but about the big picture i'm tom arbonne coming up in this half hour a koch brother fund a climate change denier has switched teams and is now saying humans are entirely responsible for global warming but more skeptics see the light the world climate change deniers continue turning a blind eye to the destruction of our environment also many refuse to accept the concept of climate change there are also those who argue that evolution is just as fun and science and faith go hand in hand a little or will they will there always be a great divide between the two and do you really need a rocket launcher to defend yourself well justice scalia thinks he should be able to have one no questions asked do we get to the point in america where people

actually believe military grade weapons should be in our homes and workplaces explain it and i still take. it as the rest of the news a coke brother funded climate change skeptic has suddenly reversed course and now proclaims that humans are entirely the cause of global climate change three years ago this guy physicist richard miller was given one hundred fifty thousand dollars from the koch brothers to co-found the berkeley earth's surface temperature project to deep pong climate change arguments. but on sunday after three years of intense research miller is biting the hand that feeds him by promoting genuine science and ringing the alarm bell the climate change is happening and humans are to blame as miller wrote on sunday in the new york times my total turn around in such

a short time is the result of careful and objective analysis it appears likely that essentially all of this increase in temperatures results from the human emission of greenhouse gases from unprecedented ice melting in greenland to unprecedented heat waves and droughts in america to sudden die offs of reefs and bio plankton in the oceans our world is changing rapidly and even coke funded scientists can't deny it anymore ultimately it may now be too late centuries of hurling toxic greenhouse gases into the atmosphere may have already pushed the world asked the climate change threshold meaning in the coming years decades centuries our planet could be radically different than we're prepared to handle for more on this bill mckibben joins me he's an environmental activist and founder of three fifty dot org as well as the author of the book earth bill welcome back again tom always good to be with you know it's always an honor to have you bill so now even scientists who've been

paid to deny climate change are waking up what to make of this development. well i mean scientifically it's not that interesting because all he's doing is confirming what the other scientists have said for more than a decade now but politically it's kind of interesting you know the. climate deniers the fossil fuel industry have really begun to flail as i think mostly because everybody can now look around them and see what happens when a planet starts to warm we've got forty percent less ice in the summer the ocean is thirty percent more acid because warm air holds more water vapor than cold we have more droughts and more floods and pretty much everybody is seeing this seventy six percent of american farms are currently in a drought something like eighty percent of american counties had some kind of federal federally where weather disaster last year you'd have to be almost

willfully blind either that or working for the fossil fuel industry not to see what's going on around you for decades climate scientists have been warning about coming freak weather are we seeing that now is this that that these places is just the sort of thing that climate scientists said we're going to go from here bill here's the scary part tom what we're seeing now is what happens when you warm the temperature about one degree the same scientists who told us that would happen tell us with robust confidence that we'll look at the temperature increase more like four or five degrees unless we get off fossil fuel far more quickly than any government currently plans to you know have a piece in the current issue of rolling stone that's attracted a lot of attention more than a million. views because it lays bare the fact that the fossil fuel industry is currently planning i mean literally planning they've announced with their reserves

that they've declared to the s u c to burn more. fossil fuel than even the most conservative scientist or government thinks it's safe we're really on the path towards something that makes our current heat wave you know look like a sunday school picnic by in that in that article in rolling stone you're referring to three numbers that out of two of global catastrophe what are they. first two degrees that's what the world's governments have declared is the most we could possibly allow the world to warm that's the kind of red line that they've set now scientists say it's much too hot that really one degree is already giving us orval troubles but in the interest of realism let's stick with the moment for two degrees the scientists have also told us that we can burn about five hundred sixty five more gigatons of carbon before two thousand and fifty and have some hope of staying below net to a degree why the trouble is that the fossil fuel industry and the countries that operate like the fossil fuel industry think venezuela say but have on their books

twenty seven one hundred you could tons of carbon five times more it's not yet above ground physically but it's above ground economically that's what exxon share price is based on when chevron goes to the bank to borrow money that's the collateral and and so it in essence they've already declared that they're going to burn it and unless we can figure out how to put a serious crimp in their plans and we're working hard on that three fifty dot org that carbon is going to get burnt and the planet's going to heat by more than a multiple support any sane scientist says is ok bill we've heard people talk about cap and trade we've heard people talk about carbon taxes and we've heard people talk about carbon sequestration sucking the carbon dioxide of the carbon the carbon dioxide out of the air out of the atmosphere where are these things that what are and are there other solutions that that i haven't mentioned i guess them the obvious one is to stop burning the stuff right yet the essential the essential

policy thing every economist as you know pointed out for a decade now put a price on carbon that reflects the damage it does in the atmosphere the fossil fuel industry is the only industry on earth that gets to pour its waste out for free tell nobody else when you run a restaurant you have to pay someone to curb away your garbage it would be cheaper to chuck it in the street but then you have rats you know that's why so. civilizations don't but people do that unless they run fossil fuel so what we have to do is assemble a big enough movement to force the fossil fuel industry to do the right thing that's going to be hard to do when they're the richest industry on earth exxon announced a quarterly profit of fifteen or sixteen billion dollars last week but we're going to try we're going to try and build that divestment movement that looks like the one that took on apartheid in south africa or generation ago at three fifty dot org we're going to launch a big nationwide campaign the night after the election and that's going to be its

point if these guys want to take away our future and our planet then we're going to take away their money bill the point that you made about you know they're dumping their waste on us in economics those are called externalities i suppose an environmental ism as well we are they are internalizing their profits and they are extra allies in the the costs the damage that's being done and it's not so much the it's not just the climate change it's the cancers that are being caused by these you know by the high fractions of these things in the diesel particularly what an excuse in this case the damage i mean a damage from climate is. an unbelievable scale their external icing their cost not only on all of us when everybody who's ever going to come after us they're doing damage on a geological time scale that's what happens when you change the chemistry of seawater say it's not going to change back any time soon it may not in human terms we're letting them screw things up on an unprecedented level how do we wait and

pull up to the concept that this is an extra analogy that this is that this is this is they're dumping their trash it's such a great name. well that's why we're sitting off around the country on this road show naomi klein will be coming along we're going to try and really spread this message to begin november seventh i guess in seattle and go on from there and it should be a pretty remarkable exercise i think. it's time to take these guys on adam know whether we can win if you were a betting person you might say we could but you know if you're a betting person this time last year you would have said the keystone pipeline to be built to and we organized the largest civil disobedience action in thirty years and we want to least a temporary victory there so we'll continue to try and build movements and see what we can do step by step bill mckibben three fifty dot org thanks a lot bill thank you tom take care keep up the great work as the temperatures get

hotter and the weather gets wilder eventually billionaires will no longer be able to buy off scientists that deny the reality of the damage their oil coal and natural gas industries are doing to our planet. just. it's the good the bad of the very very proto tory asli ugly the good democratic national committee yesterday the d.n.c. officially put language in its party platform that endorsers marriage equality and calls for the full repeal of doma the defense of marriage act president obama has already come out in favor of marriage equality the fact that it is now an official part of the democratic party platform is a very big deal unfortunately it doesn't look like the republican national committee will be following in the democrats' footsteps anytime soon marriage

equality should be a basic human right kudo's to the d.n.c. for recognizing this and giving a huge lift to get. the bad ralphs need foundation a libertarian group is sponsoring a billboard in idaho that compares president obama to the shooter in the colorado shooting massacre the billboard reads kill twelve in a movie theater with assault rifle everyone freaks out kills thousands of foreign policy wins nobel peace prize tragedy in colorado occurred less than two weeks ago but this made foundation decided to ignore the still fresh physical mental and emotional wounds of the shooting in favor of promoting their political agenda and give a new meaning to the words too soon. and the very very ugly but first bad news church of crystal springs charles and to andrew wilson had booked the church and distributed invitations for their wedding ceremony which they expected to go off without a hitch instead some members of the mostly white church in mississippi banned the

african-american couple from getting married in it and threatened to vote out the pastor if the church went ahead with the ceremony it's twenty twelve but in some places in america african-american couples still can't get married without facing racial insensitivity and bigotry and that is very very. coming up justice scalia thinks you can walk around your tel with an assault rifle in one hand and a rocket launcher in the other post the mean interpretation of one little word turn america into the land of the armed and the home of the dangerous.

if they shoot something inappropriate for public they can easily be. casualties of war ok. i wish he would have never happened but it has happened. in a war a t.v. camera becomes an unnecessary what destroys their own safety all foreign nationals including journalists and inspectors should leave the room. and the spear what happens with such witnesses i got him on my site. one of many subjects are you. sure your shoes shooting on our. world are the true science technology innovation all the news developments from around russia we've got the future covered.

it started here. for going global that's no. longer. choose your place. take your stuff. and. make your statement. to the world. if you like it's true. so sometimes you know what you know and sometimes you know what you don't know and sometimes is the firesign theater says everything you know is wrong and i don't think you are you are right. to make. sure. that everything you go with is wrong one of the

greatest one of the greatest divides in society today is that which exists between the scientific and religious communities on one side you have scientists who use scientific principles censored research in-depth experiments to answer some of life's most flexing questions on the other side you have the religious community which relies more on religious beliefs and teachings when trying to address the means of life while many people say science and religion can't work together there are those who argue that science and faith are perfectly compatible so if you think that science and faith the universe is apart then everything you know may be wrong . joining me now is dr robert a charney particle physicist and author of multiple books including can life be merely an accident. welcome well thank you for inviting me so pleasure to be on your show to thank you for joining us can life be merely an accident. well i think life is one of the

greatest mysteries in the entire universe and for many years i believed like the mainstream of science that life began when the right atoms just accidentally banged into each other in just the right way and poof there was the first d.n.a. or some equivalent of that the old miller and for many years sorry the old miller experiment miller the old yuri miller experiment yes and that experiment demonstrated that amino acids could be spontaneously created by random chemical reactions and ixion to scott very excited about that because amino acids are a first step proteins follow d.n.a. follows that and so they thought that if they just keep shaking up the test tube and maybe heating it a different way eventually something would crawl out but that experiment has been reproduced maybe a thousand times and so far nothing has crawled out if that experiment was well

wrote likely new is that now we have discovered enough about our universe and discovered enough about life that we can actually do a mathematically rigorous analysis of the question of whether life could really have occurred by some random chemical reaction and the result of that analysis is that life is probably the most improbable occurrence that anyone could possibly imagine i mean i could quote you a number but the fact is that there is hardly anything that could explain the origin of life that is less likely than a random chemical reaction so who created the creator. i have no idea how life originated i'm not promoting any specific solution to the problem but what i want the scientists to understand is that this notion that we've held onto for fifty years or so simply is mathematically impossible and what i'd like

other people to understand is that science is claims or the claims of some scientists that they have understood life and there's no need for a god or there is no need for any other solution those claims simply aren't viable either so i think that there is this issue this conflict between science and faith that has in part been supported by this notion of science that is no longer viable the universe is on its own doing and with what we know about life today that simple random chemical process just doesn't make any sense the universe is fifteen billion years old the earth is five billion years old that's a massive theory of time if you were to if you were to say that you know miller and what's his name's experiment and you said you know reshape it over and over until something crawls out well if you did that hundreds of trillions of trillions of

times you would approximate the number of times there been light in strikes in the early you know pre-cambrian earth. isn't doesn't that fall into the realm of statistical possibility i mean is this is. well one might well think so but the numbers work out to be it is vastly inadequate so let me give you a little feeling. according to day one right answer who is the world's leading economic genome must excuse me the minimum amount of d.n.a. that you need to form any form of life has half a million nucleotide base pairs and the number of different ways of putting half a million nucleotide base pairs they're completely independent of each other is a huge number that has two hundred thousand digits a huge number now in the most optimistic scenario the number of combinations that could have been attempted in the entire age of the universe throughout the entire

observable universe is only a number of the has one hundred two digits. ok so two hundred thousand digits would fill an entire book if you wrote it out longhand doctor and two and one hundred two digits is just a couple lines and you know where close to being ok thank you very much for being with us tonight ok now i think you for inviting iraq and now everything you know about the relationship between science and faith is right. i get it americans want to have their guns and i can understand a lot of the arguments in favor of gun ownership you could build a case that someone has a right to a gun to protect him or herself and their family you can build a case of someone has a right to a gun to go hunting to build

a case that someone has a right to a gun for competitive shooting like this shows senior executive producer louise arbor so you can build a case that someone has a right to a gun if they're in the business of protecting the nation like the national guard or the reserves and in fact that last case. was the real original reason the founding fathers wrote the second amendment it was to protect the nation rewind back to the early days of america even after the british were beaten back in the revolutionary war there was still tremendous fear that america was vulnerable to attack it could be the spanish coming up from florida louisiana or the french or the british again coming down from canada or anybody coming across the oceans and most of our founding fathers also had an enormous fear of standing armies during times of peace internal problems after all thousands of years of history showed them the great nations that kept a standing army during times of peace were very often taken down by that very same

army in a military coup thomas jefferson wrote extensively on this even threatening to blow up the constitutional convention since since the constitution the early version didn't include a protection from standing armies as jefferson wrote to james madison in seven hundred eighty seven i do not like in the new federal constitution the omission of a bill of rights providing clearly for protection against standing armies and as jefferson wrote an eight hundred fourteen the greeks and romans had no standing armies yet they defended themselves their says their system was to make every man a soldier and oblige him to repair to the standard of his country whenever that was reared it's made them invincible of the same remedy will make us so to. and that's why they formulated the second amendment which would provide for a well armed militia that should be called on should the nation be under attack and well trained as well again the second amendment is there to protect our nation and

in part to protect our nation from a standing army during times of peace in fact it was modeled on the constitution of pennsylvania the state where the framers met in philadelphia and seven hundred eighty seven to write our constitution article thirteen of the pennsylvania constitution in practice at the time they said they were sitting in pennsylvania writing our constitution adopted in seven hundred seventy six says it pretty plainly thirteen article thirteen that the people have a right to bear arms for the defense of themselves in the state and as standing armies in the time of peace are dangerous to liberty they ought not to be kept up and that the military should be kept under strict subordination to and governed by the civil power but recently especially since president obama took office that rationale has been flipped on its head and many particularly on the hard right believe that the second amendment is there to protect the people against our nation as though militias in south dakota armed with rifles and guns and shotguns are

going to somehow beat back the us government armed with cruise missiles tanks and drones they can't and this idea that the second amendment is a protection against tyranny from our own government is a lie a lie that's increasingly used today to prove or to paint president obama as a radical that wants to take away our freedoms and so we got to arm up but leave it to supreme court justice antonin scalia to give credence to this outrageous and dangerous belief if the second amendment was really there to protect the people from their own government and we need more than just handguns we would need heavy duty weaponry like rocket launchers for example. the amendment does not apply to. arms that cannot be hand carried to keep and bear so it doesn't apply to cannons but i suppose there are handheld rocket launchers that can bring down airplanes that will will have to be. it'll have to be. yes that was justice antonin

scalia suggesting that and l. rocket launchers might be constitutional under the second amendment and what's his brilliant argument to justify this let's listen again to the amendment does not apply to. arms that cannot be hand carried to keep and bear it doesn't apply to cannons did you catch that school is making the argument this is the founding fathers specifically said the right to bear arms then any weapon that can be carried by someone's hands or their arms is good to go unclear if the same logic applies to remote control for a weapons load of drones since someone can bear a joystick or if it applies to nuclear weapons and someone can bear a triggering mechanism or even shoulder fired nuclear weapons tactical nuclear weapons that many believe will soon be able to be fired from one shoulder this is the sort of wacky logic that comes from scalia when he complains to his originalist argument of the constitution is the argument that the constitution is dead is that

living and breathing to adapt to a changing nation should be interpreted so we based other words the founding fathers wrote at the time so the debate over gun control scully doesn't care about new weapon technology that our founder founding fathers could have dreamed or mass shootings that would have sickened of the founding fathers today the only carries about the word he only cares about the words in particular the word bear. it seems silly especially since for all scalia knows the founding fathers may not have meant we have a right to bear arms as an own guns but rather simply a right to bear arms as in the arms of bears are useless clubs there's an originalist argument for it but jokes aside this is a serious debate literally a life and death of aids and for a supreme court justice like antonin scalia say this issue is settled because of one word used by our founding fathers the word bear is not just irresponsible and intellectually lazy it's dangerous saying americans have

a right to hand held rocket launchers that can take down airplanes does however serve a purpose and scalia knows it can just add more legitimacy to those crackpots who believe the second amendment was written to protect the people from our government and thus we the people should be just as well armed as our government that is not what the founding fathers intended second amendment was there to protect our government from foreign invaders not from president obama who's just trying to give health care to more americans if you think it's bad that we have a supreme court justice who doesn't understand that just think how many more whacko supreme court justices we may have if mitt romney wins the white house as if the big picture tonight and no forget teddy democracy begins with you ted your it will see tomorrow.

wealthy british style. markets why not. come to. find out what's really happening to the global economy with max cause or for a no holds barred look at the global financial headlines tune into cars a report on our. mission of free accreditation free zones for charges free to make humans the free. three stooges i free.

download free broadcast quality video for your media projects and free media and on to our t. dot com you. will see the true science technology innovation all the latest developments from around russia we've got the future covered.