collaboration, is what we need more of in washington. it has been the theme of my campaign. as i travel around the state, it has been responsible for the energy and excitement we see. we had 200 people in the hot sun waiting for us when we got here, just to say we are ready for real change, for the kind of civility you want to bring to washington. and it is responsible for the 50,000 folks who have given time or resources to the campaign, and at the heart of taking on issues we can deal with with a practical and pragmatic sensibility. protecting and preserving our national defense. comprehensive immigration reform. making sure we are investing in the right things, smart things like infrastructure and our kids, education. david and i have different real world experiences. i have experiences about lifting people up to the last 26 years, growing organizations and

getting things done for the people of georgia in a collaborative way, a proven way of working across party lines. i think that is what we need more of. i don't think we need more prosecutors. we need more problem solvers. i think we need more collaboration and less conflict, and that is what i pledge to bring. i have been telling people all over the state i am interested in carrying forward the georgia values -- wisdom, justice, and moderation. i invite you to join me in this. thank you. [applause] >> thank you very much. now, the closing statement from david perdue. >> thank you, john, and thank you for hosting me today. our politicians have created a full-blown crisis in america. i think it will take somebody from the outside with the right experience to make a difference.

i believe that in this race we should be talking about issues and priorities that address the crisis. americans always do well dealing with crisis. i have been very clear about my priorities throughout this entire campaign. i believe we really have to get serious about stopping obamacare. i think we have to get serious about stopping this outrageous spending and rein in out-of-control expenditures. third thing, we have got to grow our economy and create jobs. that happens by reforming our tax structure, reducing regulations, and unlocking our energy resources. the fourth thing, we need to secure our borders and create an immigration system that makes sense in a free society that has the rule of law. i believe that this race is very simple. the decision in this race. if you like what's going on in washington, both for my opponent.

because she knows she will be nothing more than a proxy for harry reid and barack obama, nothing will change. but if you are as outraged as i am by the size and scope of his government, by the arrogant policies that are failing this administration, and the sheer magnitude of the debt they are piling on the backs of our kids and grandkids, then stand with me and let's take our country back. together, we can bring america back to a position of strength and prosperity. thank you again for having us today. i look forward to future conversations. thank you very much. [applause] >> thank you to both of you for the stimulating exchange of ideas in this forum. i am sure this will not be the last time the two of you are on stage together as the campaign continues to build momentum heading toward election day in november.

thank you for being here. thank you for your attention. good to be with you. thank you. [applause] >> thanks. very nice job. >> hi i'm greta. this week on "washington journal," we will be focusing on president lyndon johnson's vision for a society and its impact today. join the conversation by calling or sending an e-mail. you can also send us a tweet. and join the conversation on facebook.com/c-span. former arkansas governor mike huckabee will discuss education standards at a news conference tomorrow. it's hosted by the national hispanic christian leadership conference. this comes after education polls this week show a drop in public

support for common core educational standards. live coverage at 10:30 a.m. on c-span and a halfxt two hours, a look at the debate over climate change. warmingwo global skeptics altering their view at a recent conference in las vegas. in a senate environment hearing with a former epa administrators talking about the dangers of climate change in the government response. the weather channel cofounder called global warming the greatest scam in history while speaking at a recent climate change conference in las vegas. his opinion was echoed by an ecologist patrick moore, who spoke against the idf human activity being tied to extreme weather events. this is a little over one hour. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014]

[captioning performed by national captioning institute] >> last evening, there was talk and people bring up the left on the right than do liberals and conservatives. i wanted to say from my own heart and say that, during the course of this debate, i have run across and made friends with, shared opinions with folks on all sides of the political spectrum. there are so-called skeptics who are liberals, who are socialists, you name it, are on the political spectrum. there are so-called alarmists who are generally conservative on other issues, whatever. alarmists who are generally conservative on other issues, whatever. my personal opinion that come up or you find more conservatives being skeptics, is because the prescriptions being advocated involved big government, more money and power to government, infringing upon people's rights to choose. so we will have an initial skepticism.

justified. let's make sure we are destroying the planet before we start destroying our economy and our way of living. we certainly respect and welcome all perspectives and that should be the case on all sides of the debate. it is not just left and right. it is interesting how so many folks that are global warming skeptics come from environmental activist brack grounds -- background. i consider myself an environmentalist. i do travel quite a bit and every chance i get, when i travel, i want to go out. i want to see the lay of the land. i want to go hiking through the forest. i want to experience the beauty we have in this country and make sure we are good stewards of it.

however, it does not mean we will just jump on board for every asserted environmental crisis. like i mentioned earlier, we want to see the proof in the pudding before we jump on board. it takes courage if you are concerned about the environment to critically examine some of the assertions, some of the empire mental activist assertions. sometimes you -- the environmental activist assertions. i am going to stand up for the truth. i am proud and honored to introduce a man who has done that throughout his life and continues today. dr. patrick moore has been a leader in the international environmental field for over 30 years. he is a founding member of greenpeace and served for nine in greenpeace canada, seven years of director greenpeace international. as the leader of many campaigns, dr. moore was a driving force, shaping policy and direction

while greenpeace became the largest environmental activist organization. , he has worked on consensusbuilding. as chair of the sustainable for theet committee, he leads process of developing the principles of sustainable for street which have been advocated by a majority of the industry. it is my pleasure to introduce to you dr. patrick moore. [applause] >> thank you. good morning everyone. thank you for inviting me here to give my opinion on the subject of climate change. this was my home for my first 14 years, a small logging camp on the northwest tip of an hoover island on the rainforest by

the pacific. i did not know how lucky i was. i was sent off to vancouver for theding school and then to university of british columbia to study life sciences. in 1960, before the world was known to the general public, i discover the science of ecology, how all things are interrelated and how people are related to them. heightmid-1960's, at the of the vietnam war, the height of the cold war, and the threat of all-out nuclear war and the growing concern for the environment, i was transformed into a radical environmental activist. [laughter] i can't seem to get it to go that way anymore. a churchyself in basement with a like-minded

group planning a protest voyage against u.s. hydrogen bomb testing in alaska. we proved that is somewhat ragtag group could sail an old halibut boat across the pacific, help galvanize of the composition, and change the course of history. that turned out to be the last hydrogen bond the united states ever detonated. president nixon canceled the remaining test in the series due to the overwhelming opposition we had spearheaded. on our way back from alaska, we were welcomed into the big house near my northern vancouver island home where they made us brothers of the tribe. this began for greenpeace the position of the warriors of the rainbow. it is after a cree legend that says, one day, when the birds are poisoned, people of the world will join together to save the people of europe.

we named our ship the rainbow warrior and i spent the next 15 years on the front lines of the movement around the world. next, we took on french nuclear testing in the south pacific. detonatingstill hydrogen atomic bombs in the air in the 1970's, sending radiation around the world. it took some years to drive these nuclear tests underground. french as 1985, commandos bombed and sank to the rainbow warrior killing our photographer. 1970's,ck again to the here i am driving a small rubber boat into the first encounter with these soviet factory whaling fleet in the north pacific in 1975. we confronted the whalers, putting ourselves in front of their happens -- their harpoons to protect the fleeing whales. that got us on television, bringing save the whales to everyone's living room for the first time.

just four years later, whaling was banned in the north pacific. here i am sitting on a baby seal off the coast of newfoundland to protect it from the hunters' clubs. i was arrested and hauled off to jail. the seal was clogged and skinned. but this picture was in newspapers all around the world the next morning. this eventually brought changes to the way canada manages its seal herds. by the mid-1980's, we had drawn from a church basement to a group of 100 million a year coming in and in 120 countries around the world. for me, it was time to make a change. i had been against at least three or four things every day of my life for 15 years. i decided it was time to figure out what i was in favor of for a change. i made the transition from the politics of confrontation, which is basically about telling people what they should stop doing, to the politics of trying

to find consensus on what we should do instead. there is no escaping the fact that 7 billion people wake up every morning on this planet with real needs for food, energy, and materials. sustainability, which for me was the next logical step after environmental activism, is partly about continuing to provide for those needs. maybe even getting a little more food and energy for people in the developing world while at the same time consolation revving to reduce the negative impact caused by getting the food, energy and material from the earth's environment. i could go on forever but that is my story from the early years. [applause] why did i leave greenpeace. had ae started, we humanitarian mission to stop nuclear war. by the time i left 15 years later, greenpeace had drifted

into a position along with the rest of the movement as eric rising humans as the anime is of the earth and that was not for me -- of characterizing humans as the enemy of the earth and that was not for me. van chlorine worldwide became one of the slogans. i was trying to convince them that chlorine was one of the most important moments for public health and medicine. 75% of our synthetic pharmaceuticals are chlorine-based chemistry. anyway, i had to leave because of that. look at them today in the philippines with a mask on in a parade that could help 2 million kids dying each year and they are associated with the death

. that is where greenpeace went and i didn't want to go there. about just tell you forests for one second because it is the most important thing and it has a lot to do with climate. most important renewable energy in the world and sequester carbon in the greenpeace is against four straight. they are against the most important renewable resource in the world. we should be growing more trees and using more would. -- more wood. [applause] bey activists say we should cutting fewer trees and using less would. here is what the ipc says. they are actually correct on this except it takes them 38 bureaucratic words to say it. in the long term, rent is

maintained at maintaining our foreign carbon stock -- that is what they called trees -- [laughter] will generate the largest sustained mitigation benefit. that means the best thing to do. , they areords saying use trees instead of using steel and concrete wherever you can and you will be using something renewable. sayspeace says the ip ct the easiest and cheapest way to -- to prevent climate change is to stop cutting trees. that is not true. ipct is just saying grow more trees, use more words. six words. [laughter] [applause] -- sorry, howpcc

did i get there? read the second one worse. extremely likely -- does it make it more likely to put the word extremely in front of it? they say yes. that means 99% because very likely is 90%. so they put percent along with adjectives to go with likely. what it turns out is that this is not a scientific word at all, likely. report, theypcc say it is an expert judgment. that is not a fact. that is an opinion. this was an opinion. so let them have their opinion. but they should make it clear that it is an opinion. sorry, back up your.

-- back up here. whoa. ok, start over again. went too far back. this is not even an internationalist so so much for your consensus. i put my faith in the late michael creighton who said i am certain there is too much urgency in the world. [laughter] [applause] that you arey certain you are right when someone in authority says that it is extremely likely. that is not certainty. i will show you what i always show people.

. you honestly know this. . first, yes, co2 is increasing in the global atmosphere. but let's look at the last billion years of global climate change. i chose the most recent billion years. there is 3 billion more years before this. but we know pretty clear that this is what has happened over the last elliott. it -- last of billion. it has generally been warmer than it is today. there have been 4.5 ice ages during this period of time where temperature plummets on average down to 12 degrees, even 10 degrees celsius global average. today, it is 14.5 degrees celsius. we are in an ice age. that is why both polls are covered in ice. people don't understand that we are in an ice age now. this is an interlace your -- interglacial period. it is generally a cold time in

terms of the earth's history. why are there 300 million people in the united states and only 30 million people in canada? one word. cold. [laughter] sometimes i think that is why they let us have it. [laughter] you saw this graph yesterday in a different format. it is the most recent. 600 million years since modern life emerged during the cambrian explosion. it shows is laid that there is no lockstep correlation between co2 and global temperatures. at times, they seem to be moving in similar direction. there seems to be correlations sometimes, but as you know, correlation does not prove causation. and you need to see more of a lockstep relationship. temperatures bounded on the top and the bottom probably got a lot of feedback forces that are creating a maximum and minimum

and we are in one of those minimums right now. it shows right there, for example. now it is 14.5. co2 is about 400. the average over the last 600 million years has been around 2000, which coincidentally, is the optimum co2 level for plant growth. four to five times higher than it is today. that is why greenhouse growers quickly put the exhaust from their gas and wood haters into the greenhouse. so we can look forward to increase in productivity in agriculture from increased co2. this to me is the grass. if you accept this is true, which is probably something like true because it has been warming for the last hundred years or says we have been the dominant cause since the mid-20th century. that is 1950. in other words, they do not ascribe the rise in temperature

between 1910 and 1940 to human caused emissions because we want him getting much back then. they only say it is the part between 1970 and the year 2000 that was caused by humans. rise int caused the temperature between 1910 and 1940? it is identical induration and size. .4 degrees over four years. they are both the same. it is not logical to be the secondikely that one is caused by us and the first one in is caused by something else. [laughter] this to me demonstrates the logical fallacy in explaining that we are the dominant cause for global warming. [applause] there has been no increase in

global temperature for 10 months and running. the temperature has declined by a significant amount. the polar vortex had something to do with this, i think. i forgot, that was warming. [laughter] that's right. i shouldn't make that mistake again. and here of course is the arctic sea ice that right now is nearly a million square bloggers below its average since 1979 when we first started measuring it from a satellite. we have no idea what the extent of arctic sea ice was before then. but somehow someone got through their with a wooden boat and 1904. who knows what it was like back then during the heat wave of the 1930's into the 1940's.

oceans the southern where, if you take the difference between the antarctic and the art that, there is now nearly one million square miles more sea ice than the average since we started measuring it in 1979. this is the sum total of our knowledge of sea ice. supposedly this is also due to global warming whereas the -- the decreasing extent is also due to global warming. so i get it. everything is due to global warming. [laughter] [applause] our children are not taught logic. they are not taught what the scientific method is. carbon isre told that soot.

it has been a slow gradual rise. the pole melts a little more, too. this is tropical rain energy. al gore knows about this and he continues to say that it will be a devastation of the earth from message -- from massive hurricanes. no such things. right now today is the longest period we have known since the last category of three or category of four.

they say there is no evidence of an increase in extreme weather events related to the warming that has occurred. and al goreibben and the whole bunch of them perpetuate the idea that every extreme weather event is because of us. this is why we will never be able to predict the future of other than about three days out as john coleman who is coming up soon will probably tell you he knows. [laughter] it is because of clouds. importanthe most greenhouse gas and is the only in both liquids and gaseous phase. and they behave in completely different ways with regard to solar energy. clouds can reflect the sun back. they can hold the heat in depending on where they are and how they they are and what computer model can predict the

pattern of clouds in the world? it's impossible. that is why we will never be able to predict the future of climate and clouds are the wildcard and many people believe that, as the earth warms and more water evaporates off the seat, it will be cloud or he -- the sea, it will be cloudier and wetter and there will be negative feedback against the effects of co2 and that is as laws of the layup of the seas as the fry and help hypothesis that we keep getting from the alarmists. as a matter of fact, it is probably more plausible. co2 is the most important nutrient for all life on earth. please teach the children this. [applause] mating co2,ted in it was down to about 260 ppm. now it is at 400.

