market only game in town. money pours into the fab five as we like to call them. it is remarkable. stuart: absolutely astonishing. we'll leave you all at the high point of the day, 21,219, up 75 points. now my pleasure to hand it over to neil cavuto. neil: thank you, stuart, very, very much. on top of that and dramatic developments, there seems to be disconnect what is going on in media coverage everything hitting the fan now we're backing out after climate fun, but i don't know about you, life, i did not see one person wear aghast mask. sim story in chicago, dallas, washington, d.c. miraculous for some strange reason, life is going on. look at corner of wall and broad. markets sprinting to records across the board despite headlines we're going back into caveman times. that was media interpretation. people who bet with their own

money feel otherwise. on to the disconnect. on to reality in terms of media and reality in terms of rest of the world. "real clear politics" national reporter, caitlyn huey burns. "wall street journal" editor james freeman. radio show host, funny guy, ben kissell, perfect guyo have a on a day like this. i was only being half facetious that all the stuff we're seeing out there would have you believe we surrendered our commitment to this planet. i think "new york daily news" on cover says it all. donald trump, all but drop dead, all of you die. what do you make of it? >> i think there is a lot of hyperbolic language. neil: we don't use big words here. >> i'm sorry. there is a lot of mean words being said about donald trump and his administration. this hits home a lot of individuals, people who think

climate change as one of the more important issues of our time. they think this is stab in the back that the obama administration made. it is really, grabbing headline. certainly definitive proof we have actual tangible evidence of what the trump administration will be doing regarding climate. neil: you could argue whatever, whether it is the agreement or just the natural evolution of fracking and push for natural gas that our missions have been coming down rapidly. so maybe donald trump looked at that and said i don't need an accord to make this happen? >> there has been evidence emissions have been dropping without the climate change agreement. what this really was though was a signal of a campaign promise kept. donald trump campaigned on tearing up this agreement, on withdrawing. he, you know, he talked about this a lot on the campaign trail. while, there were reports of him kind of lingering, decision lingering on, he had made up his mind while seeking input.

this is also, he made lots of executive moves to help unravel obama administration orders as it pertains to climate. neil: that is a very good point. that could have telegraphed this decision. even if he had stuck with keeping in that club, he had already taken some of the teeth out. >>xactly. so, you know, this speaks to republican party base. i talked to a lot of republican strategists look, this will be effective thing with republicans, most republicans. but you also have this really interesting business divide. that also speaks to a campaign kind of pledge that donald trump campaigned on. this idea of i'm not beholden to big business and that sort of thing. so i think that divide is really interesting. you know, i also think it will be a rallying cry among the democratic base. neil: depends on that corporate divide who is in there. james, your paper reported frustration on part of some ceos who said, enough with this already. i can't be on his jobs economic council.

robert iger. we've seen tesla ceo say the same thing. others likely will follow. jamie dimon had a good take on this, you want to be at the table so you can negotiate. you want to be there but what is the corporate fallout? because if it was so many "todaying," we would see -- so damning we would see the opposite? >> markets are not just reality check on politicians but also media narratives. obviously this isn't the end of the world. neil: i heard one person say the markets don't care about the end of the world, even if the whole arctic would fall off. >> if position -- some of these businesses have invested, positioned themselves for climate deal, and let's face it. some really big companies benefit from regulation because it is a barrier to entry against smaller competitors. this is actually bad news for exxon, for example, that this

accord is going away. look, he's right that this is a phony deal. china, the world's biggest emitter of co2, for people concerned about such things, has promised that maybe they willmir 2030 if they feel like it. neil: part of the agreement calls for their putting some commitment into this, like 12, 13 years out. >> assuming you could believe what they say about it then. >> this is one of the interesting phenomenons politics make strange bedfellows with elon musk and tesla and tim cook, apple, siding with the environmentalists in this moment when it comes to these policies. one of the interesting things is america first, this policy, it really isn't putting america first. whenever america pulls out there is power vacuum that is created. germans, chinese, take a larger step in the direction of environmental protection. and at the end of the day i think america put themselves behind them in, i think we're not at forefront of change and world.

neil: not being in this deal change the deal? the argument is, whatever efforts we made, the point about bringing down emissions, that stops with this we have a vested interest in it continuing anyway, don't we? this is spurred on by market factors that push for cleaner, cheaper fuel in this case, natural gas. that will not go away whether you're part of the deal or not. >> sure. there are a lot of economic incentives for businesses to adhere to some of this. i'm looking at governors and mayors, what they're doing locally to do this. neil: they say by the way they will still, still do it, caitlyn. so you've got 30 cities, at least three states who argue that the efforts that we're maki in the state we're in now, new york, that will go undeterred. my point on that is, would it have mattered with this thing being part of what we are or not? >> i think what is really interesting what you're picking up on, republicans i have been talking to who aren't fans of pulling out.

most are but others say they're concerned about the national security element of this, u.s. positioning in the world of all of this. pulling away from an agreement, not having this seat at table, what does that mean about u.s. leadership globally? and so that is something i think that continues for -- neil: do you think it does damage our relations worldwide? one of the conventional arguments by macron in france, who said, i'm for making the world great again. they never really flipped over president trump when he visited. they have less reason to like him now. and that we have now cede ad chance, they say, to extract cooperation on things like dealing with terror, trade agreements and all the rest? i think that is bit much, don't you? >> this is not about making the world great again. this is about making the world poorer. a billion people in the world live without electricity. putting limits on energy use is bad. neil: by the way, a poor after the lo of those countries, their

leaders are ones who are getting money and don't have good track record. >> but to emphasize, it is not government made the u.s. world champion of emissions. it is frackers in north dakota, permian basin in texas, driven price of natural gas so low it is replacing coal. look at germany where they have done heavy environmental regulation, coal is many coming back because they disrupted their market so much, made electricity expensive. so despite president obama's best efforts american markets -- neil: the argument for staying, being part of this accord has always been, even on a symbolic level it, carries great value. it shows that you are part of a global commitment. >> right. neil: when you opt out of it, you're telling the world it is not important to us. >> it is strange again we're with nickering you waa and syria syria -- nicaragua and syria are

only three nations. your mother said if world jumps off a bridge will you do the same. >> if it's a short bridge. i'm a tall guy, maybe i should live. is it just a symbolic gesture? will take years before the pullout takes place. neil: wasn't that the problem with the whole deal? it's a voluntary commitment deal. nothing was ratified in the united states senate just like the iran deal so it is not really a deal. >> will this put coal miners back to work in west virginia, the same people hillary clinton promised to put out of work? is this political theater and doesn't mean anything at the end of the day. >> that is huge component to consider. the president had a rose garden address. there were definitely theatrical elements are really important because he was saying look i campaigned on this, i'm unraveling a lot of what obama administration did. i think it is more a political statement but it is an important one especially globally. >> it is also an important one for him, saying he is not intimidated by the washington establishment.

even beyond the -- neil: one commentator. i do my homework, look at other news networks, one was saying to the effect, if the president hadn't been so poorly, snickered at leaders he might not have done that. i think that is crazy. >> angela merkel probably didn't help by playing to her domestic political constituency and baiting him on this issue. but i think, look i disagree -- neil: let's be clear, she was lecturing. >> i disagree with him on a lot of trade and immigration issues but i think this is one thing you have to admire, that he is willing to stand tough even when really the whole world's political, media establishment pushing in one direction. neil: not your media. i'm just saying you raised that argument among others but you had time to get reality of the agreement and what it means and dynamic forces that caitlyn raised. the media can do that. has time to do both. >> i have to say, neil, i really hope that isn't the case because

we can't have a president so thin-skinned he changes his -- neil: what do you mean by that? >> his global political policies because individuals laugh at him. neil: i don't think that is the case. >> i hope it is not case otherwise he would be cartman from "south park." neil: what he meant to say was -- >> he has backed away from a few campaign promises, right? moving embassy in -- neil: when i heard that yesterday, maybe he was telegraphing something when the announcement comes. >> this is one pretty consistent on. we're looking for clues how he would act. neil: stay here. i want to bring jeff saut, raymond james chief strategist. jeff, one of the things we're talking about here, markets racing to new highs even with this. that continues unabated. i'm wondering, given the fact that the timeline and days that are available to get the health care thing completed and tax cut thing completed are running out fast, why are markets going so crazy?

