-- newt gingrich. this is a hold of dynamic this time around. ,lmost all of these candidates almost all of them have their own billionaire who has suggested that they would be willing to finance the campaign in the early states. then you have someone like jeb bush who has, at last count, a dozen different billionaires who have supported his super pac. i think it is going to be a whole new ball game this year, and money does not necessarily equal a win, but you cannot win without money. host: and that kept newt gingrich in the race longer than initially expected back in 2012. this is again a headline from the des moines register.

we will look at the numbers with hillary clinton still in the lead, bernie sanders closing in. we will also show you the republican numbers where donald trump and ben carson are making iowa --ad and -- among impact -- -- republican -- caucus-goers. c-span.thank you i have a question at a comment about bernie sanders. right now he has the same amount of support as barack obama did at this time. what are your thoughts of his chances of winning democratic nomination, and why does it seem willthe media blackout less report on bernie sanders and other candidates? host: what do you think of the media blackout? he has been fairly aggressively covered in recent months. i just think some media go out of their way not to mention him.

you know someone like donald trump or in hillary clinton. i think it is fairly obvious -- my opinion, but it seems like they would rather not talk about that, although he has a huge amount of support. host: thank you. we'll get a response. guest: i think it is partly a reflection of the chaos of the republican side. there has been a lot more media attention on the half-dozen legitimate candidate who are soon to be trading spots in the polls. sanders's chances of winning are improving by the day. the closer he gets to clinton in the polls the more you are going to see him taken seriously. host: next is jesse from

michigan. them cuts line. morning. caller: good morning. can you hear me? host: we sure can. thank you for calling in. caller: i have listened to c-span for a long time. i just wanted to call in and be intelligent. --t calling just to tell you what about all they talk about is abortion and gay marriage? daughterife or your was the one, would you want her to kill that child? i think they are a bunch of hypocrites.

my brother son got his daughter pregnant -- girl pregnant. ain't nothing else but abortion, that is all they are going to talk about. . just wanted to call in i hear from these are public and callers, republican and they all get killed on there. host: thank you for the comment. guest: the last few republican nominee for president have supported abortion rights in the case of rape. this time around we are seeing -- marco rubio has doubled down on his position that he would be

opposed to abortion even in the case of rape. i think the larger point here and one that feeds into a distrust and frustration with politicians is the thought that what they want for themselves and how they would treat their family is different from how they would govern and how they would treat others. host: stanley in virginia is where our last caller is treating from. thanks for calling. caller: thinking -- thanks for taking my call. keep up the good work. i have a comment and maybe a question -- in reference to -- -- we wonder why donald trump is doing so well, we wonder why carson is doing so well, and we wonder why bernie is doing so well. well i want to call your attention back 35 years. let's take a look at the democratic party and the republican party. the different things we are is these parties

today. we have a lot of slick talk. we have a lot of promises. none of them ever tells you what their plan is. you wonder why people ourselves that. it is because the politicians that we lacked on both sides are not doing their job, and i just hope there are enough people with common sense in the middle, excluding the radical democrats, excluding the radical republicans. change and we need a whole new assessment of where we want to go next. host: and what is your change? caller: anything but what we have. trump, carson, fiorina. one of the other candidates, but i don't want a socialist for president like sanders, yet he is doing well. people have a right to their own

opinion, don't misunderstand what i'm saying. host: do you think what we're seeing a lot of these polling numbers, white donald trump and ben carson are doing so well? caller: they are doing so well. speakingall they are the truth. donald trump is not a polished politician. everything he says shoots from the hip. most of the others have a helicopter. they are setting meetings. that is not being straightforward with american people. you have the pundits on the move, the spenders. they want to tell you what is being said. i understand what they are saying but the point i want to make is that the average individual, democrat, republican, independent, the matter who you are, does not see

things the way washington democrats in washington republicans see it right now. from: it is pretty clear our poll and your callers that the disconnect between washington and the rest of the country is wide. host: i just want to go back to this national journal piece. donald trump is appealing to older, noncollege whites. there are now no longer enough of those votes to guarantee a republican majority. what guarantees success in the primary could very well create doom and gloom further of africans in the national election. guest: yes. trump is appealing to the very base of the republican party. i think it is instructive to look at what he is saying and what jeb is saying. jeb bush, whether or not you believe he is the best messenger here, is trying to preach some and compassion on issues

like immigration and order to appeal to general election voters and win in november. host: you can read more on bl oombergpolitics.com. thanks for being with us. by the way, john kasich will be in new hampshire this week. you can check out all that we have covered so far on our website, c-span.org. when we come back, two different perspectives on the issue of climate change and global warming and clean energy. this as the president prepares to travel to alaska to focus on these issue. later in the program a chance for you to weigh in on issues on your mind. we will open the phone line for the last 20 minutes. watching andng -- listening to c-span's washington journal. we are back in a moment.