if it had gone down by the same amount as we have caused it to go up, plants would have started dying because plants start dying at 150 ppm. one of the reasons that co2 has fluctuated during the iglesia nation we have had in the last 2.5 million years is, because when plans start dying, they e-mail the co2 that -- they e-mail it the co2 that -- they emit the co2 that they hold. james lovelock was a pessimist about climate and said that humans are a rogue species. gia is onethat, if great organism, maybe we are doing her bidding. it's like carlin said.

the reason people came into existence is because the earth wants [indiscernible] the reason the bull came to existence is because the atmosphere wants a little more carbon dioxide for the plants. who knows? -- of world energy especially to people concerned about human-caused climate change, energy is the flipside of the coin and durable energy policies what they want to get their hands on, as if there is some kind of guile you can turn somewhere that is going to change the climate. ofy want to stop this 88% energy produced by fossil fuels, especially the part where oil is involved where there are not really many substitutes because that is transportation, getting the food into the stores. is the mostc effective cause of affordable energy.

they are against it. about 85% of all the renewable energy in the world and they are against it even though it is reliable,, etc. cost-effective, etc. we buy enough flatscreen tvs that they can afford to build it without the world bank and they did. [laughter] it replaces 40 coal-fired power plants if you're worried about emissions from coal plants. it stops floods from killing nuns of people downstream. and it allows them to irrigate twice as much land. this is a sustainable development. [applause] get 60% of our energy from hydro. when the oil and coal and gas become scarce, this is what we will have to use.

there is no question of that in my mind. [applause] 21 countries producing 15%, this used nuclear food they want to dump in nevada is one of our most important future energy resources. the russians have two of them running on their caspian sea. they just sold two to china last year. but we've got lots of oil and oil and gas right now and it is cheaper than doing this so maybe it will take a while. but 300 years from now, all of the fission products in their pretty well will be decayed and then it will be just the good stuff left so it won't matter if it takes 300 years before we start using that. but there is 5000 years worth of nuclear energy in the 50 we years worth of waste, so-called, that we have produced. nuclear and hydro are the only

resources that can effectively replace fossil. here is a cost-effective use of solar energy. to heat water, especially in sunny places. this is the wind energy. countries.in rich things that will be left resting on the ground. here is what happens with wind energy. one day, you have 12,000 megawatts of energy. the next day, you have nothing. shut the schools, hospitals, office buildings? no, you started coal plant. as with -- this is what they are doing in germany.

in the united states, because gas is replacing coal in some emissions have gone down steadily for the last five years. without any massive government intervention. fossil fuel dilemma, then you should they say is powered by super efficient electric motors and the wind. as if the wind is powering the super efficient electric motor. here they are protesting a coal plant eating built on the shores of the netherlands with all the wood forms around it. and greenpeace says you should be like us. you should power yourself with the wind. don't build that coal plant. what is in the engine of that vote? two big diesel engines. if the wind is not blowing, they have to fire them up. r if it is

this is call sail assist, and those windmills are wind assist for the coal plants. when the wind is blowing. when it isn't, turn on the coal plant, just like greenpeace turns on their diesel engines. here's greenpeace protesting a russian oil rig with an oil-powered ship, saying we must ends our addiction to oil. [laughter] is this hypocrisy? i think so. now, let me just talk for a moment about something in my country that is being denigrated and demonized around the world, and that is the canadian oil fans. here's one of the upgraders there, which turns dirty oil off the sand. they are cleaning the sands in the world's largest natural oil spill. [laughter] when the rocky mountains heaved up, the oil that was in deep formations flowed out, out into the sands of the prairies, which is a former ocean bottom. and there it is near the surface now. but it's got to be cleaned up.

just like a gas station when a little fuel leaks out of the tanks underground and makes the oil in the dirt thing. it costs $1 million to clean one of those up. we're making a profit cleaning up the oil off the sand in canada. here's what oil sands mining in canada looks like. it's a dirty business. it's true. doesn't look too pretty when you open up the earth to get the sand out. but here's coal mining in the united states, which produces times as much co2 emissions as all of the oil sands in canada. and i know that they're targeting this down here, too. but that there looks like pretty good energy to me. here's a map of google earth showing the western half of canada, therefore, about half the arbor yal forest of canada. they are saying it's destroying the forest of canada. you can see it there barely. it's like a pimple on an

elephant. and there's edmonton, where you can see edmonton down there, too. when are they going to reclaim edmonton or las vegas, for example? when are they going to turn this back into a desert ecosystem? every square inch of zrubbed land must by law been put back to a native ecosystem, which this tailings pond which looked ugly when the operations were going on. once they finished, they turned it into a bison pasture run by the first nations indian people, who live nearby, getting $85 million a year from the oil sands in first nations contracts. this is all reclaimed mining land, and so is this. as an eek gist and environmentalist, this is good enough for me, and it should be good enough for everybody. [applause] dd thank you very much for listening to me this morning.

you can follow me on twitter @ecosenso.now. i have a campaign going on golden rice around the world and i think you'll find it of interest. i didn't have time to talk about it today. we're talking about all the environmental issues there on ecosense, climate change, g.m.o.'s, nuclear energy and all those topics. i think you'll find it interesting if you're into following tweets to come and join the conversation with me. again, thank you very much for listening to me this morning. [applause] oh, i just wanted to mention one more thing. john l. smith, if you are here, your "las vegas review-journal" article is garbage. thank you. [applause] thank you. thanks very much. i appreciate it.

>> my, what a wonderful talk. it was worth getting up this early from your short night's sleep after the crap tables, whatever. but the one thing you can take away from the talk more than anything else is "everything is due to global warming." and when dr. moore said that, i couldn't help but think of one of my favorite movies, "the acht law josie wales." there's a scene where clint eastwood is leading this entourage across the country and he's chewing on this big old chaw of tobacco. and approaching the party comes a snake oil salesman. he has a bright, white fancy suit on. as he comes across josie wales, he looks to the native american and says, this snake oil is especially good for curing those who can't hold their liquor. then he turns to a young man who's been wounded and says,

it's very good at cleaning out wounds and restoring health. and josie wales, chewing on his tobacco, says there's just about nothing it can't do, huh? it can do just about anything. he says, yes, sir, that it can. and josie spits all over his white suit. how is it on stains? [laughter] sometimes i feel like that snake oil salesman is even a bit more crediblen't alarmists who have been putting up the garbage of patrick moore just now. so thank you so much. one of the things that also just cracks me up is oftentimes i'll have folks, usually in the media, after i'll give a talk or when we're talking about the issue, and they'll say, but all the skeptics, they are so old, as if this is a horrible thing. and there are a couple of reasons it stands to reason, it makes sense. first of all, if you're a young professor sore yal candidate, if you're looking for tenure or

research dollars, it's like whack a mole. you stick up your head. wait, i.p.c.c. is wrong. bam, no funding for you. that's one reason why you'll see some of the younger folks just saying let me bide my time. i can points out some of the young scientists who don't have the courage to speak up, joe bastardi, jennifer, sebastian mooney, they're all here. but one thing that jumps out at me about this ageism -- how is it that folks who have been working in this field their entire lives, if you've put in 10, 20, 30, 40 years of experience, all of a sudden all that experience, not only is it worth nothing, it's a negative. it has nothing to do with age, it has to do with experience. you have some folks who i mentioned who have been working in the field for a long time. when you pull together that experience, it teals you something. joe bastardi, as he was mentioning the hurricanes in 38 and 44, he was mentioning in times past in, the early 20th

century in different phases, that wasn't just preparation for his talk. talk to him. he'll be reeling them off the top of his head. he knows his history. he has experience. he can put all these so-called alarms in proper context. that's why the folks who are skeptics look at this and say, wait a minute. we've come across this before. we came across this with the global cooling scare. we've come across this when temperatures were warming and we saw how it turned out. let's make sure we have all our facts straight. it's not so much age, it's experience and courage. now, i had the pleasure this morning of introducing to you a man who's been working in the weather industry for more than 60 years. he has seen it all. he knows the proper context of weather and climate events. john coleman began his career in 1953 at wcia in champaign, illinois, where he was a students at the university of illinois. he went on to work at stations in peoria, omaha, milwaukee and chicago before becoming the original weatherman on abc's

"good morning america." in the early 1980's coleman helped establish the weather channel, serving as c.e.o. and president during its first year of operation. he joined kusi in san diego 20 years ago and earlier this spring, after 60-plus years in the industry, announced he was finally stepping back a little bit to enjoy his private life. and just in case you think his recent retirement is slowing john down, just last month he made it to the cashier in a world series of poker official bracelet event. so you're my hero, john. my pleasure to introduce to you john coleman. [applause] >> oh, james, thank you very much. and hello, everybody. this is spectacular to be here with you today.

i want to begin first by asking up. nd diane bask to stand ladies and gentlemen, these are the people who make this event possible. these are my biggest heroes. stand up, diane. stand up, diane. she's not here? wherever she is -- she may be out at the reception desk. now, while i was sitting at the table having my breakfast here this morning, i was watching the live stream of this event on the internet on my cell phone. that's the way most of the world is watching video today. and i hope there are thousands and thousands of you watching this live stream. and i hope and pray that you will go to the heartland website and done nature to joe and -- donate to joe and his

organization for the hundreds of thousands of dollars that are putting on these global warming conferences and wait costs them. it is a spectacular achievement that they make it happen, but they can use support from people around the world to keep this battle going to correct this bad science. in this room here today with me are my heroes. these men and women who have stepped forward and put aside their professional status and not worried about who respects them or likes them, but stepped forward to say ladies and gentlemen, there is bad science today. this global warming thing that is so popular politically, so popular with the environmentalists, so popular with the politicians. this bad science must be corrected, and they have had what it takes, which is

incredible intestinal fortitude to step forward. and many of them are brilliant, as we just heard from patrick moore. and to these men and women, i tell you i am honored to stand before you today, and i greatly respect you. [applause] and i honor you. [applause] we have just been through the coldest winter in 30 years in the united states. [laughter] it snowed and it froze, and thousands of temperature records were set across our country. and i couldn't resist sending out this tweet to the democratic party and the sierra club and to all the rest. al gore, my friend, where the heck is your global warming?

today i am not going to talk about the science. patrick has done a beautiful job and we will have sessions hroughout the day, where great scientists with ph.d.'s give 'wonderful scientific presentation. but instead, i am going to concentrate as a journalist -- and i'm also a journalism graduate -- on my journalism investigation in which i determined that there is a story behind this case of science gone bad, a story that everybody needs to know and understand. how did we get into this awful spot today? and it begins with this man, the great roger revel. a great man, a great scientist, roger revelle received a ph.d. from the university of california at berkeley in orb nothing gravy. then he became the head -- in

ocean nothing gravy. then he served in the united states navy during world war ii and is the director of the scripps institute of ocean ography. he found a way to expand that organization by obtaining huge government contracts to investigate the impact on the atmosphere and the ocean of our atomic testing in the atols following world war ii. and this small organization blossomed into a large scientific organization of great significance. and then he came to a real problem in his life. what can he do next to keep this organization thriving? because the atomic tests had come to an end, the government funding was coming to an end. he needed to do something more. and that's when he hired this man, hans, from the university

of chicago, a man who was an expert on carbon and the atmosphere. and with him produced the seminal paper on global warming in 1957. and in this paper they looked at the increase and the atmospheric carbon dioxide caused by our burning of fossil fuels, coal and oil and gas, and they asked the question -- if this was having an impact on the climate of the world. well, think about that period in our lives. many of you are not old enough to remember, but i remember very well. our cities and small towns were all clogged in the winter with a smog that hung heavily over us and little particulates of carbon covered the walks and streets as our stokers burned dirty coal to heat us and get us through the winters. oh, my, we have done a wonder in cleaning up our atmosphere

since then. but during that time it was easy for people to say, oh, there must be something awful happening here. and that was it, that paper. revelle r in 1957 by and suess, that was the beginning of the global warming frenzy and that has launched what has continued today and what were attempting to battle. and it's david vs. goliath for us, as we fight this battle. but we'll keep fighting. well, what happened next for mr. revelle? he campaigned next to bring the new sity of california campus co-located with the scripps institute of oceanography in la jolla and succeeded and brought that campus there. it was a huge accomplishment for this great man. but then he suffered the

greatest failure in his life, because he thought that he would become the chancellor of that university. he thought he would seize that great organization. and instead, the politics interfered and another person was selected as chancellor. and here this great man was crushed. nd this is what happened next. he left scripps institute of oceanography and moved to boston and joined harvard university to start their organization for population studies. so there he was in boston starting something brand-new. but his work he had done at scripps on carbon was still very much on his mind, and he brought it up in great detail in the first class he taught there. do you know who his student

was? there he is, sitting in the front row of that classroom, al gore. suess had elle and begun they transferred to al gore, the son of a tobacco farmer and politician from tennessee. and al gore found a meaning for his life in that classroom. he was inspired by revelle, and he wrote a book, "earth and balance." and with that book, became elected to the united states senate. and there in the united states senate held hearings, where he brought scientists before the senate committees and amplified the cause of alarm from global warming and said this is what we must do to correct it. we must spend our federal dollars on research to find

ways to combat global warming. and as that money began to flow, the u.s. congress and al gore took charge of the entire scientific organization across this nation and its climatology research and focused it on global warming. and there in the senate of the united states al gore proudly stood up and proclaimed that roger revelle was his mentor and teacher, that he was the father of this global warming movement. and all of that was heard by this man, maurice strong, a former canadian oil executive, who is now a beaurocrat with the united nations at the headquarters in new york city. and he organized the first environmental conference of the u.n. in stockholm in 1972 based on what he had learned from al

gore, who based what he had learned on roger revelle. and there was born the intergovernmental panel on climate change. so it had all begun there with that one paper in 1957. it had all spread through that chance meeting of roger revelle and his young student, al gore, in boston, at harvard. and now it had taken over the united nations as well. and this was it. now we had a huge international global warming campaign underway. around the world science was focused on this great catastrophe unfolding because of man's use of fossil fuels. and there at their meetings, was it all scientists? oh, no, it was bureaucrats, politicians, environmentalists.

of people nsortium with agendas of one-world government led by taxation on the nations that burned fossil fuel to help third-world countries, and this was it, this was it. and the scientists were invited to international conferences at glamorous places around the world and they compiled these great reports and issued them and published them. and the entire focus was adopted by the press around the world and it became a great concern. and meanwhile, al gore is writing his second book, "an inconvenient truth." and you know what happened from that. that sci-fi movie. and there's al gore with his academy award. "an inconvenient truth."

best documentary 2007. and then al gore and the unipcc received the nobel prize and the global warming scare has peaked, all beginning with that one innocent paper. that frenzy has reached its peak. the movie is shown in schools throughout the world. and we have little chance to be heard. the media has totally adopted it. but what happens to this man who started it all? he gave up on harvard. he gave up on boston. concept that he the earth is overpopulated and we must worry about population growth. and that entire center was closed at harvard.

arevelle came back to his old hometown of san diego and accepted a professorship. and what did he do there? he wrote these letters to congressmen and senators. and what did the letters say? you can read them. look, folks, they say, we have perhaps become over-alarmed about global warming. we should give at least 20 years to study. we should be patient. we shouldn't take extreme measures today that will harm our civilization. don't wait, study, panic. the letter went out from roger revelle. his signature reached washington. a united states senator, congressman, receives the word from him. he said, i have started this global warming movement. i'm trying to stop the frenzy. and then he joined with fred

singer and wrote an article -- a paper that appeared in the new scientific magazine, "cost most." and what did that article say? what to do about global warming? look before you leap. and it concluded that it is time for the scientific community to stand back and have a longer study to make sure that they have the data to justify taking any extreme measures to battle global warming. he had taken a strong position, roger revelle had. what did al gore say at that point? he said revelle has gone senile. and he declared that the debate was over, and he still declares it today. and as his great mentor, he said he was senile. he wondered about that.

but i never got a chance to talk about revelle about it. a heart attack, and we lost him in 1991. and then a great debate raged. on the one side fred singer, who said revelle had changed his mind and was trying to tell us that global warming was not a great crisis. but the scripps institution of oceanography, the revelle family, the unippc, members of the u.s. senate and congress said no, no, revelle is the champion, he's the father of global warming. and singer, you have done a bad thing here. well, i was able to interview dr. singer about this controversy. and he joins us live from washington, d.c. dr. singer, what was roger revelle's view of carbon dioxide as a greenhouse gas hen you co-authored that

"cosmos" article back in 1990? >> he was really relaxed about it. he basically looked at this as a grand geophysical experiment. after he and his collaborators, like david keeling, found that co2 was in fact increasing in the atmosphere, he and his colleagues were wondering if it would have any impact on climate. he wasn't about to make any judgment on the matter until the data were in. of course, at that time, by 1990, we had about more than 10 years worth of satellite data, and the satellites didn't show any appreciable warming. and this is what actually set off my own thinking on the matter. i wondered what was going on. after all, carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas. it's increasing. there's no question about that. where is the warming? well, it turns out that the

atmosphere is much more complicated than the climate models believe, and the warms is offset probably by a kind of negative feedback that comes from clouds and water vapor in the atmosphere. >> are you saying that back in 1990 that revelle was somewhat regretful of the excitement that he had caused about global warming? > revelle at that time had written some letters to his congressmen and also to senator worth, telling them to calm down, not get excited about it, but wait and see what would happen to the climate. in other words, he was telling him don't assume that things are going to warm up just because of models say so. revelle actually was skeptical of climate models, much more so than i was. i was always more optimistic, hoping that they would improve

enough so they could really simulate what's going on in the atmosphere. revelle had not much faith in models. >> well, since that time many people have said that you were the one who manipulated revelle, that you kind of calmed him down or changed his feelings in the way you put that article together, that gore said he was a senile old man when you co-authored that paper, and that, therefore, you took your position on co2 and more or less assigned it to revelle, and they put a lot of blame on you. >> well, that's absolutely untrue. first of all, if you knew revelle, you would know that he was sharp to the very, very end and you could not change his mind. i mean, he knew what he was doing all the time. and furthermore, we have written proof. we have the letters he wrote to his congressmen and to his senator. we also have an interview in a magazine. so there's plenty of evidence

to show that he was quite independent-minded and that he didn't believe in global warming until data would show him of warming. >> that full interview can be seen on my website. but it's perfectly clear that singer was clear that there was a real change in heart in roger revelle, the man who had started the global warming movement. but at the scripps institute of oceanography, oh, no. it continued strongly there. and in fact, they established the first roger revelle award. and who got the roger revelle award? let me see if i can go back. i want this video to play. can you figure the video back there?

this was the tv coverage in 2009 of that award to al gore, who stood before the group at the scripps institute. >> former vice president al gore was honored tonight at the scripps substitution of oceanography. he was given an award in recognition of his environmental work. tom jordan is live in la jolla with more on that, tom? >> paul, al gore was the first ever recipients of the roger revelle prize. honored tonight for his work in environmental preservation. [applause] >> a rousing welcome for a man continuing his campaign on environmental awareness and protection. former vice president al gore, being honored for his efforts for the first ever roger revelle prize. >> i want to express my very deep and genuine gratitude for

this honor. >> this marks the 1 thunth birthday of roger revelle who >> and credits him for igniting his passion on the environment. >> as a former student, still a student, trying to learn, but still inspired by a great teacher, who was a great scientist, and a great man. >> his work back in the 1960's was at the time considered revolutionary. many scientists consider that work pathetic. >> we were told it was a short report saying climate change is an issue and the earth is heating up and therefore something needs to be done about that. >> gore was moved by his early

work and now considered at the forefront of the global movement. all from his work on the environment, he adds a new distinguished honor to that list. >> i'm deeply grateful. >> and tonight's celebration was part of three days celebrating the life of roger. he would have been 100 years old tomorrow. >> john believes there is no significant manmade global warming and travels the nation speaking on the topic. >> i got the opportunity for the first time to tell the story of roger and that global warming campaign on television. and now today, standing here before you, i wonder where would e be today if he were alive.

here in las vegas, sitting hero andeside my great joining this conference and probably receiving an award here or would he be hiding with al ore talking about respect, the deniers. and the tons and tones of carbons that we are emitting into the atmosphere. where would roger be today? i think i would be able to look down and say, doctor, we honor you. as i conclude my presentation, i would like to take just a moment

to speak to those probably not in this room, but those who are watching streaming, perhaps watching the rebroadcast of this on c-span or youtube, young people who love this earth and globalder if we who deny warming are destroying our planet. i want you to know, we all of us here today, honor and love this planet as much as you do. its water and its air are precious to us and preserving it is vital to us. and if we thought that our activity in having this magnificent civilization of cell phones and computers and smart tv's and jet airplanes and fasty cars, if we thought air

-- tioning and computer look something up on google, if we thought that was destroying our climate, we would stop. and when i speak about this and tell these young people about my love of earth, they say to me, ok, let's say you're right but there isn't any global warming crisis, but still shouldn't we protect our environment, get rid of fossil fuels and i say to them that day will come and i look forward to it as much as you. yes, but 30 years from now, it with scientific break-throughs. and if we took that $2. billion a year that we are raising

studying the impact on insects today and other silliness and put it in research to find new forms of mber try energy, it might not be 30 years but 15. look how much we have cleaned the atmosphere already with our reformulated gasoline, with our totally redone injection systems d catalytic converters relatively cleanly, we have come so far. support the scientists and we will all love planet earth together. thank you for letting me speak here today. thank you very much. [applause] thank you. thank you.

thank you. thank you. >> a group of former e.p.a. administrators testified before the senate in june about the dangers posed by climate change and the government's authority to reduce green house gas emissions. they said the science linking human activity to global warming indisputable. this portion of the hearing begins with senate environment sheldonttee chairman whitehouse, introducing the witnesses.

