tomorrow, a preview of president obama's meeting with heads of several large banks. john taylor examines government efforts to help homeowners with their loans. a discussion about the rest of several americans in pakistan. one author talks about his book about putting medicare consumers in charge. that's on the "washington journal" on c-span. .

>> i admit that the co2 increase in the past 100 it years is a result of the industrial revolution. there is no question that the level of co2 has gone up to 380 parts per billion. once you get beyond that, this theory that somehow man-made co2 is causing the earth to warm and rapidly increasing rate, the day is actually beyond dispute does not show that. that is one of the problems that the climatologist who believe in global warming are having. they are getting more and more shrill in opposition to those of us to say wait a minute, we are open-minded but you have to show us the facts.

we are in a natural cycle. appears that the earth is in a slight cooling period for the next 30 to 50 years, and the dominant cause of that are the oceans, the atlantic and pacific or in a cooling period. the co2 concentrations going up this not seem to be doing what the ipcc committee is saying. >> why is the polar ice cap disappearing? where is this coming from, if not from man-made pollution? >> i am not impressed with vice president gore's credentials as a scientist. i am impressed with his credentials as a policymaker and as a politician, and i am impressed with his entrepreneurial skill to make money off climate change, but i

am not impressed with his academic credibility. a lot of what is in his movie turned out to be false in terms of the polar situation. there are more glaciers that are growing that are shrinking. the greenland ice cap that he has made such a big deal about has been shrinking for the last 6000 years as far as we can tell. if we have ice ending up on the polar cap i would say that is more natural variation than it is man-made co2. for one thing, they are not many people of around the north pole, so it is pretty hard to see how we could be causing it. >> congressman, your point of

view is shared by a vocal but small minority in congress and an even smaller minority on the world stage. i question to you is, we have not heard very much from house republicans on the issue of climate change since the house passed its climate change bill in summer. over the past week or so, you and other republican leaders in the house have really been bringing this issue back up and you have made it clear that you want to travel to copenhagen and send a message to the world that this is your point of view. i question is, who you expect to influence, and how you expect that to change the debate, especially here in washington since the climate bill has already passed the house? the arena in washington is

really the senate, and the fence sitters on the issue do not really seem to be questioning the science. they are concerned about how climate change or carbon reduction policy might affect their home state industry. it does not really seem like there is a question about the science in terms of who is going to influence the policies going forward. who you expect to persuade? >> let me go back to the premise of your question. i don't think our represent a small minority. the climate change bill barely passed committee barely passed the house. it passed the house by five votes. it is probably not going to get out of the senate. b. do an opinion poll and the country, there are more people that are skeptical that are true believers. the skeptics are growing not

shrinking. the so-called science is totally unsettled. i feel pretty comfortable that i speak for the majority as opposed to speaking for the minority. i think what has happened is the environmental activists have kind of gone unchallenged for the last 20 years. they talk to themselves at cocktail parties and at these conferences, and they come to be somewhat self righteous with anybody who tends to say show me the fax, please. i am a registered professional engineer. i don't practice it anymore, but i learned the engineering method and the scientific method in college. i practiced it in business before i got elected. i am as concerned about the environment as the so-called self-appointed environmental

protectionists, but i don't want to make economic policy in the u.s. congress based on a theory that has been unproven. i will stipulate that this is not the biggest problem facing mankind. it is not an immediate threat. it is probably not even a long- term threat and if you want to support something that reduces co2 levels in the united states by 83% in the next four years you better show me real facts. they cannot do it. these email said are now coming out from east anglia shows that people like professor michael mann, who is one of the leading proponents of global warming have been intentionally at least apparently intentionally the leading data, changing data falsifying data.

that is not scientific method. when i go to copenhagen, i will be part of speaker pelosi's cartel. she is the speaker of the house so i understand that officially they will be very much more supportive of the process. but i will have an ability to have a minority view in that group. i was at kyoto. i was a buenos aires. i was at the hague. what i am interested in is the truth. i am interested in getting the facts. i am interested in true honest research, and then will make some policy decisions. we certainly don't need to do that now, and it appears to me that the science that is real that is emerging is that this is

not something we need to do draconian things to our economy to combat. >> you mentioned a moment ago that you were not impressed with al gore. recently the association for the advancement of society put out a statement reaffirming the overwhelming view that we are seeing global warming. the world meteorological organization put out a statement that the last decade has been the hottest on record. regarding the emailed even casting aside the data from some are used similarly unimpressed with all those scientific credentials? >> i would just encourage you and your colleagues to really

look at the data. they are just as many datasets that showed temperature in local areas in the united states going down the last hundred figures as they are going up. -- the last 150 years. all the institutions you mentioned are credible. i am a supporter of research and funding in those institutions, but again, when you look at the mails, there are people in each of those institutions that are in this collective group that have apparently been engaged in a somewhat systematic effort to manipulate or change or delete date it that did not agree with their theory. now that is wrong. when you call into question the very data that people like myself need to depend upon, i can have a disagreement was a

congressman or vice-president gore but we all ought to agree on the data set. you cannot do that now. when you get into it, what is average temperature? some of the datasets are taking surface temperature. some of the datasets are taking temperature in the mid atmosphere and some are taking temperature data in the upper atmosphere. those the not agree. when the scientific community that believes in the theory begins to pick and choose which data set and which endpoints and how they come up with the definition of average if they are doing it in a way simply so that it supports the conclusion they have already arrived at, i think the public needs to know about that. when you say the last decade is the warmest on record, there

appeared to be very good data sets that said the temperature has gone down eight years in a row, and maybe as many as 12 years in a row. how do you reconcile that? i don't have the answer to that, but the answer is not to just assume that the alarmists are right and take these draconian steps that they want us to take. >> when the wmd report came out recently they made a couple of different points. they are looking at multiple datasets and peer review data not just the east anglia e- mail's. 2009 is likely to rank fifth in the warmest years on record. i am just a puzzled by how so many scientists across such a spectrum in your view could have all got it so catastrophically wrong. >> if they all believe in that theory and they are part of a group that it is in their

academic professional career to prove that theory right they can kind of brain wash themselves. i am not saying they have done that but i am saying that is a fair question. the more that comes out, the more relevant that question becomes. >> of a brainwashing americans? >> i think some of them have tried to. when you look at some of these e-mails and they say that so and so has apparently gone over to the dark side and we may have to get him removed in his current position because he is not with us anymore, i think that is troublesome. the true÷ you put your theory out there and you burn your data out there and open, transparent fashion, and

have people either try to prove it wrong or replicated and prove it right. that has not happened in the climate issue. the ipcc models are all developed by the same people, and they all have the same basic assumptions. and they have all been wrong. they keep predicting temperatures going up and up, in an escalating fashion, and that simply has not happened. at some points in time, you either have to change it theory and admit it is raw, or just admit it is not a scientific theory it is some sort of ideology. >> you talk about the ipcc scientists and as you are aware, that is a panel of about 2000 scientists and experts representing different governments and institutions from around the world. generally, many of them are

funded by scientific and academic institutions. >> primarily by government. >> but bringing to bear a wide variety of different perspectives to the scientific data they are pursuing, and the head of the ipcc said this past week in copenhagen that essentially that group as a whole based on many years of gathering and analyzing data does not feel that its conclusions have been in any way undermined by the males of the british institute. it does appear that in copenhagen, where there are many debates taking place over how to come up with a policy to curb co2 emissions, and those are very feisty debates and we see a lot of dispute over what the policies look like, it does not seem that any of the major

players are disputing the science. it is not seen that that is really in the room as part of the debate. you are calling on the united states and the rest of the world to essentially stop the process of making this policy. again, how realistic is it that you don't a copenhagen and have leverage with that point of view? -- that you would go to copenhagen and have leverage with that point of view? >> i am part of the minority in terms of representation in congress ought -- right now but i have a voice, and i have probably conducted more hearings on climate than most members of congress, more so than anybody in the current congress. i think i have an open mind. again, i want an environment that is as benign and supportive

of mankind as it is possible to be, but i also want a modern lifestyle, to have hot water in the morning and air conditioning in the summer in texas, and i can hop in a private vehicle and take my family or myself or i want to in a convenient, comfortable way. i do not want to go back to the 1870's were my great parents -- great-grandparents' lived on a common form in texas with no running water and no electricity, and their power source was their own muscles or animal power. i do not want to do that. and 83% reduction from the 2000 baseline of co2 emissions in the united states, it could not burn fossil fuels in the u.s. in the year 2015. it cannot be done. so i am not going to accept at face the idea some of the scientific plans until they are proven. if these ipcc models are as

great as they say they are, open them up. show us the data sets. there is one email were one of these guys is deathly afraid that he will be asked to show the parameters of his model. if you are very confident that you are absolutely right and your dad is right, make it public. what will they do that? dr. mann at penn state has yet to make his data public. why not? what is he hiding? why is he talking about the leading things? why are they saying we are born to subvert the freedom of information act? make it open and transparent. when you talk about thousands of

scientists most of those are not original creative thinkers. they are implemented. their facilitators. there are only 50-100 in the world that are at the top tier and more and more is appearing that they have engaged in either a conscious effort to withhold the truth from the world, or maybe they have just decided without realizing it that they have become so ideologically committed that they have lost track of the true scientific method. i don't know, but it is something that really needs to be investigated, and i do not make any apologies for trying to get that investigation started.

>> bringing his back to capitol hill for a moment, have you spoken with any members of the house who voted for the climate bill when it came before the chamber in june who, based on the allegations you and others have raised about the e-mail's, may be reset -- reconsidering their support for the climate change bill? >> that is primarily based on the reaction they got in their district when they went home. i have not had a direct conversation since the email scandal broke a week ago. i would think that would make more members has sent, but i have not had a direct conversation with anybody about that who voted for the bill. i have asked congressman markey to join me in trying to get a joint effort to get whatever the data is, let's make sure we agree on the data before we have

arguments over the policy implications of that data. i have had that conversation with chairman markey. >> in terms of action on capitol hill and congressman markey did say last week that he is planning to hold hearings investigating the details of these e-mail's. in terms of other actions on capitol hill, i am wondering you and some of your colleagues have also been very unhappy about the epa findings this past week essentially determining that co2 is a hazardous pollutant and the federal government has the right to be able to regulate co2 with or without action from congress. i am wondering if you are having discussions with your colleagues about taking legislative action

to veto a repeal or undercut that decision. >> if for the chairman of the committee, i would be doing that, but as the ranking member, i do not have the votes to make it happen. i think the epa conducted faulty almost burtless endangerment protocol -- almost superfluous endangerment protocol. it is laughable. the group within the epa is supposed to serve as something of a watchdog and fact checker. his executive summary, he says there are 89 reasons that it falls on its face. if anyone of these reasons is right, he was not allowed to put that in the record. he was told to shut up and stop working on it.

that is not proper procedure. i was here when the clean air act amendments were passed in the early 1990's. we were very clear in that legislation that we were regulating certain criteria pollutants'. we talked about co2 and decided that was not something that should be covered by the clean air act. it is not designed to. the limits in the clean air act did not apply to co2. co2 is odorless, colorless tasteless. it is not a threat to human health in terms of being exposed to it. we created as we talk back and forth. -- we create it as we got back and forth. as you go beyond that, on a net basis there is ample evidence

that warming generically however it is called, is a net benefit to mankind. i think the first serious lawsuit brought against it, it will fall on its face. >> sarah palin has recently been speaking more to these issues. specifically, she had an op-ed in "the washington post" and said the president should boycott the climate talks. what effect do you think she will be having on this case? >> i like sarah palin as a person and respect her as a former governor and republican leader. i would disagree with her. i think the president has every right to go to copenhagen. he has made environmentalism a part of his agenda. i have no problem with that. i would hope that president obama is open-minded enough to admit that we might need to take a step back or at least take a timeout while we checked the facts, so to speak.

but the united states is a world leader. the president is the leader of the united states. i am appreciative that he is going to copenhagen. i am glad that speaker pelosi is going to copenhagen. i disagree with their policies, but i agree that the u.s. needs to be engaged. i just hope we are engaged in a fashion that does not break our economy and end up doing things it does not help the environment. >> why are you so skeptical? >> because i am so -- because i am an engineer, and i do not believe the facts prove the case. there are so many facts that go the other way. one of them is that co2 is such a trace gas and the dominant greenhouse gas is water vapor. even the climatologists who thinks the 02 -- who think co2

is a major factor admit that the largest factor in controlling temperature is water vapor and cloud formation in the atmosphere. the ipcc models use plug in variables for clouds because they cannot model clouds. so they cook the books when they determine the outcome they want and then put in the cloud preminger -- parameter to give them the outcome they want. >> congressman joe barton from texas, thank you for joining us. >> always an honor. >> we continue our conversation. it will be in copenhagen this week. what is the story line you will be tracking? >> i will be focusing very closely on one pivotal player in all the talks, and that is the u.s. congress. everyone will be looking to the u.s. to see what they will be

promising. that will happen in president obama's speech. he will make a commitment that the u.s. will cut greenhouse gas emissions, that it will contribute to global fund several billion dollars to help poor nations adapt to clam -- to climate change. i think the rest of the world understands that none of that can come to pass unless it can really move through and past the u.s. congress, and specifically the senate. i think a lot of other countries will be uncomfortable signing on to any kind of global agreement unless they think that the u.s. congress will pass something along those lines. members of congress who will be there will be uncomfortable about proceeding with a bill unless something comes out of copenhagen. i will really be watching to see how much these guys really believe the others are going to

follow through. that will have a lot to do with the success or failure of whatever agreement they come up with. >> congressman martin was skeptical of anything passing the senate, but there was some movement last week among three senators. what happened? >> these three have been working together to try to create a compromise bill that can attract the all-important 60 votes in the senate. there is a general recognition that the legislation could not reach that threshold. what they did was released a broadly worded framework of their plans. it included one engine piece of information, they are endorsing 2020 greenhouse gas emissions cut of 17%. the same thing the house endorsed, however that is several percentage points lower than what had been in the other senate climate bill.

that will have to meet concerns from both parties that a 20% cut by 2020 is going to be too heavy a lift. one thing to watch is how they put some meat on the bones of that proposal. they mentioned that there needs to be protection for u.s. industries. that is a widely shared view. if there are countries that do not take steps to curb emissions, -- when asked if they are endorsing the idea of a carbon tarot, they said they are not there yet. that gives us something to watch. over the summer the president expressed skepticism of the idea of a carbon tear off -- a offtariff. if i had to look into a crystal