>> i think the senate minority, majority whip said they would get the health care repealed and new bill in by the end of july. i don't know if that is going to happen or not. neil: i'm going to have a six-pack by august. i can keep talking about it. no, so i don't understand why that optimism exists? i take nothing away from it. you're right, you told me how many times this market climbed this wall of worry but are you surprised how it keeps climbing it? >> no. because it's a secular bull market and we transitioned from a interest rate-driven secular bull market to earnings driven secular bull market neil. a lot of thing people are missing transition in the '80s, 85 companies have tangible assets on balance sheet on balance sheet. now 83% have intangible assets on the balance sheet. by definition you grow faster. valuations should be higher than historic norms and people are

still underinvested. neil: do you guys get a sense, mainstream media, voters might have one particular point of view on the president but not the markets? they are are their own beast, what is going on? >> that is beauty of this reality check. it is commentary you how much of a drag the obama minutestation was. we saw a huge run-up on election day. the market basically moves when people think the obama program will get repealed it goes up. when they think it will stay goes down. neil: markets had a nice ride under president obama, right? >> they did. this goes to the transition we're talking about. the transition we're concerned about, we now go to i hope more normal monetary environment as the chief money -- neil: you said -- >> is there going to be groth policies that allow the markets to naturally grow. neil: admire cleverness markets, saying now with this latest

employment report developments with much slower than expected job growth, the federal reserve has less reason to raise interest rates, perfect environment, goldilocks? >> that is one of the things about capitalism as economic model. it knows no political ideology. communist china is capitalist nation. the world is doing better than before than capitalism. first time people are dying from obesity than starvation which is quite insane. neil: find it disturbing you were looking at me when you said that. >> i was looking at myself. neil: thank you for your final appearance here. do you get a sense though, it really touches as jeff said at the outset here, it is a fundamental secular bull market that is still in hold? whether you credit that to the president or not, nothing happened of late, including walking away from a climate accord alters it? >> right. there is also way we anticipate this thing. we talked about, still early in the administration but i am

always surprised about how excited the market is when it responds to things they think congress is going to do. have you not been watching congress are to the last several years? i'm not very optimistic as others are that they can get health care done by july, tax reform i can't even see how it goes forth at this point. neil: i heard just the opposite. jeff, one of the things i heard the markets are no longer basing their advance on the prospect of tax cuts and all that. following a life of its own based on better-than-expected earnings, steady as she goes growth, balance sheet improved for most americans, credit scores higher than they ever been, that is what is driving this, no longer dependent on events in washington. i find that hard to believe, what say you? >> fact of the matter, neil, markets don't care about absolutes of good or bad. charles: all the markets care about evil and by extension you're evil. i'm kidding.

>> all the equity markets care about are things getting bitter and or things getting worse and things are getting better. neil: that is interesting. >> we still don't have tangible jobs for people in middle america that voted for donald trump. automation is stripping them of their jobs and livelihoods. we still have a lot of work to do. neil: thank you for you all, this cast of characters that is what you are a cast of characters. no you're much more. this latest jobs miss has growing pressure on congress to do something to kate's point on tax cuts f they're basing that on a calendar, it is looking dicey no matter the urgency right after this. ♪ think again.

this is the new new york. we are building new airports all across the state. new roads and bridges. new mass transit. new business friendly environment. new lower taxes. and new university partnerships to grow the businesses of tomorrow today. learn more at esd.ny.gov

neil: they were not ready for this after the strong adp private sector job report yesterday, everyone seemed to think it would telegraph big news on general jobs front. 13thousand jobs added. -- 138,000. unemployment rate fell to 4.3%, the lowest in 16 years. markets saw a sign that is economy is slowing down. maybe urgency for tax cuts getting that done and federal

reserve might not be hiking rates like crazy. what do you think of that? >> obviously the market reaction based on future expectations. talking with your last guests, it is all about market sentiment, right? what they believe will happen. i want to propose an idea. this is interesting theory i came up with. 95 million people not being counted in the labor force. some people say they're unemployed. some people say they're underemployed. here is the thing. those folks are still spending. our economy still clipping along. we're newspaper years into the expansion. even though 95 million people that are underemployed or whatever they are, to me they are less stable. so if things break down, if the economy is slowing down quicker than expected, it is my theory, and i believe a lot of smart people's theory, those people bell quicker. it would be a snowball effect. the point of all this is, people in the administration, people in governing bodies realizing they have to keep that stimulus

there, whether interest rates, whether it be taxes. maybe they do get a little bit more aggressive than we've been telegraphing. neil: do you think possibly the atlanta federal reserve could be right? one of its forecasts in the second quarter, 3.8% growth, substantially above the 3% growth the trump administration built into its budget annually for the next 10 years? now one quarter does not a trend make, i understand that the second quarter is typically a strong quarter but that could reinforce the administration's argument and numbers, could it not? >> it could, right? i, neil, don't share those sentiments. to me 3% gdp growth is optimistic. but, yeah, if we realized that growth, and remember, that is a manipulatable number, but if we realize the growth or at least see it and reinforce policies are working or thoughts of the policies are working, then we march higher, it's a weird

self-fulfilling prophecy kind of thing. i'm sent call. right now things march higher. you don't find trend of the market. neil: i was reading in newspapers and media sights, following them, reaction to the president walking away from this climate accord, and that it would be bad for our economy, bad for our markets. i'm looking at employment report notwithstanding, pretty strongrr confidence, pretty strong consumer balance sheet numbers, strongest ever, credit report numbers. so i know that side is okay. i look at markets raising again, all major averages to record highs. if the latter were worried about what is going on, and that there is a whole planet could be melting they have a funny way of showing it, what do you make of that? >> yeah. first of all, us backing out of the climate accord, isn't like hey, screw you, earth. we had a bad end. out of all the countries we had

worst end of that deal. china doesn't have to make changes 20 years from now. america on other hand immediately implementing very fast-paced changes will have economic ramifications. i don't think we should be concerned about climate issues. they're there. i think trump will manage to renegotiate i hope, at least some extent to satisfy some folks. it wasn't a good deal for us. by the way, there were no penalties if we didn't fulfill our end of the obligation. sort of a nebulous, weird thing. it makes for good headlines. but i think at end of the day, another confidence-builders and at least for certain businesses like energy it's a positive. neil: do you think anything changes our natural gas push and clean energy stuff we're doing to the point we remain world leader coming into this stuff? does it make a difference we're part of this or not? >> i don't think at onset, eliminating tax incentives or penalizing, making less

advantageous from business perspective to be in clean energy, yes. this climate accord was nebulous and general, reduce emissions x-amount by 202, how do you do this? how does it affect sectors at all. neil: thank you very much, jared levy. we have a lot more on this, including rich guys going to get richer if you follow the markets. a number about them, 14 and all, want to join likes of ll ges, warr btt and continue giving their money away, committing it not necessarily to the united states government by the way but to charitable undertakes, those with a pretty good track record when it comes to charities, like bill and melinda gates. and the gates foundation. diana, the first thing i saw 14 billionaire, good men and women at all, take nothing away from their generosity. they didn't get to where they

are without being pretty savvy and skillful with their money. they have committed themselves giving money not to the united states government when it is time to leave this fine planet but to let, say bill animal linda gates foundation, charities deliver the bang for the buck. what you did you make of that? >> people should do what they like with their own money. i think it is wonderful these people are giving their money away. it can be used for research. the arts, many kinds of things. and we have a very strong role for philanthropy. many of these people were supporters of hillary clinton, who wanted to raise taxes so they're also in favor of more money going to the government. neil: do you see though that there is a bit of irony there, if not hypocrisy a strong word but if you're advocating paying more taxes, advocating rich cough up more, big difference between billionaires saying that and those who might earn a few

hundred thousand, do you find it odd when push comes to shove, they have a choice where that monies goes, can deliver the most, you know efficient return, they don't want to give it to the irs, they don't want to give it to the united states treasury, in this case they want to give it to bill and melinda gates to deal with the guinea worm or starvation on the african continent, but not, not, to the government? >> i think that they realize that inherently there is a dead weight loss when they give their money to the government. part of it will go to bureaucracy. it won't always go where they choose. plus they don't necessarily have their name on building or research fund that they might if they were just giving it themselves and they could choose where to give it. that is also sometimes an incentive for people to give money. they like their name on particular building or structure. they realize they have more

utility directing funds themselves. they have more interest in health, symphony and university where they want it to go. neil: a lot of them are armed with tax attorneys to make sure of that. i always find that a little weird. diana, always great seeing you. >> great to see you. neil: white house is defending paris climate exit. media not so much. we'll hear from the epa administrator who i think just told the media to go to hell. ♪ usaa gives me the peace of mind and the security just like the marines did. the process through usaa is so effortless, that you feel like you're a part of the family. i love that i can pass the membership to my children. we're the williams family,

and we're usaa members for life. there's nothing traditional about my small business. i count on my dell small business advisor for tech advice. with one phone call, i get products that suit my needs, and i get back to business. ♪

