stellar lineup including anthony scaramucci and sarah palin right here. until then, you can learn more about "the next revolution." mark levin is up next. i'm steve hilton, see next sunday when "the next revolution" will be televised. . mark: hello, america. i'm mark levin. this is "life, liberty & levin." welcome. >> nice to see you. >> it's a great honor to see you, patrick michaels. doctor. expert on all things climate and environment as far as i'm concerned. little bit of your background. director of the study of science at the cato institute. you hold an ab in sm, you hold those degrees in biology, sciences and plant ecology from the university of chicago.

pretty good school. ph.d. in ecological climatology from the university of wisconsin in madison, 1979. president of the state climatologists, program chairman for the city of applied climatology of the american meteorlogical society. say that fast five times. research professor at the university of virginia for 30 years, and giving expansive background that you have, giving that to the public so they that you know what you're talking about. you're a contributing author and reviewer of the united nations international global panel of climate change. we've heard it all. what's going on out there? >> well, surface temperature of the planet is warmer than it was 100 years ago about.

9/10th of a degree celsius. mark: 9/10th degree of celsius is that a lot? >> no. could not have been caused by human beings, we haven't put enough co2 in the air, and one in the later part of the 20th century that slows down or depends whose data you use only to resume with the big el nino that covered the news the last couple of years. that means that probably half, maybe half of that nine-tenths of the degree might be caused by greenhouse gases. when the planet warmed beginning 1976, the temperature of the stratosphere started to stop, that's the prediction of greenhouse theory that's not intuitive. the great philosopher of science carl popper said if you can meet a difficult prediction with your theory, you can

continue to entertain your theory. so the theory is right, but the application of it is wrong. it is nowhere near as warm as it's supposed to be. the computer models are making systematic, dramatic errors over the entire tropics which is 40% of the earth, and it's where all our moisture comes from. almost all of it. mark: let me stop you there. who does these computer models? >> governments. there are 32 families of computer models that are used by the united nations. each government sponsored. and all of them are predicting far, far too much warming. the disparity between what's been predicted to happen, which looks like sdmshgs what is happening continues to grow. mark: we know that for a fact? >> yeah, you could just look at the weather balloon temperatures. you can look at the satellite temperatures. you can look at something called the reanalysis data.

they behave in concert. they're showing the same thing, and the same thing is a lot different than this thing. however, we need to call the special counsel. mark: special counsel? >> yes, because one model works. you know what it is? it's the russian model. mark: let me get this straight. so all the government models are like this? >> yeah. mark: the russian model like this. >> yeah. the russian model has the least warming in it. mark: the russian model has the least warming and pretty much follows reality. what's been tested over a few decades. >> yeah, correct. if we were rational about this, think about the daily weather forecast. you watch the weather channel, they go this model says that, that model says that, we think this one is working the best, we're going to rely on that. well, for climate forecast should be using the russian model but we're not. we use this big spate of all the other models that have the warming that's not occurring. mark: why are the other models,

31 of them, wrong. and why do they all go the same direction, up? >> because, they what are is called parameterized. they're all parameterized, can i translate parameterized in english? fudge. they don't get the right answer, don't know the right answer for certain phenomena, so we essentially put in code steps that give us what we think it should be. and systematic error that was made was the models were tuned, as it said. tuned. tuned to simulate the warming of the early 20th century. began in 1910, ended in 1945, about .45 degrees celsius. mark, that could not have been caused by carbon dioxide. mark: because there wasn't enough. >> we had to put enough in that the background carbon dioxide concentration is 280 million parts per million. when the first warming started,

208 parts per million. if it is that sensitive to 18ppm change in co2 we wouldn't be talking about this right now and we'd be sweating bullets. >> so what you're saying is man made carbon dioxide the last century could not have produced -- >> early 20th century. mark: could not have produced this heat. so what did? do we know? >> no. and three most important words in life may not be i love you. it may be i don't know. i don't think anybody really knows what kicked off that warming. there's lots of theories. one is that it was the final escape from a gold period, multicentury period known as the little ice age. that's the plausibility, why did it happen then. but we don't have a good explanation for that. because we forced the computer models to say, human influence, co2 and other stuff.