>> monday night on the communicators. the marks the 20 -- anniversary of digital television. we discussed how modern television have -- has changed. >> many of us are watching and i

multiscreen -- a multi screen world. that has been one of the more outside it -- exciting outcomes. it used to be that there was a stationary scream, and with hdtv that was a big screen in the living room. but with of the internet and the things, world sending now you have tablets and smartphones and wi-fi all over the place. such that tv is not just a stationary, lean back experience in the living room and very much a mobile experience. it is not just tv, it is also video. monday night easterny night at 8:00 on the communicators on c-span two. saidorence harding once that she had only one hobby and that was warren harding.

the spite hardship, scandals, her husband's infidelity, and his death in office with her own poor health, she helped define the role of a modern first lady. lawrence harding tonight at eight akaka eastern on c-span's original series, with ladies, influence and image. examining the public and private lives of the woman who filled the position of first lady and their influence on the person -- presidency. tonight at eight got eastern on american history tv on c-span3. washington journal continues. host: and our sunday roundtable leadern weiss, he is a of campaigns. who focuseseutzer on energy economics and climate change. thank you for joining us. the president prepares to travel to alaska to focus on climate change and global warming. he will be the first president to travel to the arctic circle. what can we expect? guest: i think the president is

going to talk a lot about the need to make our communities more resilience to the impact of climate change. in alaska, for example, there are dozens of cities that are threatened from either erosion or softening tundra. they either have to be rebuilt or relocated, and that is going to cost millions and millions and millions of dollars. 85% of the communities in alaska face this. guest: i don't know. there has been warming for decades in a lot of places. what i know is that this is something the president has also been shilling for. it is not a climate ban. it will do nothing for global warming. the administrator of the epa admitted that as a -- at a hearing. he says this is doing essentially nothing to worldwide global temperatures.

it is washington taking control of energy. it is not about climate. host: is global warming for real? guest: global warming is real and we have had global warming since the end of the last ice age. apertures have been going up. they have been going up in the 1979 to the end of the 90's, they went up faster than they had been going up. they have slowed down dramatically depending on which endpoint to pick and whether you look at satellite or service temperatures. they are either totally flattened or they have shipped -- slowed down a lot. is warming, what we don't know is how dramatic and is and how bad is going to be if it is bad at all. host: moving forward what do you think is the best remedy? guest: the best remedy is that we don't know what is going to be the challenge. if we have the

most vibrant, robust economy we will best be able to handle whatever those challenges are. we want a strong economy to respond, whether it is relocating villages, being prepared for madmen with nuclear weapons, it is just depressing to see the huge poverty problems in the world. we want to see strong economic growth. the bestfortunately scientists we have just released this earlier this year, showing a steady increase in worldwide in temperature over the next 25 years contrary to what you said. and in fact, as a matter of fact, the world's best scientists, including from the national academy of sciences, from noaa, from nasa, all agree that climate change is real. it is here. nasa is the agency that can shoot off a rocket and have it .ome right by pluto

they are the ones that are warning us about climate change. there is some uncertainty about climate, which is to say, just like smoking, i can't tell you how many cigarettes you have to smoke before you get lung disease. doubt, smoking cigarettes will lead to lung disease. not in everybody, but it will. how many cigarettes? we don't know. same with climate change. pump carbonue to dioxide and other pollutants into the atmosphere, mobile sector is warming. some of the best scientific institutions across the world have all said this and we have seen the impact. for example in the last 20 years know what came out and said -- noaa came out and said the level has risen. we are seeing flooding in miami now. climate change is real and it is

caused by humans. host: i will give you both credit because you both came prepared with your charts. the you have a different chart? guest: i have a different chart. i would like to show mine. dan got to show his. nasa putting people on the moon and doing all these wonderful things, however if you look at the nasa generated temperature from their satellites, which cover the whole world, and not just this study which used the from old engine input on ships, for some reason that is the only way they the last 10rming in years. if you look at the satellite data it is very clear. it goes up and down and up and down. it has been static for the last 10 or 15 years. that is the nasa data that i handed you. then --plain to me guest: explain to me then, why