william riley worked to amend the clean air act to control acid rain. is from the university of santa barbara. hermaneph mason is the louisiana bankers association endowed professor of banking at louisiana state university and whartonellow at the school. .e'll begin with the honorable

sessions,ou, senator senator whitehouse and other subcommittee on convening this meeting on a matter of enormous importance for our future. after talking ago with one another, the former e.p.a. administrators sitting in front of you found we were convinced by the overwhelming of scientists that the earth was warming and that we humans were the only controllable contributor to this phenomenon. we all signed an op ed piece recommended that america get serious about reducing our contribution to changing the climate, american sitting back and accepting the avoidable consequences. if anything, new reports in the last several months have made the need to act even more urgent. it hard to believe that there's any question of that.

the international panel on climate change report validates in the strongest terms the science of client change and the projected impacts. the national climate assessment documents impacts occurring in this country right now. from the c. highlightsrporation the national security military readiness concerns due to climate change. have, as e.p.a.ed amy staters served four presidents over four decades. we have successfully wrestled with a variety of public health problems, alltal contentious, including severe airmobile and industrial pollution, widespread water unacceptable effects of pesticides like ddt. we've made progress. we've gut automobile emissions and greatly improved air quality

while the number of cars has doubled. the --e in layeray hole in the ozone under control. the same is true of client change. cases, the solutions to the problems did not result in the predicted economic and social calamity. scientific uncertainty are the inevitable industry resistance that nothing should be done unless we are willing to suffer the inaction.es of we believe there is legitimate scientific debate over the pace effects of climate change. but no legitimate debate other earth's warming or man's contribution. the models of the world's scientists predict rising seas, drought, floods, wildfires and more severe and storms. those are the projections and models.ons of these we are seeing impacts already,

since the ocean absorbs 25 to the carbon from stationary or immobile sources, we thought the ocean was our friend. it was. keeping significant amounts of carbon from the atmosphere. but our friend is paying a penalty. the carbon from the burning of causing the is acidity of the ocean to rise and is already threatening reefs and other ocean species. the culprit is the same, carbon, that originated from fossil fuels that is contributing to planetary warming. i was a cochairman of a ofmittee in my home state washington appointed by the governor to look at the impacts ocean asid fi indication on puget sound. threatened shellfish contributest 275 million a year to the state's economy. the nature ofat the problem was and taking steps

to adapt to it and try to reduce amount of carbon in puget southbound has begun to have some beneficial effect. we also know that if america does not get serious about our thisnsibility to deal with problem, nothing much will happen in the rest of the world. action is a choice. it's a choice that means we leave to chance the kind of we want and opt out of the solution to a problem that of.re a big part of --ke to peek speak of american exceptionalism. if we want to be exceptional, the we should begin difficult task of leading the world away of the unsteppable our increasing appetite for fossil fuels before it too late. complexan extremely problem whose solutions are not straight forward. we believe this is no excuse for complacency or not stepping up to our responsibility. >> thank you very much.

governor whitman. your microphone on. >> thank you mr. chairman and ranking member sessions for holding this hearing. i have to begin by expressing my aboutation on the discuss whether or not the environmental protection agency has the legal carbonty to regulate emissions and that is still taking place in some quarters. the issue has been settled. the e.p.a. does have the authority, the law says so, the supreme court has said so twice. that matter i believe should now be put to rest. given that fact the agency has decided, properly in my view, that it should act now to reduce to improve thes quality of our air, protect the health of our people, and as effort an international to address global climate change. climateunited states, change is not just environmental issue or an economic issue. climate change also has very

real implications for our national security, and those be an important part of any discussion that takes place. earth'snow that the climate is changing. we also know that human activity, although not solely and we should freely acknowledge that, is both contributing to that change and the risk that we will push the environment beyond the repair it.ich we can and we should note that when one is contributing to a problem, obligation to be part of the solution to that problem. that's what the e.p.a. is trying to do. there is of course honest disagreement about as respects power planty's proposal, including whether or not it may be stretching its inal authority a bit too far some parts of the proposed rule. i'm sure, however, that e.p.a. will be made aware of all during the comment period. my hope, however, is that the theary focus will be on substance of the proposed rule p.a.'s broadpt authority to promulgate it.

that being said, it clear that air act as it now stand is an imperfect tool to address the unique challenge that climate change present. congressional action and leadership would be a preferable approach, but since congress has declined to act, e.p.a. must. law.s the action will not come out cost. but since president nixon e.p.a. in 1970, it has sought to carry out its balanced way. the environmental protection and economic prosperity are not mutually exclusive goals. always been able to reach a state of perfect equilibrium. but it has struck a balance that protects the health of the the health ofd the economy. from 1980 to 2012 the total emissions in the united states six common air pollutants dropped 67%. population time, our grew by 38%.

our energy consumption increased 27%, and our g.d.p. more than doubled in constant dollars. more people consuming more energy emitted much less sacrificingthout economic growth. that is clear evidence of the balance that e.p.a. has been able to strike in the past. prologue, further reductions are achievable and affordable. my hope is that congress will at long last acknowledge that is real, that humans are contributing to it and that the potential consequences of inaction are far than the projected costs of action. scientificcific and consensus on this issue. what we need is political consensus. were able toes rally around a common purpose in theearly days of environmental movement of policy making, it's urgent that they do so again. much.you very >> thank you very much, governor whitman. mr. william riley

. mr. riley, welcome. >> thank you for convening this session. challengescritical my firstry faces briefing was on climate, by the president of the national sciences, followed soon by briefings on e.p.a. andrts on climate effects policy options, commissioned by administrator thomas. academies of science since that time have formally climated upon studied science and have concluded that humans are affecting the climate aregreen house gases changing it. at that time climate science was a matter of computer modeling coupled with theory, notably the

greenhouse effect, which earth's why the atmosphere is hospitable to life. at that time the concern was sufficient to prompt then state jim baker and his first statement on the top, to signal a policy of no regrets. will consider those pressures, he said that address that alsoiorities help produce greenhouse gas emissions. protocol,ontreal which lee thomas helped of thise, is an example kind of thinking and that was 25 years ago. today the model itself are far reliable and are butt rested by literally thousands of credible scientific studies, changes under way. i listen -- many outstanding questions. the pace of change, tipping fugitiveocal impacts, methane emissions and more. earth's climate is a complex system. we do not have a complete picture. we welcome serious constructive critiques that examine gaps,

anomalies, uncertainties, that's science advances our understanding of such complex issues. change is under way. expect to see many more disruptions, more intense storms, more wildfires, the pests and diseases, arrive iner will america. storm surges that overwhelm coastal communities, heat waves on our health,ts water resources, food production, and on other sectors economy. the longer we delay, the more adverse the impacts will be and expensive it will be to address them. gascing green house emissions, especially carbon fend off morelp draconian impacts later this century that i increasingly we have a second prompt statesto and communities and federal agencies to begin to adapt the upely changes and to build resiliency. dealing with flooding and

meeting future projections from will be costly and add to growing demands on federal, state and local budgettings. task force on adaptation for governor arnold schwarzenegger and we concluded levies in the sacramento basin simply won't survive anticipated sea level rise. climate change and associated disruptions, as has been pointed out, are a global problem. by china, brazil, india and other fast growing what we do alone will not suffice. action by the united states, if is nonetheless necessary if we are to have credibility to negotiate with countries who tiply fault the developed world for causing the problem and worry that con traints will thwart their legitimate needs for economic growth. somet express disappointment that the debate between developed and developing focusies has tended to more on how much financial aid

advanced nations are willing to provide rather than on the much and how to reduce greenhouse gas emissions nations. i participated for a number of years in the china sustainable forum. at first throughout the 90's any climate change triggered a lecture about how those who caused the problem should pay for fixing it globally. as china has begun to experience serious impacts, especially in now is aources, it matter of self interest that they respond and join constructively in the international negotiations, even as they continue to assert the national interest in development. china announced one day after the announcement by e.p.a. of new carbon rule, that they carbonto build a cap on dioxide. this is obviously a response to the united states, it's a and it's a one, further demonstration of u.s. leadership. markets the world over seek

clean energy technologist, well people do not have electricity. for many it will be small scale willable technologist that help improve the lives, their offer new economic opportunities. are alogy and innovation comparative advantage for our country, it will help control find waysn and help to replace the most serious contributors to the climate challenge. an enormous opportunity for u.s. entrepreneurs and deployrs, even as we more clean energy at home. while the president has taken important steps, the full and constructive response is needed from congress. closing, i have little doubt that the planet will endure major climate disruptions. there have been many such episode in the past due to natural causes. theyou would have to reject greenhouse effect outright to conclude that human activity tons of co2ions of and other gases into the

atmosphere every year are having impact on the earth's climate. tenablesimply not a position. for me the question is how hospitable that either remains future generations and for it.lizations as we know >> thank you very much, mr. riley. now we turn to former thomas.rator welcome. >> thank you, mr. chairman and thank you senator sessions. may need to turn your microphone on. >> thank you, mr. chairman and sessions and other members of the committee for holding the hearing and giving a an opportunity to offer perspective on climate change based upon my experience at e.p.a. dealing with many complex environmental issues during the years. i've approached the issue using a risk assessment and risk management process. this is the approach we used during my type at e p.a. as we ofressed a range environmental problems. whether it was assessing the

stratospheric ozone leadtion, or the impact of and gasoline on children's health, scientific data and first step inthe evaluating the risk posed by the problem. during my six years at e.p.a. i dealt with many contentious issues. first as assistant administrator for two years and later as little overr for a four years. i can't remember any of the matter i dealt with during that six-year period of time that were not controversial. others.e than the issue of climate change is one that the e.p.a. and the havel scientific community studied and analyzed for decades. whether it's the panel onrnmental climate change or the latest scientific valuation that was by congress. the national climate assessment. it appears to be

clear. we know that carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere have increased by 40%. we know that carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases are warming the atmosphere. we know they have contributed to more than a rise in global temperatures since the 1880's. we know global sea levels have risen eight inches by thermal expansion caused by melting of laciers. we know that ocean acidification is occurring. this is harming our coral reefs and marine ecosystem. we know the communities in our country are dealing today with the effects of changing climate. in a florida, we see increasing salt water intrusion in our drinking water supply along the coast due to sea level ise.

we see coastal communities dealing with sea level rise on heir drainage systems. the economic impact is undeniable. the local governments struggle to address today's impacts of climate change while trying to participate the risk in the future israel. on a broader scale, widespread impact is across the country. it will range from the shellfish harvest in the pacific northwest due to ocean acidification or wildfires in the southwest. given this assessment of the impacts and risks posed by global warming, epa has the responsibility given to it by congress and affirmed by the courts to address the risk management challenge.

we know there are many approaches that can be taken. we know that all of them are controversial. we know the gases we have committed will remain in the atmosphere for decades to centuries. a solution will require a ong-term commitment. we also know what many of the solutions are. some of which have been mentioned. improving energy efficiency. increasing low emission energy production. widespread adoption of strategies like these can supplement and is -- an international agreement. a coordinated national and international approach is needed to assist states and countries adapting measures dealing with impacts of climate change already taking place

today. more action is needed to address the impacts today while addressing the larger issue of committing ourselves to avoiding dangerous levels of future warming. the recent steps taken by the epa to reduce greenhouse gas emissions are significant mitigation measures. the u.s. will demonstrate international leadership on an issue of global significance and consequence. i would suggest that if the united states is not taking the leadership position, an international agreement will never come to fruition. thank you for adding me give my views on what i consider a ritically important issue. >> thank you very much, mr. thomas. let me just thank each of you for your service to our country in a challenging office.

we turn now to dr. that can. >> i come here today as a scientist. i have published research on the possibility of global warming and the potential ecological effects. some examples, i developed a computer model about forests and endangered species. one of my graduate students at it world vegetation to a major climate model. i was the lead author on a paper analyzing methods to forecast global warming impacts on biodiversity and publish the paper comparing arctic sea ice in the 19th century with that of the end of the 20th century. i have spent my career trying to help conserve our environment and its species and a taint and intellectually must approach.

i have been dismayed and disappointed in recent years that the subject has been converted into a political and ideological debate. i have colleagues on both sides of the debate and believe we should work together as scientists instead of arguing about reconceived emotionally-based positions. i was an expert reviewer of the white house climate assessment. we have been living through a warming trend driven by a variety of influences. it is my view that this is not unusual and contrary to the characterization of the two reports, these are not apocalyptic or a reversible. i hope my testifying will lead to a more rational approach. the two reports do not promote the kind of rational discussion we should be having. i would like to tell you why.

my concern is the 2014 assessment report is speculative and incomplete conclusions embedded in language that gives more than they deserve. they are not based on facts. the two reports assume that the climate forecast is happening and will continue happen and row worse. these predictions are way off the reality. the extreme over emphasis has taken our attention away from many environmental issues that have been ignored. there are 10 issues which have been mentioned. a singer focus on climate change of skiers the best

solution. in terms of the need to act now, it is on these issues that we should focus. there is an implicit assumption in both reports that nature is in a steady state. this is the opposite of the reality. environment has always changed and living things have had to adapt. the report says living things are fragile and unable to deal with change. the report repeats the assertion that large fraction of species might go extinct. the model is incorrect. few species became extinct

during the past 2.5 million years. some of the report conclusions are the opposite of those given in articles. the white house climate change assessment results from climate change. i reviewed the study and found not a single one of the series is supportable by direct observation. these authors state the contrary. they stated that the polar bear population has never had an estimate in a scientific sense. this is a qualified guess.

some conclusions are ignorant of the best statistically valid observations. the report says that terrestrial has sequestered the carbon dioxide in the tmosphere. i have done the first valid estimates. the estimates uptake are not statistically valid. the report uses the term climate change with two meanings. i have heard that today. these are not distinguished in the text area that is confusing. of course the comment is changing. if a statement is about natural change, then it is a truism. if the meaning is taken to be human caused, i do not support the statement.

>> next we'll hear from the attorney general area --. >> i am very pleased to be ere. as the attorney general of the state of alabama it is my duty to uphold the rule of law. that duty includes enforcing environmental laws that help reject our natural resources and the help of our citizens. one of the most important matters i am involved with as attorney general is being the gulf states bp oil spill litigation. our coastline was covered in oil. our economy would shut down for months as a result of this bill. i understand firsthand man-made environmental disasters and the importance of sensible and effective environmental regulations.

my comments have a concern with the administration's approach to regulation. the states have flexibility. providing the states with ostly policy choices, does not provide any actual flexibility and produces the same outcome. congress did not intend for the clean air act to have such a ar-reaching consequence. to prevent impacts such as those will flow from the epa proposal, congress limited the

authority. given the enormous burdens that would be given, they have isregarded the limits of the law. they are expressed in the clean air act. the clean air act for bids regulation. existing utilities is regulated. the clean air act also forbids regulations that are based on admission reductions the academy achieved at individual acilities. epa is for posing guidelines. epa is improperly limiting the express statutory delegation to the states.

in doing so, this jettisons decades of resident establishing state jurisdiction ver electricity markets. the state of alabama opposes the epa's mandate. it would have disastrous consequences for electric reliability and the economy. those consequences would be in oppose and of the clean air act. it would do so at the expense of state authority that is identified and preserved in the clean air act. it would do all of these things or no benefit. there's no rationale that consists for such egulation.