we made the models too sensitive, and so that's why when you get to the late 20th century, all of a sudden they're warming up like crazy and the reality is down here. it was guaranteed to happen. this was revealed in science magazine in late 2016, and there was a paper published by a french climate modeler called the art and science of climate model tuning. and in it, he speaks of parameterizing. we could say fudging, the models to give, his words, an anticipated acceptable range of results. so it's the scientist, not the science that's determining how much it's going to warm. lot of people don't know this, but it happens to be true, and you know, we could speculate as to why that paper was published right before the 2016 election? i wouldn't want to impute

causation, but gee -- mark: but i want to ask you about causation. >> sure. mark: have you 31 governments. >> the 31 different models. >> 31 different models. multiple governments. >> right. mark: fudging the numbers? >> not fudging them parameterizing. mark: you used the word fudging. does our epa do that? does nasa do that? who does that for us? >> good question, mark, because the epa was told by the supreme court in 2007 that if it found the carbon dioxide endangered human health and welfare, that it had the power to regulate it under the clean air act. mark: this is the massachusetts. >> the epa. well, they produced an endangerment finding, 2009, and the endangerment finding for prospective climate is 100%, i didn't say 90%. i said 100% based on those models. so if you can demonstrate that

those models systematically are not working, you can take down the endangerment finding, and that would be the basis for all those policies that came out of the obama administration. mark: which would mean you don't get to regulate -- >> absolutely. mark: -- carbon dioxide. >> absolutely, the endangerment finding is the heart of the matter. to give you an idea how gung ho the obama administration was on this issue. if you listen to his first inaugural speech, january 20, 2009, it's second substantive paragraph of the speech is about global warming, after health care. 90 days after he finished that speech, his epa produced a preliminary finding of endangerment from carbon dioxide. they were working on this before he was president, bureaucrats can't work that fast, and then the final finding was made in december

for the climate conference in copenhagen that was supposed to produce another global warming. mark: so you're telling us that we have a massive bit of public policy that has enormous effect on society that's built on -- i'll use my words, phony models. >> built on a house of cards. models really don't work. if i could really be arcane, i could explain the mechanism as to why they don't work. mark: as long as i understand it. >> the models systematically predict that as you go up in the atmosphere in the tropics which are 40% of the earth that the temperature should rise dramatically as you go further up in the atmosphere. so when you get to the level of the jet stream, the computer models are predicting seven times. i didn't say seven-tenths of a degree, i said seven times more warming than being observed. why am i boring you with that?

the vertical distribution of temperature determines precipitation, and guess what? almost all the atmospheric moisture that we have around us today in the humid washington, d.c., that comes from the tropics. so if you get that vertical motion wrong, down there, you get all the subsequent variables wrong. it's a fantastic systematic error, and again, that along with the difference between the surface temperatures are rather the lower atmospheric temperatures than what's being observed, that's sufficient to the chemical finding. mark: to the average pedestrian like me, if you get that wrong, what does it mean? you get the weather models wrong? >> the subsequent weather wrong. that's why, if you look at all these families of models, they predict radically different changes in precipitation from model to model. well, probably because they got

the precipitation initialization out of tropics wrong. precipitation is important. i offer you wilmington, north carolina, if an example precipitation is important coming from the tropics, get that wrong and you get that thing. >> is weather getting worse? >> no. i love that question because what you really want to look at. roger pilke, jr., at the university of colorado does. this yes, there's more damage from weather because there's more stuff and people and property in the way of weather. so what you really want to look at are weather damages as a percent of gdp. when you look at it that way, there's nothing whatsoever. i'm sure hurricanes are getting worse. i heard that on every legacy network during florence and harvey and all that stuff. well, fact of the matter is, there's a guy by the name of ryan maui, a hot shot young

tropical meteorologist, and a scholar at the cato institute. he tracks the energy in the tropical cyclones. since we got global records that began in 1970, and you would think there would be some relationship between that integrated energy and global warming after all, it's only logical. vice president gore says that must be the case. it's not. there's no relationship whatsoever between the accumulated cyclone energy and the surface temperature of the earth. it's just not there. now, what -- wait a minute, j does our government say this? they said it in their last report called global climate change impacts in the united states. they said, oh, there's been a significant increase in hurricane power in the atlantic ocean from 1970 to 2009 or

something like that. 1980 to 2009. wait a minute. why did you stop in 2009. it's 2014 report. because if you take the data after 2009, the increase goes back to where it was. why did you start in the mid 1970s, because we have records that are really good back to 1920. if you look at 1920 to 1950, you see an increase that is exactly the same as the one that occurs. mark: so the information they're providing us -- >> is skewed. it's skewed. they're cherry picking. mark: here we rely on the climatologists and they are hyperpolitical. tonight get back to that as soon as we return. don't forget, ladies and gentlemen, you can watch levin tv almost every week night by going to crtv.com/mark and sign up there or give us a call at 844-levin tv. 844-levin tv. we'll be right back.

no matter who rides point, there are over 10,000 allstate agents riding sweep. call one today. are you in good hands?

. mark: dr. patrick michaels. politicization of science. let me read you something from return of the primitive anti-industrial revolution,

which i found rather compelling. she said instead of their old promises that collectivism would create uniform abundance and denunciations of capitalism for creating poverty. they are now denouncing capitalism for creating abundance. instead of promising conflict, comfort and security for everyone, they are denouncing everyone for being comfortable and secure. demand to restrict technology is the demand to restrict man's mind. it is nature, that is reality that makes both these calls impossible to achieve. technology can be destroyed and the minding paralyzed, but neither can be restricted. whether and whatever such restrictions are attempted, it is the mind, not the state, that where there's a will, there's a way. you agree with that? >> i do. we should ask the question, how did it happen? how did we use the authority of

government to direct essentially technology, energy, et cetera? how did government become so intrusive in the science process? and to do that, we have to know history. it goes back to none other than franklin d. roosevelt, who, at the end of world war ii, saw that the manhattan project was going to be successful, probably. and he wrote to the director of the office that ran the project and said, hey, we need to keep all these scientists working for the government. they'll do great things and everybody will have a greater life, and that produced a document called science, the endless frontier that laid the blueprint for the federal takeover of science. prior to world war ii, there was very, very little federal money in science except in the land grant schools, and scientific progress was perfectly fine. economic growth, we were the

envy of the world. if science is developing economies, and i believe it is, we were doing really, really well. now, when the government takes it over, the government gets what it wants and the government can give out money to basically only study the global warming via climate models. do not take a look at climate history and to see what that really tells us, and then the government can have the policies that it wants. because, do you expect, do you really expect scientists who have been paid for decades to study the effects of warming and to create models that by the way have too much warming, do you expect them to testify in front of congress when asked do we need more research? say no, it's a nonproblem? they get thrown out of their jobs if they did. that so it becomes self-perpetuating. now global warming is a cosm,

not a microcosm. it's a big cosm, cosmos, in this constellation but there are other issues that the government just abuses science onto take people's stuff, if you don't mind, and that governments distort in service of a political end. i mean, think about the dietary advice that we've been getting from the government for 20 or 30 years, turns out to be wrong. might be associated with the epidemic of obesity and diabetes. these, when the government gets together and makes a plan and does not deviate from, it people get hurt, and that is what's happening, and ayn rand was right. part of the plan was to get us off our energy stream, to get us off of oil and onto so-called renewables, renewables that don't provide nearly enough energy, and it's intermittent so they take down the technology.

what ayn rand was talking about is what actually happened. as a result of roosevelt and vand var bush, we created the state science institute. if you remember, it was the state science institute that destroyed the innovation of the society. mark: so i have an interesting paradox here, you have an institution of government or several of them, which claim to be the final say in science by rejecting science, by attacking aspects of science, by climate change denyers. >> by shading it. mark: by shading it, so you lose knowledge, you lose science, correct? >> you see, that's a problem. if you say, well, they're just studying the greenhouse effect and the greenhouse effect is real and it will create some warming, so all these things, all these pronouncements that

we get on diet, on whether we should exploit the world's largest copper deposit in alaska, what the government says we'll have a small kernel of truth in it, and then it will be built into an artifice the size of mount everest from the small kernel, that's the problem. mark: i don't mean to simplify this, but who are these people? are they ubiquitous? are there ten of them? >> when you buy off the academy, you can get what you paid for, and you know, when we went into the federalization of science, the academy said, okay, we'll apply for your money and we're going to tack on 50% for every research application that we're going to call overhead, and that money, we, the universities, will use as we choose, and so a lot of

it that the engineering and science departments generate all this revenue, probably goes keep the dramatic language of the department to flow so there's not enough traffic. so now the academy roots for anything that is big government that it feel it can tie onto to maintain this relationship. roots of political correctness, there are many, mani fold and varied. mark: this is a very important point, you're not the first one i've talked to who mentioned this. there are different fields. the university of academy colleges more and more less in terms of pure science, less in terms of pure knowledge, less in terms of pure debate and so forth, more and more directional, more and more ideological. that's your point? >> yes, it is, and it's not

just in climate change. in fact, i am just completing a book manuscript that looks more than climate change, it looks at drug policy, the opioid war and all these good things. it's called scientocracy, i think that's what we've developed in this country. and you know, there are things we can do about it, but this has to be a public will, and the public is so scientifically misinformed that it becomes a very, very heavy lift, doesn't it. mark: in fact, it becomes very political, doesn't it? in other words if you don't believe in climate change and you can't explain it, you don't know what it means where, it comes, from you don't know why it exists but you know as a political matter, you better believe in it or you're a denire like a holocaust

(burke) that's what we call a huge drag. seriously, that's what we call it. officially. and we covered it. talk to farmers. we know a thing or two because we've seen a thing or two. ♪ we are farmers. bum-pa-dum, bum-bum-bum-bum ♪

..

[♪] lauren: live from "america's news headquarters." i'm lauren greene. the manhunt for the suspected cop killer in georgia continues. he was responding to a suspicious vehicle at a middle school. one person is in custody but the suspected shooter is still on the run. police say he should be considered armed and dangerous.

a train derailment in taiwan was carrying 36 people when it jumped off the rails on a curve. it's one of the fastest passenger trains in the country and can reach speeds much 93 miles per hour. lime lauren greene. michaels, ev says this global warming, it's a terrible thing. the oceans are going to rise, we just talked about. this the hurricanes are going to be more intense and so forth, you're saying not really. well, we never talk about this, are there benefits from some increased heat on the planet? >> the whole philosophy is straight out of voltair. we don't live in the best of all possible worlds and our atmosphere is not in the best of all possible composition. so what's happened as it's

warmed this half a degree in the late 20th century and the co2s and gone up and up in the atmosphere, we've created a greener and greener planet and the greening of the planet earth is profound. there's a very recent paper that just came out a couple of months ago, showing tremendous increases in how much green matter there is on the planet. mark: vegetation. >> vegetation. the largest increases by the way are in the tropical rainforest. it's growing like topsies. mark: is that why we never hear about it anymore? >> i don't know why we don't hear about it anymore, but it sure is growing, and in grassland, which is lot of it is used for agricultjur prairies. >> prairies or harvest it for hay, the data for 17 years of satellite data show the

grassland, green mass is growing at 5% per year. that's huge. another magazine from two years ago looked at the planetary greening and said what are the causes? he did a factor analysis. 70% of it was a simple direct effect of putting more carbon dioxide in the air because it's plant food. and one of the other big causes of the planetary greening was climate change, the warming of the planet. yeah. we never hear about this, but it's real. mark: so even though it's warming just a little bit, it has an enormous positive impact on the planet. >> main reason for that is because the way the greenhouse changes work is they warm the coldest temperatures preferentially to warming the warmer ones, so the growing season, which ends with the first frost in autumn and begins with the last frost in the spring, the growing seasons

get longer and longer and longer, the greenhouse effect affects nighttime temperatures more than daytime temperatures, that's when the colder temperatures are. you have a long time for the planet to clean up. you have longer growing season and fertilization of carbon dioxide which is more important than the climate change itself, and you're winding up with a much greener planet. i've looked at these numbers. i can tell you that the amount of agricultural productivity that is now being induced in the planet by co2 particularly in the gr grassland areas is going provide a lot of food for our future. mark: what gets confusing is the logic of all this, you would think a tiny little bit of increase in heat and it comes and goes, right? that's the way the nature works, the planet functions,

would be so beneficial, that we wouldn't be trying to regulate the hell out of it, we would pretty much just leave it alone. >> you would think, but unfortunately, like we talked about early in the program, if we parameterize the models to produce large amounts of heat in the 21st century, then we're going to say it's all bad and we're going to try, to if you will, detech nolgize. mark: when did all this start, the prob ganda, the fake stuff. >> it started in the late 1970s when a group of folks they know decided they wanted nuclear power, and they decided that carter, who sold himself as a nuclear engineer, actually a technician on a submarine, that carter was favorable to this, so that if they pushed the issue of global warming as a

catastrophe, caused by the burning of fossil fuels, that could lead to the nuclearization of the country. that's when it started. and it spun out of control because the green allies who wanted us, the fossil fuel thing gone, they didn't want nuclear power. they're dramatically opposed to nuclear power. they pushed solar energy and windmills. now we get an unreliable grid and expensive electricity it. actually has a history. it happened. it was an international movement that started out in sweden with bert bolline, the first head of the united nations intergovernmental panel on climate change and it was a very conscious plan to impose this not just on our society but the world. mark: what is this degrowth, deindustrialization movement? is it part of the massive progressive movement or worse, socialism or marxism or

anything of that sort. i've studied, i've written about it, wrote about it, bornin yorp was exported to the united states? . >> that is true, but the problem is it enjoys broad support as long as you demonize the producers of energy. we should celebrate the producers of energy. it is energy that drives the technology that has doubled our life expectancy in the last 100 years. we should be celebrating this. and if you take this away, you're going to take that away too. mark: don't forget, folks, almost every week night can you join me on levin tv, levin tv, go to crtv.com/mark or give us a call at 844-levin tv. 844-levin tv. we'll be right back.

as a pro athlete, the sleep number 360 smart bed is my competitive edge. it senses our movements and automatically adjusts to keep us both effortlessly comfortable. so i'm at my best for this team... and the home team. sleep number proven quality sleep, from $999.

and if you get lost, just hit me on the old horn. man: tom's my best friend,

but ever since he bought a new house... tom: it's a $10 cover? oh, okay. didn't see that on the website. he's been acting more and more like his dad. come on, guys! jump in! the water's fine! tom pritchard. how we doin'? hi, there. tom pritchard. can we get a round of jalapeño poppers for me and the boys, please? i've been saving a lot of money with progressive lately, so... progressive can't protect you from becoming your parents. but we can protect your home and auto when you bundle with us. ♪believe we're still worth the fight♪ ♪you'll see there's hope for this world tonight♪ ♪i believe, i believe ♪yeah ♪rock guitar

. mark: the top of the show, went through your biography a little bit, and you worked for the intergovernmental panel on climate change at the u.n. i don't know a lot about it, know a little about it. written a little about it. but it was notoriously corrupt intellectually as i understand it, tell us about that. >> well, the ipcc as it's called is the intergovernmental panel on climate change. the united nations is trying to tell you something there, it wants the governments of the world to have a unified view, and therefore a unified policy on climate change. that's what it was there for. now, i was asked to write a small portion of second report. i've reviewed the other ones and people said well, why did you work for ipcc, the garden

parties there were a few skunks, the skunks dropped out because they were disgusted with it. we got our two cents in, and as you know, it's simply run away with the issue, and all these documents that are produced like the ipcc documents, the u.s. national assessment on climate change, they're summaries of scientific literature. now the problem is the scientific literature, itself, has to be biased, because we are working, we are funding the hypothesis that climate change is this horrible thing, have all the horrible effects and you don't get your grant renewed unless you publish and so that literature that you summarize is biased in a given direction. that's how we get on policy did. some people sit in a room and say, wow, this is how we'll do this? i don't know. but it might have happened.

mark: the u.n. is notoriously anti-capitalism and high sovereignty, national sovereignty and so forth. wolf said, the leftist activist, that really, it's the environment climate change, all the issues, through which we're going to change the capitalist society. >> correct. mark: is that what's taking place? >> they're trying. they certainly had a block in the road that occurred, a bump in the road that occurred a couple years ago. mark: what happened? >> well, we got a president that wasn't going for it, and he promised to get out of the paris accord on climate change, that's an agreement that was hatched in december of 2015, which the nations of the world submit what are called voluntary plans to reduce their emissions. so, for example, we volunteered

to reduce our emissions at pretty substantial percentage. the indians volunteered to increase their emissions, the chinese volunteered to increase their emissions until 2030 whereupon they might level off. so the president looked at that and he said, this is a bad deal. what i told you, doesn't that sound like a bad deal? mark: yes. >> he got out of it. what country on earth reduced its emissions the most? of all the nations on earth? the u.s. of a. mark: so this would have formalized an agreement where we're compelled to lower and the chinese and the indians could increase? >> yes. thing is nobody is compelled. there's no enforcement mechanism in the paris accord. so when our negotiator john kerry came back and was on the sunday tv shows, he said well how are you going to enforce this, what are you going to do countries that don't do what

they said they were going to do? he said we'll shame them. honest to god, i guess we have a shame bomb now and that's going to do something. of course, emissions are going up. mark: why have we lowered our? because of good old capitalism and technology, discovering that we were not running out of natural gas. that if we just break rocks underneath our feet, we can extract the natural gas from shale. mark: fracking. >> fracking, that's right. so we're substituting natural gas which is cheaper for coal for electrical generation, and that produces about half as much co2 per unit electricity as a coal plant does, and so our emissions are going down, and i see a lot of big companies are experimenting with natural gas for large scale transportation. you can do to on a railroad because the size of the engine doesn't matter. might be able to do it in trucks, so emissions, it's more

efficient, emissions go down and then 30 or 40 years from now, because there are so many pressures to be efficient, i don't know what technology will have, but i'll bet it will be more efficient. the old advertising slogans, the future belongs to the efficient? welcome to the united states. welcome to the united states. mark: we'll be right back. this is actually under your budget. it's great. mm-hmm. yeah, and when you move in, geico could help you save on renters' insurance! man 1: (behind wall) yep, geico helped me with renters insurance, too! um... the walls seem a bit thin... man 2: (behind wall) they are! and craig practices the accordion every night! says the guy who sings karaoke by himself. i'm a very shy singer. you're tone deaf! ehh... should we move on to the next one? it's a great building! you'll love it here! we have mixers every thursday. geico®. it's easy to switch and save on homeowners and renters insurance.

. mark: dr. patrick michaels, why does the media do such a lousy job in reporting basic information like you're explaining to us right now? >> well, the end of the world fell, look at the ratings for the weather channel every time there is even a modest hurricane, and if you are predicting and projecting global weather and climate ark geddon, people are going to tune in, and even if it doesn't happen, the way it's supposed to, well, you don't have to report that, do you? you don't have to report that the climate models are predicting way too much tropical warming. all that good stuff. no, you can just keep on going as you will. there's a niche, though, i've often thought of this. wouldn't there be a market for

a good weather channel, that just had pictures of the beach and bright sunny days with advertisers anheuser-busch and viagra, it would work, i'm sure. mark: there's an opening right there. >> yeah. mark: but it's a great disservice, i see this across the board in a lot of cultural, social, scientific issues, where the free press doesn't provide information. doesn't provide facts. it provides ideologically pushed policies. and this is particularly troublesome to me in this area because there's a lot of correcting that needs to be done, so it's politicized. it becomes an ideological movement. we talk about it, people want to raise objections. you. you've come under a barrage of assaults as i've seen. >> not very pretty. mark: not very pretty, simply because you say wait a minute, i have different information that shows something else.

what's it like? >> it's not fun, but it must be enough fun they continue to keep on doing it. the problem is that a lot of the journalistic profession, a lot of people go into it because they're idealistic, they want to change the world, and my god, here's an issue that affects the energy structure of our society, which is really affecting our society and i can be involved in this? so they form pressure groups or internal lobbying groups like the society of environmental journalists. mark: i didn't know there was one? >> oh, yeah, very powerful within the profession, and enforces a speech line. there are certain things you don't say, certain things you say. and they have annual conferences where the lights of issues like climate change come and give them lectures about the end of the world. so it's a self-feeding process and an institution.

mark: is the epa a good agency or bad agency? when you hear about it, you say clean air, clean water, saves the polar bears, do they fear and irregulate and make the progress that much more difficult? >> the polar bears are decreasing in numbers. the epa was the outgrowth of the early environmental movement in the early united states, created by richard nixon, and by the way, the air in some of our air sheds was crap. mark: by the way, we're going to finish with this when we a once-in-five hundred year storm should happen every five hundred years, right? fact is, there have been twenty-six in the last decade. allstate is adapting. with drones to assess home damage sooner. and if a flying object damages your car, you can snap a photo and get your claim processed in hours, not days. plus, allstate can pay your claim in minutes. now that you know the truth...

are you in good hands? enterprise car sales and you'll take any trade-in?rom that's right! great! here you go... well, it does need to be a vehicle. but - i need this out of my house. (vo) with fair, transparent value for every trade-in... enterprise makes it easy.

be right back. with moderate to severe crohn's disease, i was there, just not always where i needed to be. is she alright? i hope so. so i talked to my doctor about humira. i learned humira is for people who still have symptoms of crohn's disease after trying other medications. and the majority of people on humira saw significant symptom relief

and many achieved remission in as little as 4 weeks. humira can lower your ability to fight infections, including tuberculosis. serious, sometimes fatal infections and cancers, including lymphoma, have happened; as have blood, liver, and nervous system problems, serious allergic reactions, and new or worsening heart failure. before treatment, get tested for tb. tell your doctor if you've been to areas where certain fungal infections are common, and if you've had tb, hepatitis b, are prone to infections, or have flu-like symptoms or sores. don't start humira if you have an infection. be there for you, and them. ask your gastroenterologist about humira. with humira, remission is possible.

mark: apa started under nixon and what are your thoughts about? >> we had really serious air quality problems in the country and the epa to great job with that. it tried or succeeded in controlling sulfur, nitrogen oxide, came out of power plants

and all that good stuff. but unfortunately like most bureaucracies one of the easy low hanging fruit are the things you get and then you start to get more arcane but your bureaucracy is embedded and then the agency takes on a life of its own. that is what has happened. can it be fixed? yeah, it could be. we could take a look at the engagement fighting from carbon dioxide and cl scientific results are supportive or nonsupportive and that would go a long way. and then, we would have a much more sensible policy and not be shooting ourselves in the energy for it like we are and we would continue to maintain our society at high high level. mark: true enough. problem is we've had people who are embedded in these agencies who are not willing to do as you

say or ideologically driven, or are there for decades and have, as you say, their agenda and will drive their agenda it becomes a huge problem. it's been a great pleasure. >> great fun. mark: thank you very much. the next time on "life, liberty and levin". >> i am chris wallace. the u.s. alliance with saudi arabia in jeopardy as the country acknowledges that missing journalist is dead. ♪. >> saudi arabia has been a great ally but what happened is unacceptable. >>chris: but how to punish the kingdom if evidence shows the royal family is behind the jeff of jamal khashoggi? >> we haven't finished our review. i would prefer we don't use as retribution canceling $10 billion worth of work. >>s: