyclical on protecting the environment and climate change. just a few weeks ago axios has a scoop about the pope was convening with big oil companies, exxon and bp, to talk about a shared path forward on climate change and he's continuing those dialogues. i think that's really important and i do think the religious institutions are going to play an important role in this debate. the second point is about this idea of risk. now about a decade ago before the last decade as an earlier caller pointed out, republicans did generally acknowledge climate change and purported to have solutions to address the

issue. mitt romney, the 2012 presidential candidate for the republican party, when he was governor of massachusetts, he'd like to talk about how he had a no regret policy on climate change. so even if he wasn't completely on board with a lot of the predictions that the scientists were saying, there's still a pretty good chance something could be bad. so it's all about risk management. so i think that's a lot of what some of the republicans who acknowledge climate change such as senator lisa murkowski, a republican from alaska, they talk about how there's a lot of risk and any prudent person would want to protect against those risks. >> we'll go to louisiana, zachary. zachary, good morning to you. >> good morning to you all as well. as far as climate change goes, just briefly, a political effect. you hear a lot of talk from the gop how they want to disavow climate change or how they don't even acknowledge it due to the fact they believe if they just stop the coal mining

and reduce the coal mining, a lot of people will lose their jobs. i honestly feel if you took some of the profit that those coal mining companies made and invest that in i guess you'd say training in greener energy, these people could still keep their jobs and i think a lot of times people just use the excuse that there would be job loss to kind after void paying attention to climate change, but i -- kind of avoid paying attention to climate change, but i do think it will affect the planet, not just the country. >> what about the energy sector in it? >> where is the majority on climate change? what are they doing? >> my very first caller for axios last year, the headline was why corporate america isn't backing trump on climate change. that was to show this deepening happening in corporate america. you have the apples and facebooks supporting climate change since they existed, but now we're getting big oil companies and even some big

coal companies, peabody energy and other big coal companies acknowledging climate change is real and trying to at least provide some sort of lip service to try to be part of the solution. and i think that's because they see the writing on the wall. the paris agreement, whether you think climate change is real or not or whether or not trump is pulling out, it's moving ahead. so these publicly traded companies i think is an important point because there's pressure from investors, they're seeing they want to have a future for themselves. coal companies want to survive in 50 to 100 years. they're trying to be at the table. i think privately held companies, it's a different story. murray energy is the u.s.' largest privately held coal company and its ceo bob murray is a close outside advisor of president trump. he is an avid denier of climate change. he thinks that if all the coal plants retired that are slated to in the u.s., there will be massive blackouts and that's not accurate, but he's coming

from a perspective of wanting to protect his company and from appalachia, which is a conservative part of the u.s. i think you're seeing a lot of support from companies, but even putting aside climate change and tougher environmental regulations, natural gas which we've seen a boon in the u.s. over the last decade, that's actually what's killing most coal jobs and coal power plants. so just this last week the trump administration issued a report on helping retraining workers. i did a controlled search for how much coal was part of their plan and there wasn't that much. they only mentioned it a couple of times and that's unfortunate because whatever you think about climate change, coal jobs are going away. so those people should have help from the government about trying to find new jobs. >> we'll go to andrew in illinois. andrew, your question or comment? >> hello? >> you're on the air, andrew.

>> hi, greta and amy. what is the effect of climate change on permafrost in alaska? i know a lot of structures are built on it. how is it affecting structures? >> the softening of the permafrost is one of the top ways that climate change is impacting alaska. it's one of the examples of how just like diabetes, it makes a whole lot of other things worse. the permafrost melting is having an impact on the trees, for example, because the permafrost melts and the trees sway back and forth. that's having impact on the communities that use that area as their livelihood and that's one of the top concerns of people who live in alaska. >> richard is in austin, texas. richard, good morning to you. >> good morning. in '66 i was drafted in the air force and assigned to the awax program. i stood on the planes and we

were recording daily all the weather temperatures all around us and we got that data from the'60s. we've got all the other scientific data. what i see as the problem is in '87 when ronald reagan said you could lie on television and get paid for it. he vetoed the telecommunication act twice. in georgia he vetoed it, aligned the news media to allow the koch brothers and other companies to pay people to come on national television and lie to the public. that's what's the problem is i have to say is i'm watching the data show that three times more likely harvey hit the gulf coast. i'm watching the data that i'm seeing that under barack obama the cars that had pollution

were taken off the market and off the streets and quit polluting and we didn't have a single hurricane or tropical storm hit the southern coast until after donald trump took over and you allowed them to start polluting the air by these perverts from up here in oklahoma that sat there and spy cabinets for the office because they were so criminally minded that they had to protect themselves from the public. >> okay. amy harder. >> yeah. well, i think the caller is bringing together a lot of different issues that are coming to a head under the trump administration. i think this idea of what type of news to trust is a really big one. i was just reading a new study posted on pointer about how people trust news sources more if they don't know where it comes from which as a reporter is very demoralizing. it's like you wouldn't eat salad if you just saw it on the