>> and now dr., please proceed. >> good morning. thank you for inviting me. this is a crucially important topic. my research specialty is market failures. i studied cap and trade in 005. i did so because the natural push upon captains trade solutions despite consensus among economists that cap and trade does not suit carbon emissions. i don't disagree with the diagnosis. you are presupposing that the treatment is known. it is not. in recent history, has riced carbonate levels prohibit of two emissions. prices hover at five dollars

and $11 in california. prices in excess of $30 or necessary to cut emissions. the proposal is an attempt to specify quantity goals instead of price goals. there are two problems. to control quantity, one has to be in control of the thing one targets. the federal reserve learned his years ago. carbon markets determine policy of carbon from -- this is unworkable. in a serious of famous cases, they have sovereignty over the number of permits they issue. invalid permits infiltrated and the exchange had to close for three days.

swat backs had to be rranged. it doesn't matter which side of the price quantity you look at, the effects of the same. quantity will go down only a price goes up. when real prices go up, output declines in unemployment increases. corporations forgo -- they feel the effects. it is important number that these are not just oil and gas companies. these are companies like walt disney and walmart. i regret the state epa goals on a number of pertinent valuables. states with lagging economies coming out of the great recession have tougher goals to meet than others. there are simple adjustments that can be made to mitigate that.

if we just think about those for a moment. no government has yet accepted the lower economic growth to curb carbon emissions. prices should go up that they can't their the political heat. in march, the u.k. chancellor announced the government would freeze a tax on carbon emissions to cut consumer nergy bills. consumer energy costs became a campaign plank which vowed to freeze energy prices if they win. a similar issue is growing in germany. by far the worst effects of carbon markets has been the fraud and theft. if we are not ready to deal with the corporate fraud, this is troubled the established

markets in recent years, we should not be discussing the implementation on the largest economy in the world. the 90 failure of existing carbon policy risks raising energy prices. climate talks on carbon broke down this week over this simple act. members of congress and rem are that the national monetary commission studied central-bank functions around the world for seven years before concluding on the design of the federal reserve system. let's research existing mechanisms before emulating failed schemes around the world. while continuing carbon to grow as a natural and global problem. thank you.

>> let me begin with a question that is prompted by testimony. you described a number of environmental improvements the took place on your watch. you mentioned that inherent in all was powerful economic interests resisting ontrols. you said that in all the cases cited, the solutions to the problems did not result in the predicted economic and social alamity. each of you has had experience with having to make decisions that were surrounded by fears and anxieties about dire consequences of your decisions. each of you have made that

decision and seen the consequences that played out in the aftermath. y question to each of you is how did the reach -- worst fears of bad outcomes from nvironmental regulations turnout in reality as the rules were applied in your own xperience? >> mr. chairman, let me mention one example. the congress in 1970 passed the clean air act. in the law itself by 1975 the cars would be 95% improved. the claim of the i will bill companies was this was mpossible to do by 1975.

they were probably right about that. it was overly ambitious. i was authorized to give them a one year extension from meeting those 1975 goals if it was warranted. we decided not to grant the extension and in the second we did granite. by 1976, most of the automobile ompanies were on the way toward achieving the standards as required by the statute. the claims during those hearings and during the passage of the laws was that the industry would collapse. ford predicted they would have to shut down the their entire company if the law passed. there was enough flexibility in the law that let them have the leeway they needed to achieve the standards.

once they saw the rule was serious and we were going to pursue it as rigorously as we could, then they began to focus on reducing the cost. the motivation of trying to resist the regulation and the law changed from one of claiming the end was near to one of let's see if we can't do this and do it in a cost-effective way. they did do it in a cost-effective way. we achieved the standards finally. there was some leeway granted by the congress after the original law. today the cars we have have three times as many cars on the road and the omissions from the mobiles are 95% reduced. >> let me ask you to fill in if we have a second round.

i am running out of time. >> the best example i can give is and we were increasing air conditioner efficiency we were resisted by everybody. they said it was impossible. this was going to kill the industry. we went ahead and found one company that said no we can do this very carrier said they could do it. they started producing them. now everybody has exceeded hose rules by 23%. the ingenuity in the american system kicked in. the minute that they knew it was real and it was going to happen, we did not see a loss in jobs or hollers. - dollars. >> let me turn to senator sessions. >> we have made some great ryegrass.

the water is so much cleaner than it has been. we are seeing situations in china and we know that we are proud of what we have accomplished. co2 is a different kettle of fish. t is plant food. it is not a pollutant and any normal definition of it. i will at knowledge the supreme court ruling said otherwise. i would offer -- the letter about the epa authority. the authority of states of the clean air act to determine standards as applied to ndividual sources.

>> without a pot objection. - objection. >> the president on november 14, two thousand 12 said the temperature is increasing faster than was predicted even 0 years ago. on may 29, he said we know that the climate is warming faster than anybody anticipated five or 10 years ago. i would ask each of our former administrators if any of you agree that that is an accurate statement on climate. if you o, raise your hands.

the record will reflect that no ne raised their hands. attorney general, one of the things that the doctor mentioned was this is difficult when we have assertions repeated that are not stablished by the facts. you have the number of category couric anes each year, this is not a matter of dispute. we don't have more. yet we have the president and top officials repeating hat. attorney general, i have a question i wanted to ask of you.

i appreciate your appearance and your fine leadership. the four administrators today say we need to act now. would you also say it is important that we act according to the law and do you believe epa powerplant guidelines are consistent with the law? >> thank you, senator. that is why i am here and i'm not here to debate the science. i am here to talk about the policy. whatever decision epa makes and what policy it implements, it should follow the law. i think they failed to do that in this case. i appreciate you introducing that letter into the record. it goes into the legal infirmities of this roposal.

they feel the same way. that is our role. this is to make sure that whatever the epa comes up with that it follows the law and respects the state's role. that is the lane nine and. that is the reason i'm here today. >> our staff is done a study on the federalism aspects of the epa. this is a cooperative federalism between the states and epa. does the powerplant guidelines -- adhere? >> i do not think so. what the epa is attempting to do is regulate all the discretion that would reside in the states. i guess in my experience, regulators like to regulate.

it is an important role that we lay to ensure that when they decide to regulate to they stay within the bounds of their authority. if you are a regulator and you see a problem you want to regulate and you try to exert as much authority as you can. we think that is what is occurring in this case. that is why it is so important to me. >> we turn to chairman boxer for questions. >> dr. mason, you remind me of the alarmist that we heard in the 1970's and the 1990's over the clean air act. you are undergoing a boom in the clean energy jobs. i am going to send you some of the stats that christie todd whitman put out.

i want to see if they are incorrect. from 1980 to 2012, the total omissions dropped by 67%. our population grew by 38%. our energy consumption increased by 28% and the gdp doubled. jobs increased 88%. i am going to send that to you for your commentary. we have always heard this every time there is an initiative. it always turns out to be completely wrong. the alarmists are wrong. i also want to ask our for epa people if they agree with his. senator sessions i have a disagreement. we respect each other but we have a disagreement on carbon. he says it is not a pollutant that hurt you. there is an endangerment