>> on his desk you would defend it. >> like somebody pooping their

pants and then people looking at it, that is modern art. don't you understand? neil: they all had a good laugh. think about that, if it were reversed same thing said about barack obama. media continuing what appear to be what are, at least to me, pretty sophomoric attacks on president. whatever you think of them, does he deserve them, talk about defecation, really, how old are we here? brent bozell, do you think the media is going a tad too far, brent? >> you know, neil, i want to say, i know joe, i i want to say joe is better than that, but i'm not so sure he is anymore. because he is bought in to the watercooler at msnbc. he is part of that operation that now sees that it is an anything goes attitude about donald trump. by the way, this is exactly why kathy griffin did what she did, because she too believed there

were no lines that could be crossed, that were not unacceptable. so -- neil: by the way she was surprised the left came out against her. not everybody on the left. a little back and forth with, al franken, going on a book tour with her, pulled that. but very few have rallied to her defense. so i think she was caught off-guard with that. now blaming it on the trump family. that is weird. i can't keep track of it. we keep seeing it play out. >> we do, but where kathy griffin is concerned she didn't expect it because they have attitude anything goes. joe scar borrow can say what he says, anderson cooper says psalm thing on cnn you take it to the next step because you always have to take it to the next step. there is always a backlash. i can guarranty you radical left in hollywood is circling wagons around her, saying to her, you had every right to do that. there is a moment of lefty, she

hired a lawyer to do a press conference saying people were bullying against her. her apology was not sincere, but number two when do you hire a lawyer to make a political point? every time, neil, i will have a lawyer sitting down next to me to explain my position. neil: in your case it might be a good idea with the reaction you get. in light of donald trump and personal attacks don't like him. they hate him and visceral. started with fake news thing i don't know, the very behavior they abhor in the president, they put on steroids in their own response. so i guess i'm saying, fine if you want to chase the russia stories. fine if you want to say i will let the world met down and daily news covers that he told the whole globe to drop dead but it wouldn't kill you to point out the fact obviously markets don't agree, our u.s. economy doesn't agree, the steady economic

improvement we have had doesn't seem to reinforce that notion. if you're ripping him a new one, that's fine, sometimes he has a lot of it coming, it wouldn't kill to you balance it out. there is no attempt at that more attempt to get sophomoric and childish as you can. talking about defecation, his weight, stuff never acceptable elsewhere. >> neil, this man will not get a break on anything that he does. look what happened yesterday. you have 138,000 jobs created, huge number. yesterday, the market hit an all-time high. it is doing it again today. you have got the economy on a roll, what did the "the washington post" report, the economy is faltering. nothing works with donald trump. where the personality is concerned, this is what you're driving to, the personal, the character assassination being

done about it far left is beyond the pale. now you have journalists, people who consider, who want you to respect them as serious people doing what joe scarborough did, why i repeat, i wonder whether he is still a good enough man to recognize what he has done? neil: you know what i do, brent, ybi arned from you back, you can learn a lot watching a news show, news network with the sound down, when i hear coverage or watch it of donald trump, there is a lot of snickering. there is a lot of sort of, just condescension that is evident in the faces and demeanor. that is something you just got to watch as journalist. you have to be very careful because you are telling your viewers this guy's a joke. now whatever your views notwithstanding, quite a few people elected him, they might not share your views on him. so you could dial it back a notch. >> bill buckley used to say,

watch their eyes, watch their mouths when they're doing their reports, you see what their attitude really is. that is exactly what is going on. watch their eyes, watch their mouths. their eyes will have rolling eyes of disbelief. their mouths will have scowls, will have disgust. you see it on their faces. neil: i've seen it in coverage, you can go after donald trump be heralded as very tough journalist, go after a liberal politician or liberal cause, you're in the hip pocket -- by the way say anchor after show who donald trump doesn't want to come on. so i have no agenda here. that is fairly blatant and obvious. >> this is their mission. they're all on a mission. cnn is on a mission to destroy donald trump. 97% negative coverage. 3% have been fired. this is almost unanimously trying to undermined him. neil: no matter how many people i talk to on this subject, say, no, no, doesn't happen.

i don't know how much more obvious it can be to get past your own id but the media refuses to do it. >> look, kathy griffin, you know, gets tire some to say if a conserve did this with barack obama would be reaction. if conservative did this with barack obama, there would be literally, literally, there would be rioting in the streets from the far left. neil: but prism through which a lost people get their coverage. brent, thank you very much, my friend. good seeing you. >> thank you, neil. neil: in middle of all of this stocks race on. this is not red or blue. these people are about green, making money. nothing they see with all the so-called scandals, all the walking away from a global deal that was herred as the greatest thing ever, nothing, nothing, is stopping their optimism. why is that, after this?

break through your allergies. try new flonase sensimist allergy relief instead of allergy pills. it's more complete allergy relief in a gentle mist experience you'll barely feel. using unique mistpro technology, new flonase sensimist delivers a gentle mist to help block six key inflammatory substances that cause your symptoms. most allergy pills only block one. and six is greater than one. new flonase sensimist changes everything.

neil: look at apple right now. that is an all-time high. up a buck 34. reports it will unveil a series speaker on monday, a lot of attention to the whole tech zone as they race in and out of all-time highs and alphabet and amazon with the quest for 1000. amazon well over 1000 bucks a share today. we have mashable chief correspondent editor-at-large, lance ulanoff why investors feeling the love for this sector? what is going on here? >> it's a lot of excitement. we just got through all of these developer conferences this is the big last one. this is apple's develope conference, worldwide developers conference in san jose. i'm actually going there next week. this sets the stage for the year and beyond for apple which is one of the most important technology companies for the world. there are some people having devices, what they say there will define how devices work and how they look.

it is really special anniversary for iphone launch. they will do something special -- neil: they better. >> they have to. neil: run-up in this stock so many others they priced in a lot of good stuff. maybe belated recognition of stuff they're doing, i could be wrong. in apple's case, that phone better measure up, because i don't know about the speaker thing. sound like another alexa. >> here is the thing about the so-called series speaker that is a maybe. we definitely believe apple is working on something, bringing siri as more of a presents in your home, why? because of amazon echo and a lexsa they really made that market in a he way no one anticipated but -- neil: but they already did, right? the market is already made? >> no, no. there is always room for more. think about back to the phone market and how it used to be and motorola and nokia were the leader, there are no -- you

don't plant a stake in the ground and walk away, say i own it. in technology it's a constant battle. neil: i understand that, lance, i'm an apple shareholder, have been for many, many years, i should disclose that, but one of the things i always kind of regretted at apple to judge a money making horse, where is the revolutionary you stuff? where is the steve jobs stuff, that goes outside of your traditional base before he came up with the ipod and all of that, it was company dependent on very neat, cool computers and unusual software but he just opened up new businesses from scratch. new vistas that heretofore unthinkable. i don't see that going on now. i could be missing something. what do you think? >> i think apple is held to unrealistic expectations. the fact of the matter even what steve jobs did, he took ideas that were out there, like the ipod was based on, people

making mp3 players but the market wasn't exploding. neil: that's right. >> he figured out the way to make it a business. neil: a user-friendly elegant business. >> he did that over and over again. he did that with the tablet. even to a certain extent with the smartphone, created that market but always based on something that it started. there are, once again you talk about the siri speaker could be perfect example of them boeing in shaking up a existing market. neil: it better be something unusual because it sounds dopey to me. >> keep in mind what we're walking into here. this is developer conference f we get hardware it's a bonus. even though this unusual year. my sources say expect surprise this is year. i'm expecting something interesting. maybe the thing you're not that excited about. but if you had been told about the amazon echo before it launched would you be that excited about that? neil: you're shamed moo into being more open-minded. lance, thank you very being with us. >> thank you very much.

neil: he could be right. we're getting email back and forth about donald trump. neil, get out donald trump's hip pocket. still another writes, neil you're tool for donald trump. by the w, which tool would i be. warner writes, neil you seem to have it out for donald trump. i know i keep saying this guys, i know i sound like a broken record, i don't have agenda, donald trump doesn't want to do the show, something about overweight italian anchors. my point we have time in this business to cover good and bad. plenty of controversial things going on with donald trump and we report them but we also have time to get into sometimes good things going on that are often ignored by the media. that is not political statement. that is a factual one. that is based on coverage i see and realities forgotten. when it comes to the media, right or left, however you want to interpret it, not always stories they're covering. often times it is stories they're not. after this. think again.

this is the new new york. we are building new airports all across the state. new roads and bridges. new mass transit. new business friendly environment. new lower taxes. and new university partnerships to grow the businesses of tomorrow today. learn more at esd.ny.gov

your insurance on time. tap one little bumper, and up go your rates. what good is having insurance if you get punished for using it? news flash: nobody's perfect. for drivers with accident forgiveness, liberty mutual won't raise your rates due to your first accident. switch and you could save $509 on auto insurance. call

for a free quote today. liberty stands with you™ liberty mutual insurance.

♪ neil: all right. you heard once or twice that "wonder woman" is opening up in theaters today. those who want to receive a well-received popular superhero movie this is your chance.

they had tough sledding particularly ones featuring women in that kind of a role. they are using fewer american undertones here, hoping by doing th it s more global appeal. i learned that, by the way liening to my friend and colleague "in the foxlight" host, senior vice president of marketing, michael at tamara. they dialed can that back a little bit. >> they dialed that with the "man of steel," no longer truth, justice and american way. they turned them into global citizens. they lose a little core of their essence that makes their essence. wonder woman was created during world war ii to fight nazis in america and equal rights for women and created by americans for americans. to sell her something loses a little something. neil: do they take offense showing a china ors where that if america is always front and center like, you know, captain

america, you know, some would say director of that movie said he will no longer be a flag waver. just a good person. that is america. >> two things at play. one is global box office. 0% of revenues for hollywood come in overseas. that is a big number. domestic -- neil: you don't want to make it american-centric. >> china is fastest-growing market. neil: but do you tick off americans watching it? >> that is a big debate. yeah, you do. i get a little ticked off by it to be honest. neil: people making it, i didn't notice, she is not raring the red white blue outfit. >> color is more muted. a little hollywood political correctness here at play. neil: now, does that hurt its chances in this country, however picks up in other countries? >> i don't think -- neil: we just left this whole climate accord here. >> to the core fans will turn out for this movie. most highly anticipated movie of summer 2017.

best reviewed movie of its kind of this genre. there is a lot at stake for warner brothers. they have 11 movies of in this d.c. universe planned between now and 2020. neil: last one have not been great no. >> no. show me something i haven't seen before and tell me something i haven't heard before. this movie sort of fits into that. neil: some female character, catwoman, halle berry. >> awful. neil: wasn't a problem with the actresses or do we have problem we're so chauvinist which don't appreciate -- >> it was just terrible. goes back to basics if movie is good people turn up for it. neil: this gets good political reviews. do you think that has a lot to do with political correctness, i'm cracks, female director, female star, this crowd loves male superheroes? >> no. i think it is earned.

she was the best part of that "superman v batman" movie, that character. we hadn't seen that before. neil: superman and batman had terrible bouts of depression. you're superheroes. >> be happy. neil: be happy. >> what do you have to live for? neil: i don't get it. >> they're like you and me. we're happy people. neil: we're happy people and not superheroes. thank you very much, michael tammero watch this movie, watch the star. i was not paying attention. look at climate deal. >> carrying network on the shoulders. only one guy. neil: wonder i'm even wonder anchor here. do they have that? >> not yet. neil: more after this.

neil: this is an example of a sort of a weird world here. the media response or the general response we've seen in washington to the president walking away from this climate agreement. and stocks running up and everything else going just fine. but this sort of hit it for me. look at the covers of these newspapers. but the best, to me, had to be the new york daily news. it said trump to world: drop dead, a play on the gerald ford thing when he would not offer frail aid to new york city. the irony back then, you might recall, is the city had to get its act together.

it did, it thrived, it came back. so this notion that the whole world is going to drop dead or that all of a sudden, you know, it's going to be climactic armageddon, something tells me that in the past that isn't always the case. by the way, the epa chief is going to outline exactly the thinking behind that decision, what the u.s. maybe will, will not do in the future. market forces, the president has been arguing, we'll continue to see missions come down. -- see emissions go down here. the quest for cleaner, cheaper things like natural gas won't change whether you're part of this deal or not. that's the argument they've been raising. how is it registering? adam shapiro with the latest at the white house. >> reporter: good afternoon, neil. we've already heard members of the administration making the case as to why this was the appropriate move yesterday which the president enacted, and, for instance, gary cohn, the economic adviser, was talking

about the need to keep america competitive, and he used coal as an example. that, one, our emissions of greenhouse gases have dropped dramatically since 2004-2005, but that coal in and of itself needs to be accessing bl for the production of cheap eltricity, but also potentially for export from the united states. we saw in the job numbers this morning that coal mining actually added jobs. and since its low point in october, it's added 47,000 jobs in mining support industries. that's just one of the things you're going to hear the administration talking about as to why it was necessary to withdraw from the paris accord. but it was budget director mick mulvaney who said it best. take a listen. >> was being in the paris agreement going to help us to revitalize the american economy? the answer was, no, so we got rid of it. fairly simple. >> reporter: and, neil, just to wrap up here, again, they're going to point out that emissions of things like carbon

dioxide and other greenhouse gases in the united states have been declining and that it's actually places like china which now lead the world in those emissions. back to you. neil: and to your point, adam, one of the latest end trantds in this club, and they don't have to start doing anything until at least 2030. adam, thank you very much. well, is this then reaction to that i alluded to in the media and capitol hill who have likened to be a heinous, impeachable offense on the part of the president simply because he walked away from a deal that was, actually, voluntary by nature a little bit of overkill? democratic strategist don callaway. deneen, to you first. i'm looking at this and i'm thinking, all right, well, i woke up this morning, i didn't have to reach for a gas mask. i don't mean to make light of it, but then obviously wall street -- which might fear that the world were going to the brink -- seemed to ignore these headlines today and was off to the races. help me connect these two.

>> yeah. well, listen, the liberal is -- the liberal media is hopping mad because president trump decided to side with the forgotten men, women and families versus siding with government bureaucrats. and, listen, you look at the headlines, one thing that is certain is that when it comes to jobs, the stock market, the economy, uncertainty is an enemy. and so with this aouncent, you can see how the market went up yesterday, the s&p and the dow jones. they both surged yesterday and are doing well today as well. so when you have certainty, i think this announcement pulling out of the paris agreement, i think, is paving the way to certainty with the market, with the stocks and with jobs. neil: you know, mike, when you see the fallout from this and the media fallout in particular here, does it connect to what's really going on? and are the fears justified? because foreign leaders

themselves have said the u.s. has abdicated its role as the leader and might compromise conditions on terror, trade deal ands the rest. what do you think of that? >> i think a lot of the advocates, folks in the media sort of view climate change as this almost sort of religious call to action. and so they view sort of anybody who deviates from the big plan as, i mean, it's as if they sort of denied the divinity of christ or something like that. i think that explains the reaction. but the reality of the deal is that -- or of the accords is that they were pretty toothless, they were pretty much voluntary. what's the point of staying in? the counter is what's the point of pulling out, particularly if it's going to anger our allies in europe. and i actually think that the president could have done a sort of more nuanced take on this and stayed in the deal but said i'll

stay in, but i'm not going to do anything that sacrifices the american economy. i think he made a decision that will play well with his base here at home and also, of course, doesn't change anything one way or the other. neil: you know, that's a point of pick-up with you, don callaway, that the president could have heeded the advice certainly of his daughter, ivanka trump, and his secretary of state, rex tillerson, who said there is a great deal more leverage to being in that club than out. what do you think of that and the potential damage which i think a lot of these folks were getting to, what that could mean? >> well, it's very difficult for us to lead on environmental protection and environmentalism in general by not being a part of this most-important club which is going to get together regularly and talk about ways to reduce carbon emissions -- neil: but, don, what if we're already doing that? what if market forces like the cleaner, cheaper fuels are already doing it? >> right. but it's important to remain in the world community and engage

in the discussions on a regular basis that are taking place. us pulling out of the paris accords -- much to the dismay of some of my liberal friends and colleagues -- it's not the end of the world. the market will dictate how clean our planet will be, but now it's incumbent on corporations to continue to act in a socially responsible way and in a clean way. and it's also incumbent upon consumers to vote with their feet and their wallets and support the corporations who are doing the most environmental-friendly practices. so the paris accords, mike was right, they are fairly toothless. but it's still somewhat important from a symbolic perspective that the united states remain in the mix. i disagree with the president pulling us out, but it's not the end of the world, certainly. neil: deneen, one with of the things that comes up with this decision on the part of the president was that -- and i think, you know, to mike's point about the nuanced way the president could have handle id, nuance and donald trump don't usually join in your mind. [laughter] but that he was trying to sort of say, look, a lot of the

things president obama did i'm undoing. he did it through executive order and them memoranda that te these requirements away that the prident d. but can he overplay his hand? there's talk now that he wants to start drilling for oil in an arctic refuge and points of alaska that the president, his predecessor, closed off. can he overplay that card to the point that he starts alarming americans? >> neil, listen, we have a wealth of natural resources here in our country, and one of -- some of president trump's plans are to unleash those natural resources, coal, oil, natural gas, opening up different land areas to drill and to mine. neil: does he have to throw them a bone though on this issue? i'm being very trite here, but that -- show that there is an environmental interest he has, because the appearance, i don't think it's necessarily true or accurate, is that he doesn't give, you know, a damn about it. do you think he has to do something to show, yeah, i do, and here's an example?

>> no, i disagree, he totally does care. neil, we have a responsible -- in terms of what the companies are doing when they do drill and access these natural resources, president trump, of course, is concerned about our air and concerned about water. this is nothing but a wealth redistribution to enrich these other companies with our tax dollars. we have -- our air and water is much more cleaner than it has been over many, many years. and again, this is a scheme. sadly, it's a scheme that's on the backs of taxpayers. neil: i can understand what you're saying, all i'm saying is everything is about avoiding bad rap. sometimes the media's just not going to give donald trump a break on this issue. he's a polluter, and he's trying to kill the whole world. but i do think -- i know he supports some of the fuel efficiency standards, just fnd them very onerous. but to remind people, i haven't given up on that, i haven't given up on clean air, the

allure of fracking not only for cheaper energy be, alternative energy but for cleaner air because we've gotten much better at that and for natural gas. to remind people of that. and i didn't hear that in his remarks yesterday. i haven't heard them yet. i mean, that could go a long way to ease concerns that others are going to say, hey, he's an environmental killer. >> yeah, i think so. and, look, if we know one thing about president trump, it's that he sort of cares about how people are reacting to the decisions that he made. so we may see that in the next, you know, couple days or weeks that he may do something to sort of offer an olive branch. i do know that i've heard that the president and the vice president, mike pence, were talking with leaders in europe after this rose garden announcement and were discussing with them, look, these are the things that we are doing. so i imagine that's happening behind the scenes. we may see something sort of in front of the public on this. again, this is why i think that

staying in the accords and making some kind of -- making everybody happy would have been a better tack for him long term. neil: don, did any of your more liberal friends say, you know, when you hook at this deal -- look at this deal, this arrangement, it really was disproportion nately putting the is onus on the united states. maybe it's the richest country on earth and the biggest, at the time, polluter on earth, now we're the second biggest. we're also number one in bringing emissions down. >> right. neil: so are they aware of that, and do they say, you know, truth be told this is a sort of a stacked deal against us and could imperil, at the rate its going, a lot of u.s. jobs. were any of them concerned? >> i've not heard that argument specifically, but it wouldn't be totally off. the reality is that we are the world's second largest polluter second to china, and now we're the largest polluter and really only one of three countries in the world to not be at the table -- neil: yeah, but we're also the

number one country bringing down emissions by far. >> and we've been doing that over the last 18 months partly as a result of being a member of the paris accords. neil: actually, it's been a lot longer than that with making the switch to new energy, right? >> correct x. that's also a because consumers and corporations have decided to behave in a more corporate socially responsible manner, and that's the reality -- neil: it has nothing to do with this deal. >> it has something to do with the paris accords. we had decided to be a part of the discussion and leading on the global scale when it comes to environmental responsibility. i disagree this is a scheme. ultimately, the goal of the paris accords is not over. we're just not in it. it is aspirational, absolutely, but it's also a way to pollute less and for us not -- >> and china doesn't have to do anything until, what, 2030 -- >> deneen, it's aspitional, absolutely. but we're around -- >> our tax dollars being wasted -- neil: all right, guys.

>> for them to get there in stages, it's reasonable for them to take action at 2030 as opposed -- >> we shouldn't have to pay for it. neil: all right, guys. >> we have been practicing in the environmental space for 30 years -- neil: mike, why don't you just pipe down, by the way. [laughter] great job, all. have a wonderful weekend. all right, in the meantime, all of this notwithstanding, the controversies, the yelling and creaming back and forth -- scooping back and forth -- screaming back and forth, stocks doing just fine, thank you. they're all doing okay today. nicole petallides with the details from the big board. hey, nicole. >> reporter: i'll start off with it's another record day on wall street, neil. yesterday we closed at record highs, and any move today starts off with new records. we came off the heels of the news of the paris accords, in fact, by the end of the day, the market shook it off. this morning jobs numbers weaker than expected, we dropped 14 points. but guess what?

back in the green, back at records, dow, nasdaq, s&p all right now higher by about a quarter of 1%. dow, 21,201. as i noted, not only are we seeing records on the major indices, but we're also seeing all-time highs on dow components, 8 of the 30. let's take a look at some of them including mcdonald's, microsoft, visa, 3m, you can see hoey're faring. also watching the employment rate which did drop to 4.3%. that is the lowest level in 160 years, everybody's taking this -- 16 years, and everybody's taking this jobs report in stride. amazon back above that $1,000 mark at 1,004, and most of the sectors to the upside. big picture, nobody's nervous. everything is breaking out to new highs, and while they were worried to quote gary, he said all of this, new highs, all while the world was ending because of trump.

so there are worries and there are not worries, and right now we're seeing no worries. all new highs. back to you. neil: try, nicole, to separate the hyperbole from the facts. there's a wide chasm there. thank you very much, from the floor of the new york stock exchange. meanwhile, media focusing on a lot of these controversies, the markets not so much. and into the middle of in the epa administrator who has to take on what it's like in the lion's den responding to reporters' questions who all have but said the administration is intent on destroying the world. ♪ ♪ say carl, we have a question about your brokerage fees. fees? what did you have in mind? i don't know. $4.95 per trade? uhhh. and i was wondering if your brokerage offers some sort of guarantee?

guarantee? where we can get our fees and commissions back if we're not happy. so can you offer me what schwab is offering? what's with all the questions? ask your broker if they're offering $4.95 online equity trades and a satisfaction guantee. ifou don't like thr answer, ask again at schwab. thithis is the new new york.e? think again. we are building new airports all across the state. new roads and bridges.

new mass transit. new business friendly environment. new lower taxes. and new university partnerships to grow the businesses of tomorrow today. learn more at esd.ny.gov

♪ ♪ >> the american people last november, in my mind, did a very dramatic thing. they elected a man who the republicans didn't want, the democrats didn't want, the media, god forbid, what the media's doing right now is try to again establish their relevance. what happened last november is the public said the hell with you, media, i'm voting the way i want to vote, and they were shocked. it was that simple. neil: all right, ken land gone, that full interview tonight 8

p.m. on fox business network. but now the media is piling on russia, not covering some of the other stuff out of the white house. charles payne, what he is saying, effectively, is they all got it wrong, what would make you think now they're getting any of this right? >> i don't think anyone believes that they're getting it right, and i think every single day that they actually dig themselves in a deeper hole with respect to credibility. and we -- you look at these different sort of poll numbers and where they rank. i mean, single-digit numbers in terms of approval and credibility. but, you know, overarching america has been sort of drifting away from large institutions for a long time anyway, just sort of lose aring faith that these big entities whether it was the media, whether it was government, whether it was even some religious organizations that they were the answer. and i think people are starting to look inward more. listen, we tried eight years of this sort of great big brother kind of socialism, government or

these big entities can do it all for us, and i think people are back to the realization -- neil: yeah, maybe not. there's a columnist from "the wall street jonal,her name escapes me, but she had written to the effect that donald trump adds to this unnecessarily. supports the view there's other good news out there, ought to get it out there, but the president disrupts when he tweets about, let's say, the collusion thing or russia thing. he gives it new oxygen. should he just stop that and if he does tweet, tweet on the stuff that you're pointing out, the good economic news, the good market news or i made this deal or whatever, you know? >> i agree 1,000%. if he would just tweet my morning commentary every morning -- neil: which is brilliant, by the way. [laughter] >> but the numbers are there. neil: what i love about it, you're not taking a political -- you're a money guy. it's about making money. >> listen, when president obama was in the white house and good numbers came out, i said these are good numbers, bottom line.

i mean, it's -- i'm rooting for america and the american public. so you're right, he actually takes the bait -- neil: and they play him. >> right. they've learned how to do it. and, you know, i think that was another sort of side thing with the nine-day foreign trip. not only was it a successful trip,ping but someone hid his phone, i think -- [laughter] neil: do you think when it comes to this climate thing, and we showed the newspapers and killing the world, that we're all going to blow up now as a result, that i felt his event in the rose garden dragged on. he could have just said it's not the deal you think. first of all, it's voluntary, it was never approved by the senate, so it's not a real agreement. the chinese don't have to do anything -- >> right. neil: -- for another 12, 13 years, and we bear the burden. d without being partf is deal at all, we were alrea scaling ck our carbon emissions, having nothing to do -- but he went on and and on -- >> right.

we went from 24% to 16% of the world's pollution because of the fracking miracle and other technologies -- neil: nothing to do with this deal. >> right. and, you know, and what happens is this morning all of heavy hitters in the white house had to go out, to your point, and sort of add to what the president said. in some cases, didn't say, you know? the mainstream media says he never used the term climate change. actually, this deal wasn't about climate change, right? this was always about redistribution of wealth. it was a absolute lousy deal for americans, and ironically, even if you believe in climate change, even if you believed in manmade climate change, it was a lousy deal for that as well. it was strictly a redistribution of wealth, it was the sort of social justice -- neil: well, you'll never get that coverage in the media, you just won't. >> right. that's why he had the platform to say it -- neil: absolutely. >> and then he ad libs. you pause a moment, i thought we were going to hear about the electoral college again. neil: right, right. >> and i understand he's

desperate to get that stuff out there because no one talks about it. neil: and he was very savvy to know, he had this moment where he started out talking about all the good news, which is fine, you know, to make that point. but on this one, because the media's certainly not going to do it. but on this one he could have just pointed out, you know, i have not abandoned the environment -- right. neil: these are continue under our watch. do you think rex tiller zonks the secretary of state, had a right to say you could argue these points from within club, within the 195 nations' part of this agreement and have more leverage with them? because he chose to ignore tt vice. >> i do understand the lgewe linger ored inside of it, the more wedded to it we became. so i think president trump did the right thing. i also think he did the smart thing by saying, hey, we're open to renegotiating this. as far as the other stuff is concerned, you know, when i started out as a broker, president trump reminds me of wall street back -- i started as

a broker in 1987. and it's like the glen gary glen ross thing, always be closing. [laughter] always be closing. and he's going to sell you. he's going to sell you first and, by the way, he's got to right now in this environment. you're right, some of the low-hanging fruit stuff, the stuff that has nothing to do with the big picture, just avoid it. neil: well put. but he doesn't do that. >> not yet. neil: charles payne, thank you very much. look forward to the show. in the meantime, looking forward to the epa administrator. he should have a warm, welcoming reception with that crowd. more after this. looking for balance in your digestive system?

try align probiotic. for a non-stop, sweet treat goodness, hold on to your tiara kind of day. get 24/7 digestive support, with align. the #1 doctor recommended probiotic brand. now in kids chewables.

neil: all right. minutes away, maybe sooner than you think for the epa administrator, scott pruitt. our chief meteorologist on this rage that's developed about the president abandoning this deal. ing what do you think, joe?

>> well, first of all, to paraphrase president clinton, it's about the economy, intelligent viewers of neil cavuto. that's what it's about. this whole climate change issue, to me, is a smoke screen for various things that are going on. go back and look at the geological scale 0 million years -- 10 million years, there's been no linkage because of the macro forces that drive the climate, and now all of a sudden we believe it's the one molecule of co2 out of every 10,000 molecules of air over 100 years. neil: could i add a dumb question? i've heard that argument, and one of the things that comes up is everything changed with the advent of the industrial revolution in the late 1800s, and so too the temperature of the earth. what do you say to that? that's what we're addressing here. >> well, while we're addressing the fact of pulling out of a little ice age when the sunspot activity was very crow.

that's a possible explanation -- neil: exactly. that's what i say. [laughter] >> the overturning circulation of the oceans -- neil: two out of two, that's what i said. >> okay. well -- [laughter] okay. so you have these giant forces including the design of the planet itself where most of the land is in the northern hem fear, most of -- hemisphere, it's rotating around etc. axis. remember, the -- axis. let's get to the whole crux of the issue here which is the economy. guys like me we're all, you know, kids of the '60s and '70s, loved the kennedys, john and robert, for instance. and we look at america today with our inner cities and the people that can't get health care because of pre-existing conditions, i look at the billions and billions dollars thrown away on this, and i say, well, the earth hasn't warmed up all that much over the last 20 years. why aren't we putting that money into the very things that benefit the least of us here

instead of some ghost that may or may not be there? and here's another thing. wouldn't it be easier to adapt to all of this? finally, let's remember what the former epa administrator said, that all in that we're doing -- all the jobs and everything else -- would save .01c over 30 years, but it was a great example for the rest of the world. .01c? you can't even measure that. [laughter] but people have to listen to what is actually going on. if you listen to the president's speech yesterday -- by the way, i agree with you, he should have -- neil: yeah, get to the point. >> perhaps i should do that. but if you listen to him, he listed why this is a bad deal for the united states. and i think it goes even deeper than that. i think it's pro-growth people going against de-growth people. i think there's a bunch of things that are underneath, and the whole climate issue becomes a red herring. neil: do you wonder that was there any wisdom, is there any wisdom to the president nuancing this a bit more?

i've raised this with other guests. still stay part of this and point out to the other members, look, there's some silliness here. i was listening to joe, he's a smart guy, he pointed out that we have much more sway in that agreement than we do out of it. >> i don't know. i'm not the president of the united states. i do know that the reasons if you actually looked at the reasons that he listed, he lists the reasons why we shouldn't be in it. someone said to me why didn't you just stay in a say, oh, i'm sorry, we couldn't hit those targets. i guess he could -- let's remember, though, america is leading the way in -- speak, joe -- [laughter] in reduction of, reduction of carbon emissions, right? we're leading the way, folks. neil: joe, would that -- i've been trying to point out all that was going on before we even were thinking about this accord.

and do you see it continuing? in other words, i was looking through the prism of a greedy capitalist, i guess, and it's in business' interests to continue that which will have an ancillary benefit to our environment. what do you think? >> yeah, i, i absolutely agree with that. i love all forms of energy. if you told me eating cheetos and snapping your fingers produces cheap energy, i'm all for it. i've got to supply the forecast for it. but we are going to continue to do that because, you know, that's great thing about capitalism. people keep yelling and screaming how bad it is and everything else, but if you see a market, a blue ocean, something that no one else is in there or they don't have the opportunity yet, you go in there yourself. you take the risk, you get the reward. that sounds like something charles would say. neil: you know, joe, you're a very smart meteorologist and very smart on the issues corning the environment. -- concerning the environment. do you ever feel when you're up against it's the science,

stupid, it's undeniable, do you ever feel like i'm going to look like an idiot? i don't want to look like an idiot. >> well, i've looked like an idiot for quite some time, we all know that. neil: not so. >> the fact of the matter is, look, i subscribe -- the number one wrestling team in the country is penn state, my alma mater. number one meteorology in the country too. but i subscribe to the idea you pursue the answer, the answer, t ur answer, okay? it's all in the process. keep tracking it, tracking it, tracking it. you're going to be corrected if you're wrong, but if you're truly in pursuit of the answer, you don't necessarily -- you might predict something is going to happen like that, but you don't necessarily just look at it blindly, okay? so when you're done with the whole process, you look up and you see what the scoreboard says, i think that's what goes on. you know, you've had me on, thank you, for 13 years now. weren't we in the same discussion like in 2004 about all this? neil: right. >> and here we are.

i think you could agree there's not disasters all over the place. i mean, people have a camera, so they can film any tornado out in the middle of nowhere now, so everything -- neil: joe, i guess what i'm saying when the consensus of that so-called scientific community is that the world is warming up when you and i are old enough to remember the same community back in the '70s was rife with front page stories in the newspapers and on the cover of "time" and "businessweek" and fortune about global cooling and the world was freezing, and we were having one blizzard after another. i guess i always come back and say, you know, maybe it's wrong. >> well, here's the thing. the globe is currently warming. the question is, how much is man doing that? that's a valid question. second question is, is it worth the draconian handcuffs that we're putting our society, okay in and the third question is, isn't it just easier to adapt and progress? that is what man has done. he's adapted to all the challenges and continues to progress.

that's what we do. you innovate, you make money off it and, you know, a lot of people still like doing that. neil: yeah. >> so you move on. but, you know, it's not like -- look, a guy like me doesn't say i've got a lot of good friends, i think they're tremendous meteorologists and climatologists that disagree with me. but it's not like it's the end of the world, that's the big thing. a lot of the people on that side think they are saving the world and saving the planet, okay? i don't believe that. i just believe i'm pursuing an answer, and the reason i'm into this stuff is because i have always used climate as the foundation for my forecast. stand on the past to look toward the present. and, you know, i see a lot of things going on today with people wanting to erase the past. and that, of course, leaves you susceptible to whatever whim is coming along. neil: yeah. i just remember they used to laugh at copernicus, because he was going against the prevailing wisdom. is just because the whole crowd

runs one way doesn't necessarily mean it's accurate. >> well, that's true. but, look, i see their arguments. i look at them all the time. i understand what they're saying. but what's amazing about this, and what's amazing about this is, no one, you know, it's all over, it's settled science, all that stuff. science is never settled. i mean, gravity's settled, water freezing is settled, but anythi in thfuture don't think so. neil: it's amazing. joe, always good having you, my friend. be well. >> thank you for having me. neil: i guarantee we'll get people on the left who look at this, see, they don't believe in science. there's enough wiggle room for doubt and shared cost that you're not an idiot if you just raise these doubts despite the fact that people call you an idiot. all right, the epa chief scott pruitt will be raising some of those doubts, no doubt, in just a couple of minutes. after this.

neil: it has begun, setting up the stage for scott pruitt, the epa administrator, to explain the president's rationale in getting out of that paris accord. sean spicer. >> i would note that he has a flight to head to, so we're

going to try to keep this relatively short on his hend. with that, administrator pruitt. >> it's good to be with you this afternoon. and want to first begin by saying the president made a very courageous decision yesterday on behalf of the america. he put america's interests first with respect to environmental agreements and international discussions. i really appreciate his fortitude, i really appreciate his leadership in this matter. the discussion over the last several weeks has been one of a thoughtful deliberation. he heard many voices, voices across a wide spectrum of vantage points, and the president made a very informed and, i think, thoughtful and important decision for the country's benefit. you know, what we have to remember when it comes to environmental agreements and international agreements with respect to things like the paris agreement is we have nothing to be apolo apolo apologetic abouta country. we've reduced our co2 footprint to levels of the early 1990s. from 2000-2014 we reduced our

carbon footprint by over 18%. and that's been largely accomplished through innovation and technology, not government mandate. so when we look at issues like this, we are leading with action and not words. i also want to say that exiting paris does not mean disengagement. in fact, the president said yesterday that paris represents a bad deal for this country. it doesn't mean that we're not going to continue discussions. to export our innovation, to export our technology to the rest of the world, demonstrate how we do it better here is, i think, a very important message to send. he indicated that he's going to either reenter paris or engage in a discussion around a new deal with the commitment to putting america first. the president said routinely he's going to put the interest of american citizens at the head of his administration. that's in trade policy, that's in national security, that's in border security, that's in right-sizing washington, d.c., and he did that with respect to his decision yesterday on paris. so with that, we'd be happy to answer any questions you might have.

and i don't know your names, so you'll have to forgive me. if i just point to you, we'll go from there. yes, ma'am. your name? >> mary -- [inaudible] >> hello, mary. >> hoping you can clear this up once and for all. yes or no, does the president believe that climate change is real and a threat the united states? >> you know what's interesting about all the discussions we had through the last several weeks have been focused on one singular issue, is paris good or not for this country. that's the discussions i've had with the president. so that's been my focus. the focus remained on whether paris put us at a disadvantage and, in fact, it did. it put us at an economic disadvantage. you may not know this, but paris -- it set targets at 26-28% with the entire agenda of the previous administration we sill fell 40% short of those targets. it was a failed deal to begin with. and even if all of the targets were met by all nations across the globe, it only reduced the temperature by less than

two-tenths of one degree. so that is something that the president focused upon with respect to how it impacted us economically and whether there were good environmental objectives that were achieved as a result of paris. his decision was, no, and that was the extent of our discussions. yes, ma'am -- >> on climate change, yes or no? >> yes, ma'am. >> [inaudible] the mit scientists who helped with that report said trump, quote, badly misunderstood the findings of that report and, in ct -- [inaudible] temperatures could rise a devastating five -- [inaudible] so specifically, what other science -- >> there were other studies published at the time. the mit study was something that, as you indicated, showed two-tenths of one degree. they didn't have a corner on the market at that time. there are many at that point. we can provide those two you. -- those to you. if you go back and look at the criticism that was being levied

against the paris agreement, it wasn't just from folks who wanted to be ratified. the environmental left was very critical of paris. in fact, james -- what's -- james hanson? is an individual who said at the time it was a fake and a fraud. and the general counsel to the sierra club said the same thing. if you go back and read the media account, there was much criticism largely because it did not hold china and india accountable. as you know, china did not have to take any steps of compliance until 2030. india had no obligations until $2.5 trillion of aid were provided. and russia, when they set their targets, they set 1990 as their baseline which allowed them to continue emitting more co2. in this country we had to have 26-28% reduction in greenhouse gases which represented the clean power plan and the entire climate agenda of the past administration.

>> mr. pruitt? >> yes, sir. >> i'd like to go back to the first question that you didn't answer. does the president believe that climate change is a hoax? that's something he said in the campaign when the -- [inaudible] in the oval office a couple of days ago, he refused to answer. >> you know, i did answer the question because i said the discussions the president and i have had over the last several weeks have been focused on one key issue, is paris good or bad for this country. we focused our attentions there. he determined that it was bad for this cup. it hurt us economically, it didn't achieve good environmental outcomes x he made the decision to reject the paris deal. yes, sir. right there. yes, sir. [inaudible conversations] >> thank you. given the fact that you and other administration officials haven't been able to outline the president's views on climate change, why should other countries believe the president wants to negotiate any deal in good faith? >> as i indicated in my comments yesterday and the president emphasized in his speech, this administration and the country

as a whole, we have taken significant steps to reduce our co2 footprint to levels of the pre-1990s. what you won't hear, how did we achieve that? largely because of hydraulic fracturing and horizontal drilling. you won't hear that from the environmental left. and so we need to export clean coal technology. we need to export the technology and in natural gas to those around the globe, india and china, and help them learn from us on what we've done to achieve good outcomes. paris, truly, at its core was a bunch of words committed to very, very minimal environmental benefit and cost this country a substantial amount of money and put us at an economic disadvantage. yes, sir. yes, sir. >> does the president believe, or does the administration believe that any additional deal on climate, or carbon emissions whether it's paris or a subsequent -- >> i'm sorry, i missed the first part of your question. >> does the administration

believe that any deal whether it's aised parisgreement or anoer carbon emsions deal needs congressional approval either as a treaty or some other form? >> well, i think it's clear with respect to the paris agreement that there are concerns by the administration, the president expressed this constitutionally in his speech yesterday, i have similar concerns that it should have been submitted to the u.s. senate for ratification. i think it depends on the nature of the deal, what you actually negotiate. if we're talking about exporting innovation and technology to the rest of the globe, i would say not. i would say that's not something that needs to be submitted to the u.s. senate. i would say, however, if you're setting targets, if you're setting emission targets that are enforceable domestically through regulation or statute, then very much so the voice of american citizens across the country needs to be heard through the ratification process. yes, sir, yes, sir. >> thank you. obviously, a lot of people from the white house are not willing to answer the question of what the president's view is on climate change, so let's talk

about your personal views. in march you said there's tremendous disagreement about the degree of human impact, and you would not agree that the primary contributor to global warming. would you agree that human activity contributes at all? >> i don't know if you guys caught my confirmation process or not, but it's a very intense process, by the way. but that confirmation process i indicated that, in fact, global warming is occurring, that human activity contributes to it in some manner. measuring with precision, from my perspective, the degree of human contribution is very challenging, but it still begs the question what do we do about it? does it pose an exist existentil threat, as some say? people have called me a climate skeptic or climate denier. i don't know what it means to be a climate denier. i don't know if you saw this article or not, but the climate of complete certainty by brett stevens that was in "the new york times."

it talked about -- and i'll just read a quote, because i thought it was a very important quote from this article. anyone who's read the 2014 report of the ipcc knows that while modest, 0.85 degrees celsius, warming of the earth has occurred since 1880. much else that passes as accepted fact is really a matter of probabilities. that's especially true of the fallible models by which scientists attempt to peer into the future. i think, look, the debate -- what the american people deserve, what the american people deserve is a debate, objective, transparent discussion about this issue. and what paris represents, what paris represents is a international agreement that put this country at a disadvantage with very little benefit environmentally as cross the globe. >> we deserve a de-- [inaudible] >> may i ask a follow-up question, sir?

why then is the arctic ice shelf meting? why -- melting? why are the sea levels rising? why are the hottest temperatures in the last decade essentially the hottest we've seen on record? >> we've -- [inaudible] hiatus since the late 1990s -- >> but, sir, when nasa says that 95% of the experts in this area around the world believe that the earth is warming and you are up there throwing out information that says, well, maybe this is being exaggerated and so forth and you're talking about climate exaggerators, it just seems to a lot of people around the world that you and the president are just denying the reality. and the reality of the situation is that climate change is happening, and it is a significant threat to the planet. >> let me say this, and i've said it in the confirmation process, and i've said it -- >> [inaudible] arctic ice and the -- [inaudible] >> there is -- we have done a tremendous amount as a country to achieve reductions in co2. and we have done that through technology and innovation. we will continue to do that.

we are part, as you know, of the unfccc, and that process encourages voices by sub-national groups and countries across the globe. and we are going to stay engaged and try to work through agreements and achieve outcomes that put america's interests first. this is not a message to anyone in the world that america is somewhat, should be apologetic of its co2 position. we are making tremendous advances, we're just not going to agree to frameworks and agreements that put us at an economic advantage and hurt citizens across this country. yes, sir. >> so you're putting your head in the sand though -- [inaudible] >> well, there's no evidence of that. yes, sir. >> thank you, mr. administrator. your fellow sooner, senator inhofe, said that while he has full confidence in the president in this, he is very nervous about lower-level career government employees in the epa

and the state department in actually executing what's needed to exit the paris climate accord. as the administrator of epa, what do you say -- >> what's important to know is that the president said unequivocally yesterday that the targets is set in paris, the 26-28% targets are not forceable and are not going to be complied with. the green climate fund where the united states committed $3 billion of initial funding is not going to continue. that is unequivocally the case x that's going to be immediate. now, there are discussions thate department on the steps that we'll be taking to execute the withdrawal and the exit. that's something that's going to to be happening over the next several weeks. but as far as the targets are concerned, as far as the between with climate fund, that is immediate, and it's something that's clear. [inaudible conversations] >> thank you. european leaders -- >> i'm sorry? >> european leaders have made it very clear the deal can't be renegotiated, so how does the president renegotiate a deal

when the other parties aren't willing to come to the table? >> as he indicated, whether it's part of the paris framework or a new deal, it's either approach -- >> but a new deal with whom if they're not going to sit down at the table with him? >> well, that's up to them, right? what america -- the united states has a seat at the table. after all, we're the united states, and we are leading with respect to co2 reduction. we have made tremendous progress nations around the globe want to seek and learn from us on what we're doing to reduce our co2 footprint, we're going to share that with them. and that's something that should occur and will occur in the future, and we will reach out with nations who seek to -- >> just a quick follow-up, shouldn't you be able to tell the american people whether or not the president believes where does he stand?hoax? >>s i indicaseveral times through the process, there's enough to deal with with respect to the paris agreement and making an informed decision about this important issue. that's what our focus has been over the last several weeks. i've answered the question a couple times.

[inaudible conversations] yes, sir. yes, sir, this gentleman right here. yes, this gentleman right here. this gentleman right here. yes. >> thank you. isn't it a concern that the united states has broken a promise to 190 countries, and the president did not address that particular point. and, second, you've several times raised that the lowering of co2 levels. isn't the reason for lower co2 levels because of blocking the smokestack spews that now are not allowed, the kind of regulations that the administration's now opposing? >> as i indicated, largely we have reduced our co2 foot print through innovation and technology, and the first part of your question, i forget? >> isn't it of concern that we broke a promise to 190 countries, and how does that help our credibility? >> truly, this gentleman's question back here, if it was a promise that was going to obligate this country, then it should have been ratified as a treaty, right? the exposure here to us domestically was 26-28% targets that were part of an

international agreement, and there are provisions in the clean air act that actually allow for lawsuits to be filed domestically to compel regulation to meet those kinds of percentages. this was as much about a constitutional and legal concern as anything else, and the president dealt decisively with that. again, the important thing here is it put us at an economic disadvantage. the world applauded, the world applauded when we joined paris. and do you know why? i think they applauded because they knew it was going to pu this country at an economic disadvantage. and the reon european leaders going back to the question i think they want us to stay in, is because they know it'll continue to shackle our economy though we are leading the world with respect to our co2 reductions. that's all i've got. thank you very much. [inaudible conversations] >> you want your glasseses? >> why did you celebrate at a french restaurant last night? [inaudible] [laughter] >> thanks, mr. pruitt. earlier this morning the may

jobs report was released showing that americans seeking jobs are having more success finding them than at any point in the last 16 years. there's a lot of positive signs coming out of the job market. over 600,000 private sector jobs have been added since president took office. the key u6 unemployment rate which gives a broader look at both unemployment and underemployment fell a full percentage point since the president took office in january. long-term unemployment is down by 187,000 since the president took office, and american miners and drillers are getting back to work for that sector showing job growth for the seventh straight month. that's why we're working tirelessly on policies that will keep the economy growing, with a tax plan that'll leave more money in the pockets of hard working americans and making it easier for businesses to thrive, an infrastructure initiative that will generate $1 trillion of investment and put americans back to work rebuilding our

nation's crumbling roads and bridges. repealing and replacing the job-killing obamacare with a system that encourages competition and drives prices down and a systematic regulatory reform to reduce unnecessary burdens on manufacturing and other key industries with the most far-reaching rollbacks since the reagan years. you can expect t president t be holding events in washington and outside pushing his pro-growth, pro-jobs agenda. later this afternoon the president's going to be signing two bills, they were both passed with bipartisan support, that help protect those who protect us. our nation's veterans and public safety officers. first, the public safety officers' benefit improvement act of 2017 which was co-sponsored by senate judiciary committee chairman construction grassley of iowa and senator gillibrand of new york, it will reduce the unacceptable backlog of families awaiting approval of survival benefits and public

safety officers that were killed in the line of duty. the we could is the american law enforcement heroes act which is cosponsored by senator john cornyn and senator amy klobuchar which also unanimously passed the senate and assists state and local law enforcement in adding veterans to their forces by prioritizing the department of justice funding to law enforcement agencies that is used to hire veterans.