i do agree ipcc shows that review does not matter. you can make these available online and it comes down to the editor, the author and the reviewers and if the editor wants to ignore reviews they can do that. they can bend the review even if you allow anybody to comment on any paper you'll still get the same effect taking place so i think it is a good idea but i do not think it will solve the problem. the issue is what we really need is some form of ability to keep turning over the stones and keeps saying this is not the way it is it is the true thank-you carping over and over. i will leave you with the end that i think it should happen not that he would have stolen the idea so i am bar wing it. scientist is the triangle of mormanism. scientists make meaningless statements which leads advocates to make media to make statements to alarmist declarations the politicians respond to alarm by feeding scientists more money now without the final arrow there is another boxes as politicians respond to alarm by trying to do something. that is ev

in the latest compendium by the ipcc.oncentrations of methane in the atmosphere while they were being predicted to increase at the same rate. the concentration was beginning to drop so that finally in recent years there are actually some years in which the concentration in the atmosphere is going negative. and yet this wasn't -- nobody challenged this in the ipcc process. i was a reviewer. i wrote, hey, look at these numbers. no change. so that's the climate of extremes that's not just in public discourse, it's clearly in the scientific discourse. well, this is cato and i would be foolhardy if i said this but there is an assumption that people are -- that as places warm, as our cities warm people will just slowly fry and die. that there will not be adaptation. the united nations wrote that by the year 2020 the death rate in cities in north america, that's here, from heat-related deaths in heat waves will increase several fold. you know, obviously, the temperature has been going up so let's take a look. the cities provide

harry listen, co-chairman of the ipcc, hydroology and water resources working group. dr. antonio zakiki, world federation of sciences. dr. iber gyver. so, this idea that all the scientists are in lock step in favor of the theory of manmade global warming is a lie. not just a lie, a damnedble lie aimed at cutting out honest communication. and who's doing that? who's making this adamant statement that all the scientists are in agreement with this? well, we've had people who say these things and have said things all along, there's the global warming alarmists now who are making these statements but let us just remember, these scarce have happened in the past. i remember when my mother wouldn't serve cranberries at thanksgiving because they caused cancer. i remember when professor meryl streep warned us of alar causing cancer which just about ruined the apple industry for two years, that also was wrong. we heard about other things causing cancer which caused the industry billions of dollars and disrupted very healthy patterns of nutrition that could have been based on psychly

. >> 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. also with regard to the notion that the warming has stopped witchy have heard since 1998, i show that the people who say that i had a computer model i built several years ago and in fact, largely the reason in my opinion, my computer models opinion that we have not seen the warming because the son

that's where this whole thing started in the middle 1990's, it was the ipcc of the united nations where it started. it is no surprise that such a report was leased in time for the house vote on waxman-markie. what is clear, is that despite millions of dollars spent on advertising, the american public has clearly rejected the so-called consensus on global warming. there was a time when this wasn't true. i can remember back between the years of 1998 and 2005 when i would be standing on the senate floor in talking about the science that has -- that rejects this notion and since that time hundreds and hundreds of scientists who were on the other side of this issue have come over to the skeptic side saying, well, wait a minute, this isn't really true. i can name names, clawed alegra, -- claude alegra, a top scientist from france. he used to be on al gore he's side, clearly he says we have reevaluated. david bellamy, the same thing is true there, he was on the other side. so there is no consensus on this -- on the fact that they think that the gases are causing global warming. the other thing

that it is correct the numbers your siding exclude rapid change in ice flow but it is also true the ipcc says they are very unlikely to occur that is why they're not included in the numbers. >> i know that the chart you are showing demonstrating falsification models, how do go but estimating what you think is the minimum period of time for a valid falsification test? >> we did not restarted at five and went out at 20. the problem is we cannot go much beyond 20 because then we start using model data that is too far out in the future when i see the observed data following that o.25 line pretty much along the entire length i would be shocked if another 10 years with all the sudden make it drug into the trumpet. that would be very odd. i wish i could put 10 years on the clock and not age and do that but i cannot thank you very much. lunches upstairs [applause] [inaudible conversations] >> new deal to the new right to argue that modern conservatism was founded in the south. why? >> the reason i make a claim is often people talk about a southern strategy and a capture of the south by the g.o.p

to get all our satellites in the air from northern virginia and the five awe authors of the first ipcc report who wrote in their scientific reports that there's no evidence that humans are causing any of this, those five sentences were removed by a bureaucrat who replaced those and said there's evidence that it was human caused. when asked under oath why he replaced them he said because of intense pressure from the top they have united states government. there are 32,000 scientists, there are 32,000 scientists, 9,000 ph.d.'s and 23,000 >> and then want to join the deniers, gal layo and ine steen. he was sent a letter by 100 of the most important scientists in the world, who challenged him on his questioning of that science. he showed the letter to his friend. he said you would think one of them might have deduced a fact. that is all we ask. >> gentlemen's time is expired. >> mark this day, june 26, 2009. my colleagues, we have an opportunity to serve in a historic session of the conscience of the united states. we have an opportunity to take action that will make a major difference in

to believe in the science of global warming, nothing is going to convince you but having read the ipcc report and seen tens of thousands of acres of forest 100 miles from my house dead because the beatles are killing them because the weather is too warm down to kill the beatles in the winter, having seen the ugly sherds essentially disappeared during my lifetime of 58 years, we don't have a choice and we have to act. host: larry from missouri. on independent line. caller: good morning. i do not know how you can sit there and of the american people in the face and tell them this is not the biggest tax increase that we have ever had. you can say no tactics -- who is going to get the money from cap and tax? because you have put us in so much debt with all of these idiotic things that you keep putting forward to the american people. the people who are going to hurt the worst of the poor people in the united states who cannot afford to pay the bills. they can't even afford to pay the bills they have now. and i have been working on this for several months with my electricity company in clint

to get all our satellites in the air from northern virginia and the five awe authors of the first ipcc report who wrote in their scientific reports that there's no evidence that humans are causing any of this, those five sentences were removed by a bureaucrat who replaced those and said there's evidence that it was human caused. when asked under oath why he replaced them he said because of intense pressure from the top they have united states government. there are 32,000 scientists, 9,000 ph.d.'s and 23,000 masters in science who signed a petition against the silliness we're discussing. they want to join as deniers galileo and einstein. einstein questioned newton's science and got letters from 100 scientists in the world and he showed the letter to a friend and said, you would think one of them might have adduced a fact. that's all we ask is a fact. the speaker pro tempore: without objection the gentleman's statement will be submitted. mr. rangel: i'd like to yield to the gentleman from virginia for purposes of unanimous consent. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. >>

another thing that ipcc says the life span of the co2 is 100 years and other studies have shown only five years. what does our guests have to comment about that? a quick one is about biogenic oil -- russia has become the no. 1 oil supplier and the world by drilling 4,000 foot deep wells, and there was no forest or vegetable matter down there, and that is why many believe or some scientists now believe that oil does not come from became vegetables but comes from but carbon down and the earth under pressure and heat and so forth. guest: i think on your first point, i think i may have suggested that i agree with the numbers you just quoted, is that this is not a problem caused by man-made emissions primarily but actually got a wonderful world of work, which has climate change independent of mankind. on the other hand, i don't think manmade initials nest -- emissions necessarily a good things if we have alternative technologies that are reasonably priced. i think there is a which create that. one thing that we need as we do that is to be realistic about what we are doing. if you read the