street and didn't know where it came from, but suddenly that's what people do with their news information. so i think that's a really important question and something that as a reporter i am mindful of when i report on this very polarized issue. on the part about storms and when they land and whether it's under obama or trump, i mean it's just sort of luck of the draw. i mean the oil and natural gas boom happened on obama's watch, but obama wasn't exactly cheerleading it most of the time. just like the economy has been improving under trump even though a lot of why it was improving is because of the actions that president obama took. so that's just politics as usual. >> a couple tweets for you. john in north carolina. two false things working americans don't obsess over, russia interference and manmade climate. >> i think he makes a great point. i acknowledge myself that i cover an issue most people don't think about. so how can i report on it in a

way that people can relate to? so that's oftentimes -- i write stories about climate change when there's an extreme weather happening such as the hurricane harvey that occurred and trying to seize moments like that. ut. i do think, we in th i do think we in the media need to be a little humble about what readers and viewers care about. i think we get in a little bubble in washington d.c. and end up talking to ourselves. so i'm constantly reminding myself that that's not who our audience is. our audience serve out in the world. i live on a cattle ranch in eastern washington and we're focusing on a lot of different things than russia and climate change. so i think he makes some good point. >> barbara on twitter says please point out other countries are building up alternative fuels faster than we are, including china. also note that cutting down forests releases co2. >> i think alternative fuels is another word i try to avoid.

just state what the fuel is because alternative implies that it will always be secondary to the primary fuel which i think in this case is fossil fuels, but i think 1 reason why you're seeing a somewhat softening on climate change from republicans is that because wind and solar are booming and becoming really clean. -- cheap. the midwest conservative states like iowa, there's wind turbines all over the place and those are in republican districts. so i do think it's true as the viewer points out that china is leading the clean energy front. i remember covering the china clean energy debate a decade ago and lawmakers were worried that the u.s. would lose their clean energy race to china. i think it's safe to say we've lost it. we're definitely behind and president trump's policies are not helping us to get closer. on that other point about the forests, i think that's a big concern as well. i focus most of my team on

fossil fuels because they're about 75% of human caused greenhouse gas emissions, but the other 1/4 largely is land use. so in brazil in particular forests are being cut down for agriculture and that's a big concern. so i think in order to reach the goals of cutting greenhouse gas emissions that the scientists say we need to, land use is going to be a huge part of that solution and land use is confusing. it's not as sexy. we think climate change and fossil fuel headlines don't get attention, land use is even worse in terms of attention for people. so i think there's a lot of challenges there as well. >> dave is next from new york. >> hi, dave. >> good morning. to continue on your land use, the united states tars over the state of delaware every year. so we create a heat sync that pulls in energy and radiates it back at night.

that helps keeping your temperatures high. we have over 300 million cars in america. the average puts out at least 4 tons of exhaust. i live in syracuse, new york, you know. you have sulfur dioxide coming out of that. when it rains, it goes into our water. our lakes are acidy because of that and lately it's not been a problem because we've been trying to stop that, but these are the things that need to be addressed and one more point is the united states needs to lead the way in alternative energy. those are the jobs of the future and we need to make an investment in this country and that's something we haven't done. >> all right, dave. >> yeah. your comment about the cars, trump administration will as soon as next week actually announce it's planning to roll back tougher fuel economy standards that the obama administration issued. that's a pretty controversial

move in part because even the auto companies themselves are not on board with the wholesale rollback. i did a column for axios actually saying that trump was right to redo those standards, but not to roll them back altogether and the reason why is because it sounds like the viewer is concerned about cars and their environmental footprint, but actually most americans are increasingly buying big cars. i think the breakdown between trucks and passenger cars is 60% to 40%. that shifts. it was 50/50 a few years ago. it's been a drastic shift to bigger vehicles over the last few years. i do think there's a little cognitive dissidence with a lot of americans who say they're concerned about climate change and the environment, but when they go to a dealership and buy a car, their concerns are safety, if they can put their bikes and gear in the back and, you know, if it's the kind of

big car they want. so climate change and environmental issues is not one of their top concerns. so i think you're seeing some competing interests there. >> go to port richie, florida, jeff. >> hi, c-span and your guest and hello, america. >> good morning. i have the idea >> i have a idea that will put $25 to $30 a month in every household -- that's 115 homes in the united states, $3 billion a month, $30 billion a year -- back into our economy nationwide and i know our climate change can't be stopped, but, america, you can slow it down. all you have to do is go to your fuse box. open the door. where it says hot water heater, turn it off. 15 minutes before you're going to take a shower, turn it on. 15 minutes after you're done, turn it off. when you get home at night,

there's still hot water to take your shower or dishes. that will put $30 billion a year back in the economy and it will slow the use of fuel in our power plants. >> jeff, where do you get that data? lants. host: ready you get that >> i've had my electric bill 50 bucks a month for over five years and i've been running my air conditioning. i still keep my hot water heater off, but i've checked it, and it's $30 a month steady. now after 7:00 at night when you do your wash and your dryer, your power is cheaper after 7:00 at night. just those two alone and i believe in nothing but solutions. i'm an independent. i have been since ross perot and i think the independent party should do nothing but working solutions. america, if you can do this now and work together, you'll see the change next month. >> i'm going to leave it there, jeff, sorry for abruptly cutting you off.

i didn't mean to do that. >> two points to that. to the first comment about how climate change can't be stopped but slowed, i definitely agree. i think there's too much focus particularly in washington on the binary to combat climate change. it's nothing we're ever going to fight and get over. you know, like when gay marriage was allowed at the supreme court, some gay marriage advocates resolved their group. that's never going to happen with climate change. so i think that's a very important point andone that should be emphasized and more to your point, i think it's very important to talk about what consumers can do with their energy use. i think it's unfortunate because most people are not nearly as informed about their electric bill as this caller is. i think there's increasingly awareness and attempts by some of the utility companies to empower their consumers with knowledge about what they can do. i think part of the problem is your electricity bill comes once a month.

i get mine by e-mail. it's automatically set up to pay. sometimes i don't even know at what my electricity bill is, whereas, you know, if i had a car, but i don't, but when i do drive a car and fill it up, i know exactly what the price of gasoline is. i think it's unfortunate there isn't as much awareness about what consumers can do. so i think hopefully that's something we'll be seeing more of. >> chris in silver spring, maryland. >> good morning. i just want to say to you ipc models have been way off. i mean they haven't been able to model the actual temperatures that have occurred and the glaciers have been receding 150 years. we know there's ice ages and all that stuff. climate change has been changing for billions of years and the atfw opponents seem to want to ignore climate change history and it's one thing, you know, about lying, al gore said the ice caps would be gone and obama promised we could have

our own doctor and all that stuff, but i just want to, you know, emphasize that, that they've ignored climate change history. the trump administration is opening the debate with climate change history, you know, because science is not the devil and thank you. >> i have two points to say on that. he raises an interesting point on uncertainty. i do think it's important that climate scientists, the vast majority whom do agree earth's temperature is going up over the last century, there is certainty in all science. so to paint this notion that the scientists settled and we need to do x, y and z and it will solve the problem, i think that's not fair to leaders who are viewers. members of my family question the science and that's okay, but to understand that even though there's uncertainty that doesn't mean there isn't this

scientific consensus that human activity is driving earth's temperature up. to the point on the ittc, a lot of acronyms, a government organization underneath the u.n., some of their models have proven wrong. some have proven to be more right. i think that's just inherent, a matter of science. mark your calendars for the climate nerds among us, the ittc is announcing october this year their next big update of all the science. i'll definitely be keeping a close eye on that. >> if you want to follow amy harder's reporting on that and all other things climate and energy, go to axios.com. follow her on twitter at axios or her personal twitter handle@amyharder. c-span's washington journal life every day with news and policy issues that compact you.

coming up thursday morning pennsylvania republican congressman glenn thompson and illinois democratic congressman raja krishnamorthy will discuss legislation that will advance career and technical education. be sure to watch c-span washington journal 7 eastern thursday morning. join the discussion. on thursday u.s. trade representative robert leit deputy sheriff huyser will speak about the trump -- leithaaser will speak about the trump administration's remarks and in the afternoon remarks from president trump in iowa speaking to voters and supporters in granite city. you can watch the president's comments live thursday at 3:40 p.m. eastern on c-span. sunday night on q and a constitutional lawyer david stewart on his book impeached,

the trial of president andrew johnson and the fight for lincoln's legacy. >> it's a scandal. the chapter on johnson, i won't speak beyond that. the chapter on johnson should be expunged from every library in the country. it focuses on a fellow named edmond ross who was credited with capturing the vote that saved johnson's tail and it calls ross' vote the most heroic moment in american history. i actually think it was bought that, his vote was purchased and saving johnson i think was not a heroic moment. >> david stewart, sunday night, 8 eastern on c-span's q and a. up next a look at access to mental healthcare programs under the 21st century cures act. we'll hear about what the health and human services department is doing to help