have nine of the 10 hottest years on record occurred in the past 10 years? now we are on track in 2015 to have an even hotter your? the reality is -- guest: can i answer your question? guest: no. atmosphererer, scientists at university of california at berkeley, he was a skeptic. he got money from the koch brothers. he concluded not only is the planet warming, but it is caused by humans. you would be hard-pressed to find a climate scientist who has your -- guest: he did not say anything to contradict what i said. he simply found that it is -- there is warming and some of it is caused by humans. you said can i find credible scientists? started this data, they have found that there has been no significant warming for

the past 15 years. that is pretty straightforward. we get two different perspectives on the issue of global warming and climate change. the white house releasing this youtube video in advance of the president's trip to alaska. [video clip] hi everybody.a: later this month i going to alaska and i am going because alaskans are on the frontline of one of the greatest challenges we face the century. climate change. climate change once seemed like a problem for future generations, but for most americans it is already a reality. droughts, longer wildfire seasons. some of our cities even flood at high tide. in alaska the hunting and way of that has been a life and jobs for generations are threatened.

as alaskan permafrost melts, some towns are sinking into the ground. naturalonal -- treasures are at risk. while i am there i will meet with americans were dealing with climate change every day and i will talk with other nations about how we can tackle this challenge together. i hope you will follow along at ouse.cov/alaska. this is not just a preview of what will happen if we don't take action, the alarm bells are ringing. as long as i am president we believe world to meet this threat before it is too late. host: your reaction, your response? guest: the president has been saying things that are's simply not true. -- are simply not true. the glaciers are retreating but they have been the last ice age. this is nothing new. sometimes they speed up,

sometimes they slow down. we are not heading to a catastrophe. a chartance, here is from the national oceanic and atmospheric administration. it is something called the palmer hydraulic. -- on that there is no the upper part that is where it is wet. on the lower part that is the drought. the worst drop by far, the dust bowl the 1930's. the governmental panel on climate change says the same thing. no trends droughts, no transit hurricanes, no trend in tornadoes. host: one other issue involving the president. he allowed drilling off the

coast of alaska. guest: we are very disappointed. we believe the ecosystem off the coast of alaska is far too fragile. there is not the onshore recovery facilities. facilities inse the gulf coast when we had the bp horrible oil spill five years ago. there is nothing like that on the short in northern alaska, none of the infrastructure to help recovery should there be a blowout. we are very disappointed. and if you look at his overall record, he has been one of the greatest leaders trying to address climate change and we have ever seen. occasionally he strikes out. host: we appreciate your passion for the issues. we know our viewers want to weigh in as well. let's keep our answers brief so we can get as many as possible. we begin with mike joining us from florida, republican line. good morning. caller: good morning. i have a couple quick things i wanted to get over.

i have seen mr. weiss on television speaking be the untruths. agome or you, not too long medical doctors prescribed or endorsed cigarette smoking. just because someone says they are scientist, you really have to look and see where they are coming from. the majority of scientists, there is the 97 percent figure that is often pulled out, that is a lie. anyone who wants to get involved at looking at the numbers rather than reading the rhetoric or propaganda can find that. understand, there was a global warming. during the last ice age. if iwere correctly -- remember correctly there were no co2 emissions about time. there is also across the solar system right now the same trends in atmospheric temperature increases that you are addressing. i am pretty sure there is no one driving cars on jupiter. the theory is, and it is not a

consistent concept throughout the scientific community, that andossibly is sunspots solar flares and those sort of things. when you look at the solution the extreme environmentalists are offering, they are pushing -- and trade that are from host: i will stop you there. we'll get a response. guest: first of all the caller mentioned the ice age. in fact there are is more carbon dioxide in our atmosphere than there has been in the last 800,000 years. second, he mentioned that 97% of scientists who have written. reviewed studies about climate change over the last 20 years, included -- concluded that climate change is real.

97% of those studies that were peer-reviewed concluded that. you 97 doctors tell me better have that funny love on your lung checked out, and three say don't worry about, who are you going to listen to? and 97, not the three. the caller talked about cap and trade. you would be surprised to learn that cap and trade was invented by the ronald reagan administration. there the first ones to ever use cap and traded to reduce lead in our gasoline. it worked. it got as gasoline but at a much cheaper cost. that it was used to reduce sulfide dioxide pollution from power plants. atin, the reduction occurred one third of the cost that was predicted and 1/10 of the cost that the industry said. cap and trade was introduced by reagan and use more about bush. that is not the only way that people have to get reductions.

there are efficiency manager -- measures, fuel switches. we need to reduce the carbon pollution now before levels in our atmosphere is sore beyond anything we have seen in the last several thousand years. host: you can get more information by logging onto the league of conservation voters website. it is lcv.org. of course there is also the heritage foundation, heritage.or g. this is don. don, good morning. carle will move on to joining us from illinois. good morning. caller: good morning. the great moral philosopher yogi berra once said it is hard to make production, especially about the future. i oftenhe things that have an conversation with people who believe in climate science is i say to them, you think that earth is going to warm don't

you? and i say prove it. science is climate not really science. it's modeling. you build a model and you protect the future. but of course it is impossible to prove. science is really about testing hypotheses which you are able to prove or disprove. these aren't really science and to say that the science is settled is completely preposterous. it is not science, it is model building. host: thank you. david kreutzer your response. guest: yes. state --ok at the icc iccc, the doom and gloom productions are from modeling projections. ccc,, they have an ensemble of models. they can't even narrowed down to 10. if you plug those models in and from aboutng them

1990 and compare them to actual temperatures, right now the projections are so out of range that with 5% certainty you can say the models are not describing what is going on. the temperatures are less than half of what the projection was. that there is no impact from co2, which i think is wrong, are actually making more accurate production than models. guest: it's interesting. just like we don't know how many cigarettes europe to smoke before you get lung disease, we don't know how much carbon dioxide in the atmosphere will lead to how much temperature rise. but we are already seeing the impact of climate change which is, for example, two inch sea level rise over the last 20 years. there are glaciers on lands that are melting and straining into the ocean.

quick --ls show slower glacial melts and we are actually were observing. the reality is, yes, we could wait until we have exact, 100% proof, but by that time it will be too late to act because there will be way too much carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. then we will be in a whole lot of trouble. invest iny we need to clean energy, create jobs, lower energy prices and buy insurance policies in case the 97% of the scientists are wrong and the 3% of scientists are right. host: 10 years ago we thought happened with hurricane katrina, one of the deadliest and most costly storms in the u.s. mainland. guest: we can look at the trends. i have a chart here -- excuse me, i do not have the one on hurricanes but if you go to noah's site and look with the

latest report, over the last century, there has been no trend in hurricanes. yes, we are going to have a record-breaking hurricanes with without co2 emissions. they're not going to stop regardless of what we do, so we can have talks about we don't know how many cigarettes cause cancer, but right now, we are not seeing any increase in hurricane activity. we are not seeing any increase in strength, they go up and down, up and down and the 1970's were a more violent that gave them we have had lately and we currently have had the longest drought in the recorded history of the united states of category three or higher of a hurricane making landfall, over eight years, i think nine years. that will stop. when it does, dan is going to say, see, we have global warming. cornelia is next from idaho on the republican line. good morning. caller: good morning.

i probably have a little bit of a different take. i just would quickly mention that i have heard at least that iceland or greenland at one time was habitable and much more warmer than it is today back in the 1200s or 1300s, something in that neighborhood and that the earth was much warmer back in, so i do think there are trends that go up one way and they go down another way and it is all natural. i have also heard that i think canada, the actually added more carbon dioxide to the atmosphere than any human pollution ever could or advertise at this time. i do think that so much as a is calledming, now it climate change because they realize global warming has slowed down. it is actually politically motivated. there is something called club of rome, a global ink tank. they have admitted to using

global warming as an impetus to reduce the population of the world. host: thank you. dan weiss? caller: i don't know anything about the club of rome, but i do know that the caller is partially correct which is that in places with lots of organic land are like the peapod northern candidate or northern alaska or siberia where they are frozen tundra's, as the earth thaw, those areas will and release carbon pollution, and that will heat up the planet and they will fall even more. it is a self reinforcing cycle and that is a real danger. it has not happened yet, but it is in the process of happening which is why we need to reduce u.s. and world light and missions. first, we have to do if you. we are traditionally the largest polluter in the atmosphere and we have to reduce our emissions and we need to work with other countries to get them to reduce their pollution as well which is also underway.

go to an underlying issue which is the cost of clean air rules. kelly trust the epa to give us an accurate estimate of what these costs are because the supreme court disagrees? caller: look at your tax, no ideas of radical, but they detected a study and found that the claim power plant that would require utilities for the first time to reduce the carbon pollution. right now, carbon pollution is completely uncontrolled and they can use as much of it and we will save the american homeowner about $45 billion in net electricity costs by 2030. $45 billion according to georgia tech. not according to the epa. i think that is a pretty credible idea that we are going to save, but the other thing is the market is not free if other people have to pay the cost of activity. right now, if you use utility

that puts carbon pollution and that was becoming you do not pay the cost of that but other people do in terms of health early, immortality -- mortality or death, wildfires, another record wildfire season which is expected to get six times worse as the planet warms, all of these and other things are unpaid costs of climate change. society is hanging and it is keeping the price of the dirtiest electricity artificially low. caller: i've got to on -- guest: i got to weigh in on the bunch. first, you talk about georgia tech in their study. , energy information administration, has already modeled the impact -- this is the obama administration's department of energy, their modeling of the impact of the clean power plan shows that over the decade of the 20's, there will be lost income of one taurean dollars. they will be years in the 20's isn the employment shortfall

500,000 jobs, they will lose 500,000 jobs, and $1 trillion. this is not the denier scientist or the power companies, or the koch brothers. this is the department of energy's own estimate. second, dan constantly -- caller: what are my ills -- guest: one of my house? e myi ills? that's an insult. guest: ok, not your ills. thinking of carbon dioxide, a powerless and odorless gas say it is the same thing as said, why do they say that? people were getting a bit about global warming and the polls show that it comes in last in terms of environmental worries. what is first is clean air and clean water, so they have interesting carbon dioxide to look like soot because they know

people do not care about the degree of warming but they do care about soot. he says andhat others say, we have had policies for decades and decades controlling soot emissions. producescoal plant less admissions than the plants we had decades ago. dan will probably jump in and say yes, because of the clean air act which counters what he said earlier that we do not control it. host: let's get to jim from indiana. another half-hour for a chance to weigh in. guest: my wife went to indiana university. host: jim, good morning. caller: good morning. how are you folks this morning? i have a couple points i would like to make. i am old enough to remember back in the 1970's and almost every publication like "time," "newsweek," that the ice age was coming, ok? so, i would like to know what

the scientists were thinking back then. number two, i think the sun controls our weather here. i think we have nothing to do with it. number three, i think this is all just a money grab by a politicians who want to tax the people of america and the world because we all know what china is -- we all know that china is not going to go along with this. host: there was a number of thing that the -- guest: there is a number of things that the caller has misperceptions about. first about, it was study by several people and evolved in the early 1980's and "newsweek" retracted their story a couple of years later, so that was debunked. thatve never had a problem hasn't received more studies for more scientists than climate change. going to the clean power plan, epa has found and predicted that

there will be net job growth. job growth of 100,000 jobs. annually, we would do's debt by 3600 dollars and prevent 90,000 asthma attacks a year. the next benefits are going to be 45 billion dollars annually. we were hit 25 years ago talking about controls on acid rain, opponents would have said the same thing that dave is saying that it will cost too much, it will cost jobs. in fact, none of those things happened. the cost came in about one quarter of what people predicted. we saved tens of thousands of lives and have had net benefits of about $30 for every dollar in none of the naysayers predictions have actually come true. go back just a few years ago, the administration -- the obama administration missed control on mercury pollution and neurotoxins from power plants for the first time ever. the chamber of commerce said they would cap rolling blackouts -- has that occurred?

they said we will lose jobs in indiana, in fact, there are 100,000 more people working when we made the prediction. we have heard this song and dance before. it has always been wrong and it will be wrong again. host: dan weiss and david kreutzer. steve is next from ohio. the democrat line. good morning. caller: good morning. there are so many points here. let me start with a big one. several of the panelists and the questioners have pointed out the point of the ice age business. let me just say that we are in the ice age now, the interglacial period. let's just get that point going to start with. secondly, i think dave has brought up the point that he brings up some selected charts and makes a proclamation that there is no trend, there is no climate change.

well, that is a fine prediction on his point but then he says the other side cannot make predictions with models, so dave, you cannot have it both ways. you cannot say others cannot -- notcan't say others can predict and then predict. they say, well, these scientists are model builders and are not really know, you're the barest the big guy here to give us r isght, well, --yogi bea the guy to give us insight, well, no, we knew that carbon dioxide was a key prepping gas and we have shown that from understanding the atmosphere of other planets. let's just saving us, ok? -- let's just say the mess, ok -- venus, ok? we know that carbon dioxide is increasing over time, so let's get with the program. we know that carbon dioxide is a

heat trapping gas, we know that it is going into the atmosphere, so dave should get on his program. too.: i have ills, [laughter] can i answer? i'm not making predictions, i'm saying they do not make turns. that is first about. -- he, there have been no still keeps talking about asthma as if you get that with co2. asthma has no response to co2. he knows it is not, but he wants to make people think that co2 will be my particulate matter or it will make us sick because people respond to that. this is a power grab. whether we think there is global warming or not and the models, what is absolutely clear is that this clean power plan will have no discernible impact on global warming. it is a power grab.

it is part of a bigger agenda. people just want to take control of busybodies. when of the most despicable things, in my mind, if you were to promote, like george soros does, a guy with $24 billion has been promoting policy successfully to kill the coal industry. this past month, he bought one million shares of peabody coal the twolf million of biggest coal companies in the world. drivemotes companies that them to bankruptcy and then by some. haserms of science, the epa the science advisory committee for the clean air act and they have reported. onse are specific to check whether the epa's science is good or not. since 2000, the members of these boards in these committees have been on grants totaling $140 million from the epa.

the people that are supposed to be looking over their shoulder at apa are getting 100 relay dollars from the epa. theaises questions about intent of these people. i cannot say that they are dishonest or they are not trying to do good science, but it certainly talks about selected and selectivity bias when it comes to win scientists analyzed the epa's clients. i want to put another issue on the table. host: when you look at china, india, africa, and other third world countries and the pollutants that these countries commit in the air, how big of a problem is that in the overall global warming? this anything that we do help spread these countries? guest: absolutely. first of all, historically, the united states is the number one polluter of the atmosphere carbon pollution. china in the last few years has overtaken us. however, they are also investing

more money than we are in clean energy. i think $55d billion in clean energy in 2013 and we were about $40 billion. we were second. because of the korean power plant and other commitments that president obama has made and actions we have taken, china is capping its omissions and that is the first and they have agreed to do that. we need to get other countries to get involved like india and brazil. they are far smaller polluters than we are. i want to go back? host: what about these other countries? critical and this is the problem -- unless we have the developing world to sign on i an eternal poverty plan, apologize, but we do not have the green technology noel we will not have it likely for the next decade or two. guest: but that is something the u.s. needs to take the lead. guest: here's what is taking the lead -- look at what has happened in europe.

they have demonstrated that great energy is not sustainable because it is too expensive. we with that same which used to be a model that the president touted for green energy -- they have retracted terribly on the green energy subsidies. they cannot afford them. german -- germany cannot afford and great britain announced they're cutting the subsidies by 90% for rooftop solar. we look at the countries of the biggest portion of green energy and europe, seven portions of green energy per capita, have the seventh highest cost of electricity, the top two are germany and denmark with cost of 2.5 to three times what we have. that instudy shows europe, these countries, the cost of electricity has grown three times than in the u.s.. we do not need to worry about making predictions. it has been a failure and it will be to greater energy poverty. guest: you should go talk to governor branstad the iowa and send the grassley of iowa,

because in iowa, the get 29% of electricity from wind right now. 29%. south dakota, 20 5%, kansas, 22% of electricity comes from wind. in fact, we are already getting a great deal of electricity from cleaner sources. if you look at the top 10 states for wind energy, most of them are so-called red states. texas gets about 11%, idaho gets .bout 17% or 80% from wind it is happening. we need to do more pastor to reduce emissions. you know what? georgia tech says by 2030, we will be paying less money for electricity and we do today by $45 billion worth under the clean power plant. host: from riverton, bonnie is next. republican nine. thank you for waiting. caller: i do not believe we have a climate change. i believe that is somebody's pipedream that wants to take the money of the american people.

i will always believe that and i do not believe that god would let this happen to us if we were not supposed to use cold, he would have made it so that we l.d not have coa i'm sorry, but i think this is one big joke. we have a lot of politicians who want our money and we do not have any left. nobody is working, so pretty soon they will realize that. that we have to be working. there are five generations of my family. we have been here forever. when we had pollution and back when i was a kid in the 1960's, we had it so deep you cannot even get out of your doors at time. now we do not have snow. we have the politicians that are telling us what we ought to do and they are all, the government -- all of them are crooked people. host: two are for the call. dan weiss? guest: you would possibly that

god gave us tobacco and we ought not to smoke that, so the reality is that she said herself that the amount of snowfall that she is noticed in wyoming has declined dramatically since over the last 50 years. ink, dave's point is this -- an analogy -- we should not go on a diet because the first time we eat a low-fat anything, we are not going to lose all the weight we need to lose. we should not start walking every day because the first time we walk, we are not going to lose 10 pounds. the reality is, just like with you need toved when change lifestyle, eat healthier, get exercise, we need to change our energy lifestyle. we need to produce energy more healthily and we need to prepare for the impact of climate change that are already happening. like in alaska where there is 85% of the community will be

affected by climate change. like in south florida where sea level rises and floods in neighborhoods that were not flooded before. we have to go on an energy healthy lifestyle which will take time, one step at a time, get other countries to join us, and we have to prepare for the climate change impact that is here already. host: i will go to michael from pittsburgh. guest: it is because dave and i are so good-looking and smart. host: you have support. go ahead, michael. caller: mr. weiss keeps talking about medicine with climate, and medicine is so much more reliable. guest: the human body is a lot smaller than our climate and atmospheric, but just like, as dave said, before the 1950's and early, doctors thought cigarette smoking was fine and they appeared in cigarette ads. 50 years ago, or actually, 51

years, came the first surgeon general's warning that cigarette smoking may be bad or you. what happened? over time, the warnings got stricter and stricter as they did more studies. the same thing is happening with climate change. are studies that occur, and have been thousands of them. in fact some of the 11,000 peer-reviewed climate phases, peer-reviewed means other scientists looked at the modeling and besides to see if it was right, 97% said climate change is real and caused humans. so the reality is, we can go --h the 97% and licked a and live healthier last out or go with the 3% and ignore warnings that we are seeing with sea level rising in florida, on the virginia coast, naval bases, in alaska, across the world. host: david kreutzer? guest: let's do sea level quickly -- sea level has been rising for the past century or two over seven inches or eight inches percent three.

now, projections if you look at the past 30 years, 40 years, maybe a foot, so the two inches in miami or whatever it is, you get different levels around the world -- right now, the evidence is clear we are not headed to a catastrophe in sea level rise. nobody even thought to mention it when it rose eight inches in the past century, that is how unimportant it was. the main thing dan says, if you listen carefully, what they never answer is, what will be the impact of the policy they are proposing/ they say, this is the first step, it will be a long time and so on. i used my own analogy, he says, look, we sell you a car that cost $3000 and you have a license plate holder and a bumper and you say, wait a minute -- this is not a car. they say, yes, the other dealerships are going to give you the other parts. ,nd they said they would not what we have is a $100 billion fund that the un will administer

and that we will probably fund to the tune of $25 billion per year, which is getting all of the leaders of the other countries, the third world countries that need to sign on to think this is really horrible. richard hall, the scientist who was lead author for all five of the intergovernmental panel of climate change processes reports resigned after the last one because it was in protest over the politicization of the report that came out. what was the straw that broke the camel's back? countries looking to get to share this $100 billion annual fund from the un, claiming that they would suffer in the future from sea level rise. these stories are a big mishmash. ask dan -- what will happen with this plan? look at the cost of the plan that will happen. the third world will not sign on to energy poverty. host: susan is next. good morning. republican line. caller: good morning to all of you.

i have a question for both of the young men there. guest: yes, we are young men again. [laughter] myler: i am from arizona and bill, i have a small house, not two-story, small one, every year in august around the third of the month, our electricity gets turned off, the whole neighborhood. and it gets turned off for one hour and gets turned back on. every year this happens. we have been talking with the aps over here in arizona about why this happens. ok -- guest: why is it happening? caller: because they are saying that they higher our energy built during the summer because it is hot here are my electricity, i leave it at 78 every day and i do not touch it. you know the little lights back on the ceilings/ ? i do everything to protect my house so the heat will not come in with my blinds in accordance.

my electric bill just the other day was $348, so i went to aps, i went to my home neighborhood block, they said that my record electric bill was the highest between my two houses that are next to me that are two stories and they have two heating cores, a pool, and i'm the one with the highest bill. it doesn't make sense. my question was climate because either you guys are busy, why can't we just -- by katrina, look what they did -- they alled a huge -- they built huge big energy law so that if there is another disaster, the water will not spill into the state. host: thank you, susan. guest: first, i do not know the specifics of her bro, but it may be that your neighbors have much newer and more efficient equipment so their bills are lower. in addition, i do not know if she is a customer of the salt

river project which is the biggest utility in arizona, but recently, they said that they were going to force people, even if they got solar panels, to pay extra to get those solar panels on their roofs even though it is their effort to reduce the reliance on coal or hydroelectricity there. one of the things we have to deal with this that we have to make sure that green energy, particularly like rooftop solar, is accessible for middle and low-income families, too, and not just higher income families. one of the things that has happened is that there has been a tremendous drop in the price of solar energy which is why they can get rid of some of the subsidies in germany because they are making panels much more efficient and cheaper than they used to. -- i: one of the problems do not know if this address is your problem specifically -- the problems with solar and wind and renewables like that is that they are intermittent. eia, theat the iaea --

department of energy says -- wind and solar is not operated control, but dependent on whether or solar cycles, sunrise and sunset, so it will not necessarily correspond to operator or dispatch duty cycles. as a result, their cost values are not directly comparable to those of other technologies. and they split them off in a different chart. why that matters is that with the wind and solar, you have to back them up. you still have to have the coal, nuclear, or natural gas capacity. the numbers of -- that dan talks about, that is an average. on some days, texas is particularly in the hot, still, summer afternoon, the wind produces as little as 1%, 2% or 3%, so you still have to have these other capacities and that is expensive and that is what makes electricity go up. you look at the space above renewables come electricity costs. you look at the countries, as i said in europe, germany,

denmark, three times the cost here. guest: denmark pays higher in taxes, too, but they have health care provided by -- [indiscernible] to interrupting you. what is happening is that germany, the industry is going crazy. they are threatening to leave. we do not want that here. host: we will go to kathy from michigan. good morning. on the democrat line. caller: good morning, steve, dan, and david. would like to hear some people talk about getting people out of their cars onto sidewalks, onto bike trails that are even maintained during the wintertime. i live just off the main road and the go straight down to the hospital where i work. the sidewalks are not plowed in winter, but people tried to get these apartment complexes at the top of the hill.

i think it is important that we really look at all the four wheelers and all these things that people use for their vacation whatever. that uses a lot of energy. i live in subsidized housing and i cannot hang my clothes outside. i had to use the washer and dryer there. i found it a egregious. reflect that when i was a young girl and we would stop outside in northern michigan on vacation. the snow was so sweet and the last time i smelled that was when i lived in traverse city about 1989 and i have never small but since then because the air is just not as clean as it used to be. i think that -- are you there? guest: star, there is definitely cleaner than it used to be and the evidence is crystal clear on that and dan would probably like to take credit for the clean air act and he is right. we have cleaned up their dramatically, so people think it is getting more polluted and it

is not true. host: kathy, would you like to follow up? iller: well, i know when smelled, david, and it is a small you do not smell anymore. first, i am glad that kathy called for my home state of michigan. it is named after the state stone which is the petoskey stone. in fact, we have that impacts of climate change in michigan as recently as last summer when in the western end of lake erie, there was a horrible algae bloom that caused the city of toledo and some small spots of eastern michigan, to have a drinking water band because the water was contaminated with this algae group and one of the conditions for the all too bloom is warmer water. at that same time, there was a huge, huge flood in michigan and detroit area where i grew up rose toe floodwaters the bottom of the overpasses,

and that is exactly what scientist predict will happen which is an increase in severe rainstorms and flooding in the upper midwest. there is already evident that occurring in these places. hearing froze over for the first time in a number of years because of severe cold. yes, but severe cultic, remember, we are on track for the warmest year ever in recorded history on planet y. in fact, july was the warmest july on record. again, planet y. parts of the country or other parts of the world may be having record cold here or there, but by and large, we are sitting from a record highs than we are record lows. according to nasa host:. nasa. host: welcome back to. guest: he gets to answer the question and i can only answer out, -- host: