here's northeast greenland.osely that's carls bad fjord and if you look closely, oh, my god, there's the three-fingered island in a book published in 1957. nobody bothered to check on this. and it was covered not in the "new york times" print edition when this map was uncovered by my assistant but in a blog. and mr. schmitts response is his map has to be wrong. well, i haven't seen another map yet. things that we say are true go unquestioned in this climate and like i said, it's not just one party. i'd like to close with the red red koyapigaktoruk comes bob, bob, bobbin along. robins in the arctic. you've all heard this. look, senator john mccain, 2004. the inuit language for 10,000 years never had a word for robin and thousand there are robins all over their villages. the bbc program on climate change title, no word for robin: climate change in the canadian arctic. where are the fact-checkers on this one? come on. there are staffers over here

>> i see a question right here. >> greenland correspondent, mr. dave legates have you read the book? if not i suggest for mankind is sake you should write a book because everything has a another side and we need to know something. something i wanted to get very basic to both you and the audience uc climate change coming from a human behavior and industrial production do we have any data on those things? thank you. >> i am not sure i would be the person to write a book like this for i have not written a book and have no plans to do so prepare written a couple of chapters what i do is much more technical and those people are more gifted on both sides of the aisle that can translate to the general public they're much more gifted at that and i will let them do that and i will stick to the more scientific banks brother has been a lot of assessment changes of urbanization and industrialization and some are available the intergovernmental panel but the issue is how does that change the landscape how does that translate back into climate models. people ar

you cannot go the bering strait because of the peninsula it cannot go west of greenland because of the island's so that means that warm water several degrees warmer than presence of modern had to have been flowing out by greenland for millennia and it did not shed its eyes. case closed. next question. >> bree you are misrepresenting what the ipcc said. >> but i just dropped to the are broader thing from the millennia. >> my name is mike jones i am the actuary and enjoy the statistical part of that i think one of the ugliest words in the english language unfortunately is the word green. i think it has been missed used so many times. the issue i do not see you commenting on which i think is one of the key issues is what is the effective humans is on all of the things that have been that people claim are happening to the universe and what the effect is on what ever warming or on warming we're having? that is the key in this whole debate. >> first of all, i make it very plain i think much of the second warming of the 20th century has a human component. my colleague by will let him respond.

i know greenland where i went is -- you can see thetic melt. you can sit and actually see thetic break off if thes off frt icebergs and watch them go to sea. so the scientists have proven it and we know it's absolutely true. so when senator inhofe comes down here and he flies in the face of science, those of us who have been working on this -- and i see one of our great leaders not only, i say this in the senate, but, frankly, in the country, and even in the world community, john kerry, who has joined us. just for his information i will speak for about another continue manipulates and i'll be so happy to sit and hear him because he's got such an important vision on this. but here is the good news. the good news is that this is an enormous opportunity to move our country forward. and again i could quote thomas freidman who did an extraordinary job of writing books and articles and he testified before committee on environment and public works very clearly on this, that the country that does this now and does it right and sets up a price on carbon

they were smart as the people who make the computer models for greenland and the could have said based on current trends in the year 1,000 we believe that there'll be 338 billion catholics by the year 2000 and 90% of the world will be catholic based upon trends that we have seen. this is what happens when you project things out for a thousand years -- it is silly. what we base policy on projections like that? are haven't a clue. one more i think -- one or two. i will get the one in the back there. >> [inaudible] [inaudible] have your views changed about this calls origin in science? have they changed, have they not changed? >> well, you got to buy the book. [laughter] and i will tell you why because there is a chapter in a call that are changing from a history and in that chapter i asked him to be a scientist -- i think is started off in 1990 and 1995, 2000 and 2005 and you can see how the same data sets have changed. in 1990 there was a paper published by spencer and christie which have 11 years of a brand new satellite called america with sending unit and it showed no warming. but th

iceland and greenland were farmed by nordsman. there were farms there. there was a time period a thousand years ago, there was not only cattle. people thought that vineland is something that leif ericson made up. the weather was warmer and there was a cycle. was that cycle the decline in temperature of the little ice age? was that caused by human beings? how about all the other cycles? were they caused by human beings? if we see there were cycles that even happened before prehistoric man even existed, there must be some other explanation. well, what is that explanation? so, if there were cycles before human beings were on the planet, what is the other explanation? it seems to many scientists who believe this that the cycles of climate have followed solar activity. that's why -- the sun is the biggest force of energy on the planet. and they believe that many scientists believe that it's solar activity and not human activity that's creating this cycle, just as it did the other cycles that we have gone through long before human beings even existed on the pl

the fact is there were big areas of greenland that were green that had agriculture and a green part of that area. iceland was an area that had plants and crops. people thought they were claiming that there were vines there. no. the temperature was different. it was warmer 1,000 years ago. so there have been numerous weather cycles that have had nothing to do with human activity, unless you believe that the vikings that there was something they were doing that was changing the weather. and if there was a warming cycle -- and again, if we have had a warming cycle since that time, it has been one degree. but these past climate cycles, there is one thing we have to figure out. why is it then that we have had these cycles? why is it then -- and why is this cycle claiming a one-degree rise in temperature from a 500-year low, why is this different? why are we trying to change the rules of the game and centralize power and look at this as some sort of cry cyst when it is another cycle and what is causing the cycle then? it seems that cycles of climate follow solar activity. the cycles we have