ah, ah, hello, i'm emily anglin, in doha, with the top stories announces era, ukraine's president has again pushed for a meeting with vladimir putin to end the war, despite saying he has no trust in the russian later. felon me zalinski also announced that the u. s. secretaries of state and defense at of is a cave on sunday hunter abdel, how meet was there any, don't just some of you thought that president valentino zelinski faced the world's pres from a makeshift platform constructed in one of keys metro stations. he said, one of his priorities was the evacuation of people caught up in the siege of mo, you, paul. but beth, it was difficult to trust to russian money yet he is not ordered. so shall we offered any format for the exchange of our people who are currently in this

predicament in this terrible situation you call it in the said lady encircling it was to buy and this should um, serial number. he warned that he would break off talks with russia if the remaining ukrainian troops in my you polls as of stellar leaders planted were killed. please had sesna. carmen are killed in mary. a port in the pseudo referendums are organized in the south. the blue and ukraine will withdraw from any negotiation process. she was all hammer. twice the president paused to make way for a passing train. we hear from president zelinski on a daily basis, but this is the 1st large press conference since the beginning of the war, and it's happening 70 meters underground and one of the major stages of cave. and actually when the capital was under threat, hundreds of people here seeking shelter. the president appeared,

relaxed. he says he was grateful for the kind of weapons his country was receiving of late from the united states and western allies. but reminded people that without the additional weapons there would be no fight. should the v school or local mining . unless you do not consider the option that our partners will not give us the weapons, they promise. i do not consider this option at all. they have no alternative, we will not provide them with this opportunity. we have no other chance to win back our landline. the buzz zelinski also wondered about the upcoming visit of un secretary general. and tanya gutierrez, who is visiting moscow before coming to keith yarborough's momma was which out for you. i think it's a mistake to visit russia furry than ukraine. bravo! this is simply wrong. him for what to hand over a message from russia. he but i don't know, asked by al jazeera if he wanted to pursue people for war. cry was eve sickness. good alma, daniel green. i don't care whether it's in the hag or somewhere in ukraine's what

matters is how many will be imprisoned, and for how long would it, sir? smeeley, women are not as drunk performance from the ukrainian president in a remarkable setting. g, a president dealing smoothly and efficiently with the international media, but also presidency lensky, the realist as ukraine faced more military action saturday, including a missile strike on an apartment block in odessa, that killed a 3 month old baby. put up the hamid al jazeera cave reports that this was up to the news now, and more than a 100 people had been killed in southern nigeria after an explosion and an illegal oil refinery. officials, in the near del turn, describe victims being burned beyond recognition. farmers in argentina have blocked roads in the capital in protest against export taxes on agricultural products. they're having to pay levies of up to 33 percent on exports of soybeans and grains that they can send the government could raise them even higher. early voting has

began in france as presidential run off for nationals living abroad. french ex pats living in hong kong are casting their ballots in the us. more than 100000 people are registered to vote. their choosing between the incumbent menu on the chrome and challenger moraine le pen. at least 12 people have died and another 10 missing after full boats carrying 120 migrants in refugee st. need to museum the coast guard rescued at least $98.00 people off the coast of to fax. those of the headlines. the news continues here on al jazeera after the campaign against the climate. and in the meantime, into our website, i would do 0 dot com. ah, georgia

you want to talk to me, right? we're doing a commentary about climate change. well, this is simple science look. the higher c o 2 levels are leading to greening of the earth. and so i don't, you know, do you think that's a bad thing? so so more to who in decimal sphere is a good thing. yes, i think so. absolutely. imagine a world where you can't trust science. let me tell you about a group of men who've tried to convince you, adjust that a group who wants you to doubt climate change? ah,

this is the story about how these men were promoted by the world's largest oil companies. ah. the story of a campaign is impacted our world forever. this is a scientist for nasa who's come to the american senate with a message to the world which you here in a moment. while you hear it, try to guess what year it's for. dr. hanson, if you started off, would appreciate it. ok, thank you for the opportunity to present the results of my research on the greenhouse effect. the global warming is now large enough that we can ascribe with

a high degree of confidence, a cause and effect relationship to the greenhouse effect. okay, this is from 1988. that was when a phone book like this, the internet look like this. and it was when the world realized that climate change had to be taken seriously. that's what side us call the greenhouse effect and have a longer all that good mean devastating changes to all life alter. it's largely a problem of our own making. we're running out of time to bind a solution. scientists predict arise in temperatures that will eventually melt. the polar ice caps, forest fires in the west. food riots as the sahara desert spreads the land of if it's been prevented, cold if it didn't exist and to play who defeated in 1988, the un established the climate change organization i p. c. c. where scientists from the whole world agreed with james henson with and well cletus listened. those who

think were powerless to do anything about this greenhouse effect, or forgetting about the white house defend the evidence, is that the damage is being done. we can just do nothing. this is more than 30 years ago. only the world was ready to act on global warming. but something happened a doubling to the c o 2 counter to the atmosphere will produce a tremendous greening of planetary. in the years following james hanson's speech, critics appear on t v. the theoretical speculations about future warming a have no good scientific basis. we would like critics who question climate change

the average weight of this global warming thing? it sounds like a scam. well, i think you're seeing it now. we told you this was, this is one of them. i spent most of my time in newspapers and magazines, and on t v and radio to argue against climate action against panic. the economy would actually improve if we have a doubling of background. greenhouse gas couldn't improve. well, because we might have a longer growing season. i'm fairly glue. i'm fast on my feet. cool on tv, and i also do my homework in the years after james henson's speech, jerry taylor was hired by the think tank kato, my name is jerry taylor, i'm the director of natural resource studies here at the cato institute, kato hired people like me, primarily to change public opinion,

and that's what i did. there may be some extreme events that occur down the road and we don't know what the chances for that might be. the climate skepticism is entirely dependent upon the promotion of doubt about the underlying science. james hanson at nasa thinks it's maybe 710121520 percent. other scientists think there's probably more like 0.3 percent. the denial about the underlying sciences, the critical is the critical juncture that event. while taylor takes a sip of water, meat mock murano like yeah, i'm going to be looking at you can be sitting there. so i be like, my job essentially is covering the global warming movement and communicating to the public to the latest findings. if you look at the, the satellite data we're, we actually had no significant warming since $998.00. actually no warming, we've been cooling and recent years. you had a background as a salesman can just well, that was really i was

a door to i worked at the door to door salesman, which is a actually a great background to build narratives and the neat. now, when you only have 1520 seconds, you gotta work on your sound bites and you've got to work on your, you know, you're building a narrative to a customer. and that was a great training ground for being and media and communication. marana is communications director for committee for constructive tomorrow, or c, fact an organization whose focus is on communicating that climate change. isn't that big a problem? way? so how does it do that time? i believe that the television and the base as you have to make the other person defend their stupid idiotic comments. bill nye say global warming will cause many bad weather events. and guess what? bad weather events happen all the time. and then also going with rapid fire facts, bottom line, we've done the longest period without a major u. s. category 3, your larger hurricane hitting the us since at least 1900, maybe the civil war,

bottom line, new study in the journal nature. peer reviewed, no change, and you, i believe in what bill nye just did was waste everyone's time explaining that c o 2 is rising. i believe you should get some crush your wait a minute. are you a scientist? i'm not a scientist, but i do play when on tv. occasionally, people don't take positions because they find themselves reasoned into those positions. they take positions that they want to take for emotional or india, logical reason. and then they mobilize their reasoning power to justify taking the positions they want to take. we can ok, and this is jerry taylor's recipe for doing just that. today's a lot of people who don't know what to think about climate change or being told by people like me, there's a relative non event. it's the same sort of wolf crime that the environmental

movement is done from time immemorial. first, we were told there was a population bond that was going to wipe out humanity and that bomb never went off . then we were told we're going to run out of fossil fuels and agricultural commodities. robin star, that never happened. and this is just the latest iteration of the usual story from environmentalists that if we continue to go down laws, a fair capitalist roads, we're going to blow up the planet and destroy mankind. ah, there's something in the pictures you can't see. it's essential to live. and breathe it out. breathe it in. oh c o 2. now some politicians want to label carbon dioxide a pollutant. imagine if they succeed, they call it pollution. we call it life. this

tv commercial is from the think tank competitive enterprise institute. and so is myron ego, it's clear that the earth, his screening, and so i don't, you know, do you think that's a bad thing? competitive enterprise institute is a conservative american think tank. and myron eagle has its department on energy climate and environment. iron able believes the climate debate started like this. global warming as a political project was initiated in sweden, in the early 19 eighties. they needed a recent, essentially, to increase tax revenue. i mean, remember, i think you're aware of this in denmark, the welfare state needs a lot of money and it needs more and more money as it goes on. ah, all the climate, skeptical pundits you've just met,

work for interest organizations and think tanks. think tanks are like the arsenals for the war of ideas. there are the places where ideas are then weaponized and public policy terms, and then they are vigorously argued and promoted on capital hill, and on tv radio. and so kato was extremely influential because it was one of the largest right of center thing tanks of the united states still is had a lot of visibility because again, invested in communications. so taylor is spreading climate skepticism from one of the most influential think tanks in the usa. jerry taylor tells us that his arguments build on calculations from research. patrick michaels also employed by kato, anyone who goes around and says that carbon dioxide is responsible for most of the warming of the 20th century, hasn't looked at the basic numbers. the climate,

skeptical pundits bear arguments from a group of climate, skeptical scientists physicist and climate scientist fred singer, is behind the organisation science and environmental policy project s e p p s e p. p is behind the so called leipzig declaration, where some 100 scientist raised bouts about global warming. some 100 assault climate scientists actually signed in appeal, put their names down, and were warned about taking hasty steps against global warming. and global warming was still a and a they phantom problem with global warming. no mark. oh, so on one side we have james hanson and a lot of un scientists. and then we have a number of scientists and pundits who say the exact opposite of these things know

ah, how is that possible? but naomi arrest guess harvard professor decided to investigate just that. so in the early, 2000 as the american media were presenting climate change is a big scientific debate. and that struck me as weird because none of the scientists that i knew thought it was a debate. so i decided to undertake an analysis of the peer reviewed scientific literature. the i p. c. c. had already stated that most of the observed warming was likely to be due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations. so i pose the question, how many papers published in peer reviewed scientific literature? this agree with that statement? i'm to answer that question. naomi arrest his looks up, research papers for global climate change. the words appear in

937 scientific papers to arrest his read them all and what i found was none. there was no dissenting public publish sanctuary. period literature on the basic question of whether not men may climate change was happening. and i'm a professional historian of science, so i thought, well, if i don't know this, then probably a lot of other people don't know it too. and so i wrote a small paper in 2004 called the scientific consensus on climate change. that paper changed my life because immediately the paper was published, i started getting hate mail, threading, phone calls, people filing complaints against me to my university. people accusing me of being a communist stalinist. bretzky's comes on a huge criticism and she doesn't understand why until she's at a conference in germany, shortly after over beer after the sessions.

one day i was just chatting with some colleagues. i mentioned how this very strange thing had happened to me. and one of the people there was eric conway, i mentioned the name of one of the people who was attacking me, and eric said, when they only, you know, is the same person who attacked shari roland over the ozone hall. and he told me this amazing story that i knew nothing about at the time that the scientists who had worked on the ozone hole had been the target of attacks in which people had claimed that there was no ozone hold that the science was wrong. that the scientists were fraudulent, that the scientists were communists. all the things that i was being accused of these great nobel prize winning scientists had also been accused of. and so eric said to me, yeah, when we get back to mark, i'll send you. i'll send you an envelope with a bunch of stuff. so he sent me this package arrives

a few days later and i take out these papers that he sent me and it was like you could take out the word on hole and put in climate change. and you could take out the word rowan and put an rascal, and otherwise it was identical awe . on a spring day in 1998, a group of men meet at the oil industry organization, american petroleum institute. a number of oil companies are represented. companies like exxon let's it exxon c e o at the time. explain who they are. we are the largest private company in the world . our company sells a 1000000 barrels a day of products. that's

a 1000000000 gallons every 3 days. back to the american petroleum institute, a p, i where some of the biggest players in the oil industry meeting. one of the participants is myron able, they solicited advice because we had certain kinds of expertise that they didn't have a, it was an industry effort with some help from people like me. in documents from this meeting, you can see a clear purpose. victory will be achieved when average citizens understand uncertainties in climate science. and when these uncertainties become part of conventional wisdom, according to the documents, big oil, once the public, to doubt the science behind climate change. and it wasn't scientists who were invited to the meeting. i'm not an energy analyst expert and i'm not

a climate expert i. i have a certain amount of experience in translating a policy into into action. and i suppose that was what they are interested in. back at the meeting strategies worked out. that paper was lay to leaked and it shows how the oil industry plans to spread doubts about science. ah, i strategy paper describes a national media relations program, which in 8 different ways will influence the media by recruiting and training scientists. it also explains that they will try to influence journalists. this one john stossel is even mentioned in the paper titled as program chill out, because after i researched the global warming scare, that was my conclusion. we ought to just jill out. mm. the paper from the meeting

shows the mindset of the world's largest oil companies. despite the fact that the un, several world leaders and most scientists clearly point in another direction, the oil industry wants to raise doubts about the science behind climate change. me. a strategy paper explains how schools to be influenced by an initiative called national direct outreach and education. ah, many universities like harvard regularly receive funding from private companies. this is a perfectly legal, common practice many prestigious universities. jeffrey superman is a ph. d. student will join him at a film,

screening in $21700.00 bill for kennedy center announced a screening of a film time. and essentially, it tells it tells the audience about how for the foreseeable future, we're going to be relying on fossil fuels, how renewables, way off in the distance, not right now, not really reliable. and frankly promoting hoss truth at best, about inevitability of continued fossil fuel usage grange them with that or right. well, with your susan's, if you has the permit your home and surely this is a reasonable film until we dug just a little bit beneath the surface the academic talking heads, the ones that were present to this professors, universities, without exception actually will have deep ties to the oil and gas industry from consultancy relationships to running sensors,

reliance and fossil fuel funding to literally being on the boards of natural gas companies. and producer of the film was show oil company, the director of the film. he was a vp of oil and gas company that's taking $300000.00 from shuttle oil company. so you see a pattern emerging hit episodes like the film screening from to jeffrey superman to write a ph. d was naomi rescues as his supervisor about the connections between the oil industry and academia. let's see what he found out. the harvard receives massive funding from several oil companies. stanford's energy department also gets millions from the oil industry. the university denies that sponsor's control its research, and on its website the university emphasizes its academic independence. but a few lines later,

it's described who really decides what research to fund. the final decision about funding is made by the management committee, which includes one person from each of the sponsors and the main sponsor as a say in what research is funded, is exxon mobil berkeley birthplace of the one, $968.00 student uprising as an energy research center in which the oil company be p as invested millions, according to jeffrey superman. b. p has a say in what will be researched. exxonmobil said it funds universities to promote green technologies. and shell tells us that wants to help solve the serious climate challenge. why is this a problem? i mean, if they use their money for doing some research for good, what was the problem when the very people, the very institutions, the supposed to be solving the climate crisis, a fundamentally reliant on the industry that has the most to lose from their work.

that's a pretty big conflict of interest. jeffrey supra thinks that the many millions are intended to influence students, teachers, and scientists. this strategy come straight out of the playbook. the a p i. strategy paper also states informing teachers, since students about uncertainties and climate change will erect a barrier against efforts to impose kyoto like measures a measure put in place to limit the emissions of c o 2. and that's why in the medical research community, there are a stablished practices. there are established rules by which one must disclose these kinds of conflicts of interest. many universities used to receive millions from the tobacco industry. but in 2131 universities, including harvard, decided not to let tobacco companies sponsor health research. we have nothing like that in energy and climate.

ah, ah, with radicalism is on the rise across the globe. we're told it's everywhere we're told we're supposed to be kind

a suspicious of everybody and everything. but our government policies aimed at tackling radicalization. in fact, pushing youngsters to the fringes of society may impact hayes. you don't, we don't have any so much of you can take before you say ok. that's me. rethinking radicalization, part of the radicalized huge series on al jazeera, the heart wrenching goodbyes, loved ones, not knowing when they were united ticket, women and children heading wis to relative safety. often leaving mid behind. among deb, foreigners also trying to get out train rise of a free but it's on a 1st come 1st serve basis here at the bus station. there's only a few rides available and that's only to the surrounding villages. so people like for me and rose, now need to find another way to get out of the city. but for now they, like many others, would have to return home hoping tomorrow is a better day. ah

. shall i mainly, angling her with the child. stories on al jazeera ukraine's president has again pushed for a meeting with let me put in to end the war, despite saying he has no trust in the russian later. let me lensky also announce that the us secretaries of state and defense of a visit keep on sunday. the green ween principal appealed to all leaders. we are not a country tragic selfies. we have a real war. so come to us. we will be happy to meet you, but please bring the help we've asked for unless i do not consider the option that our partners will not give us the weapons, they promise. i do not consider this option at all. they have no alternative. we will not provide them with this opportunity. we have no other chance to win back

our land. m as off, as in mary, a poll says an attempt to evacuate civilians failed on saturday because of russian shelling. nearly 2000 ukrainian soldiers and about a 1000 civilians. hold up in the steals works. if believe to be encircled by russian troops. at least 8 people, including a baby, had been killed during miss l strikes and ukraine. selim port city of odessa and for the 18 were injured. russia says it targeted a military facility in the world. news polls have opened in france's presidential runoff phase of life. pictures from paris earlier french expense living in hong kong were casting their balance voters and choosing between income in to manual mccolan and challenge at moraine the pen. farmers imagine tina have blocked roads in the capital in protest against the export taxes on agriculture products having to pay levies of up to 33 percent on exports of soybeans in grains they can send

the government could raise them even higher and lays to 12 people have been killed and another 10 and missing. after 4 boards carrying 120 migrants in refugee sank, need to new because god rescued at least 98 others of the coast of the facts. and the japanese coast guard says they've found 9 of the $26.00 people on board, a chill boat that disappeared off hawkeye to island in northern japan. on saturday, the crew sent out a distress call saying the boat was sinking the gun. say 4 people were unresponsive . but didn't comment on the others. those are the headlines i'm emily angland. the news continue here on 0 after the campaign against the climate preventable disease account 15 to 10 children in the

election by any chance cases in the new lane. i. i blue. oh, this is the story about a group of men who wants you to doubt climate change. the story of

a campaign that has impacted our world forever. back to naomi arrest his. we left her with a pile of papers and this pile became the beginning of a big investigation, which he also gets hold of the strategy paper. it was my alice through the looking glass moment when my whole life kind of changed. a risk is drops everything. and decides to find out who's arguing against the climate scientists bit by bit. she begins to understand why these pundits a so effective in general they are much better at communicating then real scientists are because real scientists are. well, i know what in some my call is, but you know, most scientists are scientists, they like to be left alone. so you take a group of people who are intrinsically actually pretty poor at communicating. and now you put them up against professional communications. professional p, r. people,

somebody who might go against me on t v or radio, i might know more than i do. they may be scientist, i'm not a scientist. ah, but they're not necessarily good communicators. and if you put a board communicator up against a good communicator, even garbage arguments tend to, went out. ah, i started doing research to try to find out who are these people that are attacking me and why are they saying these extraordinary things about me? and that was the investigation that led to the book commercials of death, merchants of doubt, she calls the climate skeptics. but that doesn't stop the attacks. on the contrary . so they, i sent out an email chain to each other, talking about what they could do to get me to discredit me. they call me all kinds

of names. me one day, something happens, i will radically change jerry taylor's life. i was in debate in the early 2, thousands with joe rome, the and on this tv show where we are debating, i said, look, joe, it's been more than a decades since james hanson testified him from the united states about global warming. we've only seen about a quarter, a warming that james hanson says we should've seen by now. and if this continues to play out, there's no reason to take a while climate change, it'll be a relative so we've left the studio and went in the green room. and joe said, did you haven't read james hanson's test for your? do you just, you know, is there you are these just talking point somebody wrote for you what you're talking about here, what a scenario to scenario be in

a scenario c. so if you look at the scenario be you'll find that the emissions we've seen since his testimony pretty much crack what he hypothesized under scenario b. and if you look at the temperature projections, the pretty spot on. so when you go on television, you say that the models are running hot, that's complete garbage. so here's what i challenge. we say you go back to your office and you reread hands in his testimony and you tell me if what i'm saying is it right? he says, or be a hack. i don't care. i said because i'm not debating you again. i don't, you know, i hate this candidate. so i went back to my office. i looked at the hands and testimony thinking, well, i'm not going to let joe rob, you know, walk away. i think he got the better of me in the green room. right. and i read the testimony to look like it actually reflect a joy to me. so i went down the hallway to the scientist

and explain what it averages to joe. and this is, you know, the conversation. we had a look at the testimony and looks like joe's right. so what am i missing? so i was certain i was missing something and it turned out it wasn't missing anything. me. it became clear to me in the course of the back and forth that he was knowingly misleading people. would that narrative, they offered that i had offered on television. but it was from that point forward that i began to do a little bit more of the due diligence that i should have been doing all along with regard to scientific narratives, i was offering sometimes it was in conscious disingenuousness.

sometimes it was your cherry pick data that worries knock apart. sometimes you would find that the, the papers which you look so impressive were never publish in their peer review journal though it looks like they were published in peer review journal, but they weren't. if you bother to look at the response to the paper, you find it gets shot full of holes, but these are things which i never done. and when i began to do that due diligence, which i should have been doing in the past, i found that the story i just told you played itself out over and over and over again. we presented taylor's critique to patrick michaels, who rejects taylor's account. he says, his facts were scientifically documented, and he still thinks james hanson is wrong, and denies misleading. the public kato has not replied to the critique in spite of

repeated requests. let's take a look at the economics. the oil industry strategy paper describes her large sums of money had to be given by the oil and energy industry to think tanks and organizations among recipients see fact well around the work was the best thing to do is have the courage to do nothing but get any money from the oil companies, we might get some and competitive enterprise institute. we don't disclose our diners, however, some of our donors disclose that they fund us. the most notable being exxon mobil, which funded a number of groups for probably a decade. tax reco. it's financial reports and other documents show who exxonmobil funded after the strategy meeting from 1998 to 2006.

0 sh. the data shows that the world's major oil company in the years after the meeting donated at least $12000000.00 and probably much more to climate critical organizations and fin tanks. and they're not the only ones funding the skeptics. oh, and american research projects has mapped out how other oil companies and many wealthy conservatives have donated billions to climate skeptics. mm. mm. scientists, and it's like, have been paid by the oil industry. does this influence their work? one such climate skeptic, steve malloy, who was present the i p i meeting as described, his relationship with the industry like this. are you in bed with big oil and if so,

how good and bad are that? the ha, not better than he was just trying to do the right thing on climate change. myron able also rejects that the oil money his thing tank receives has any influence. we develop our policies based on what we think are based on our principles and what we think the evidence and the facts are at. once we done that, we try to find funding for it so. so if someone wants to fund it, i would like to find a lot more funding for what we do them as freight singer the man behind the leipzig declaration, the danish broadcasting corporation investigated that list in 1997 among at your peace coolness, clueless you, tears you sleeping as kind of an older european sciences there. 50 of them that say that they are not climate scientists, blue thieves. i have not seen any evidence for that,

but they have told us we've talked to everyone, they said they're not climate scientists. what's your question? i mean, you present them as climate scientists. i'm told i was told that the climate scientists fred sing us organization s e p p which is behind the list. well, they also received money from exxon mobil. they oil industry was a main bank roller and cheerleader for opposition to climate action. their financial support of the climate skeptics in the scientific community ensured that we had the references and the citations that we needed to make the credible argument. which is the earth getting warmer and there's a lot of discussion about that. is it?

oh, i think in it the answer to that is in some places. yes. and, and others know, patrick, michael's doesn't want to comment on the critique that he has received money from the oil industry, climate, skeptical scientist willie soon didn't respond to the critique that he's been paid by the industry. fred sing as lawyer has been presented with the critique of singer, but hasn't replied steve. malloy dropped an interview at short notice and has declined to comment on the critique. many of them have previously said that their research isn't influenced by money from. for instance, the oil industry. this is all about deflection. it's all about distraction. you know, jim hanson is here, tell you the truth about climate change and they're saying, oh, don't look at jim hanson. look at me over here or pay attention to this report that i wrote, that claims that we don't really know if there's climate change. so it's all about

distraction deflection. i'm to create confusion to crate, smoke and mirrors so that people don't really know what's going on. and then they say, i don't know, you know, i don't know what to think. i'm just going to get my kids to soccer coquettish. oh, the oil industry strategy of sewing doubt hasn't been done before. i believe nicotine is not addictive. yes, mr. johnson, our congressman, cigarettes and nicotine clearly do not meet the classic definitions of addiction. there is no attack lot. we'll take that as a know, in the mid 19 hundreds, scientists realized that smoking was dangerous. the tobacco industry made every effort to counteract the new knowledge. and internal documents says, doubt is our product. since it's the best means of competing with the body of fact that exists in the minds of the general public,

the industry succeeded in delaying regulation of tobacco for decades. that successful campaign was now copied by climate skeptics. when science established the danger of smoking, tobacco companies published ads against it, oil companies did the same after james hanson's presentation. so the idea is to make it seem that we don't really know for sure if this is a palm, because if we don't know, then it would be premature to allow the government to say regulate tobacco. and then the same argument is used on climate change. and who did this for the tobacco industry? some of the scientists and pundits who, indirectly or directly got money from the tobacco industry reappear in the climate debate. one of the 1st prominent climate skeptics was frederick sites many years before he headed research projects for the tobacco industry in the

sixty's. the tobacco company very clearly said that there wasn't a direct linkage if people want to believe that it was their own doing. but do you think that was also political on the part of the tobacco companies? well, they wanted to keep up sales. was it irresponsible on the part of the tobacco company? it was irresponsible part of the smokers, me and fred singer, co author to report downplaying the danger, patrick smoking, the pundit, steve malloy, who was present at the api i meeting concurrently worked for both tobacco and oil companies. and the organization which myron able directed politically also worked for the tobacco industry. and jerry taylor, the arguments that i made at the time it was that when it comes to 2nd hand smoke,

that the epidemiological evidence has been form was not particularly persuasive. but the fact is, is the same kind of arguments, the same stylized arguments that were made against to action to regulate tobacco are pretty similar, the arguments that we used against climate change ah now, but what did the industry know about climate change? when it launched this campaign, when the answer can be found on board a ship off the coast of texas, in 1979, a man on the ship did something so important to exxon that this presentation film was produced for the company's management. and the man was it garvey,

and today it looks like this. the videotapes were taken to show to the corporate board about this really exciting research project that the company was doing to study the effects of increased c o 2 and on the planet. and it should contribute to the science of climate change. 40 years ago, almost 10 years before james henson's speech, an internal scientific department at exxon researched global warming. they funded the project because the thought the science was important if alex on needed to be involved. and um, they were concerned about climate change, et garvey passed his measurements on to the scientists who analyzed data. the scientists that exxon, the modelers, mathematicians and the physicists were modeling climate change modeling the impacts of increased c o. 2 in the i was really, i know a very clear that they knew that c o 2 increase was changing the climate on the planet. on its website, exxonmobil says it's data on climate change was published in scientific journals.

however, exxon fails to mention the ad city to put out calling the science unsettled. i mean, the, as a day they put out, i don't think anyone in their scientist, scientific division can support them as a scientist and say of his needs a truthful facts that we're putting out. but i think that statement they were making were clearly misleading and designed to, to, to mislead people. so while the oil industry publicly spread doubts internal documents show that its own scientists had warned of global warming. and this 1978 confidential report for exxon's management. a senior scientist says it's scientifically accepted that fossil fuels influence climate. he also writes that within 5 to 10 years, humanity may have to make tough decisions in this field. a few years later, in 1981,

the head of exxon's research department warns that the consequences of global warming may be catastrophic for a substantial fraction of the population. that was almost 40 years ago. yet exxon's ceo later says that this on tv, there is a natural variability that has nothing to do with me. but with that a climate the climate has changed every year for millions of years. another oil company also knew early on the climate change was underway. in the eighty's shells, scientists warned of alarming consequences when the global warming becomes detectable. it could be too late to do anything or to stabilize the situation. yet for decades, shell has continued to finance organizations that spread doubts about climate science. the global warming is now large enough that we can ascribe if the oil

industry, after the hansen testimony. it said, you know, we're not going to argue with james hans, because we think he's right. we think this is, had they done that? it would have cut the legs out of climate denial, lism, and skepticism. right. well, if you get here, persuade exxon mobil and so we then i'm not sure why as you listen to you, right? but that's not what happened as a movie. and as a father and grandfather and hopefully great bridge policy ref someday. it's, i'm really scared for our children and their future. we start to do with changes on a planetary scale. we can't just turn on go back to the other way. okay, you can, i mean, from my own experience, you can clean a river. been clean enough to where he quit a lake, you know, reset it so to speak. we don't get a reset button on the planet. we don't get a reset button. and that's, that's really frightening. now we don't get a reset at that's really scary. with

with exxon mobil denies withholding data on climate change. it's website states that the risks of climate change are real and that exxonmobil for such has been published in scientific journals. we'd like to ask exxon mobil. wyatt funded climate skeptics, and in add some statements has cast out some climate science. but exxon did not

answer these questions and declined an interview. we'd also like to ask a p, i about the critique that it spreads doubt about climate science. but a p, i hasn't replied nor agreed to an interview. exxonmobil and api i right, that they are working on technologies that may reduce climate change. they've also said this in commercials, plans capture c o 2 would have other kinds of plans captured it too. if the deuced carbon emission levels to the lowest in

a generation. let's make tomorrow better together. ah, be on dog light beyond petroleum b, b. but our green are the oil companies. actually today we asked the wells 5 largest oil companies, how much they invest in green technology and how much they invest in extracting fossil fuels. chances that it now spends 5 percent of investments on green technologies. the french oil company to tile says it spends 10 percent b, p, chevron, and exxon mobil did not answer. so we asked influence map an organization who analyzes key climate issue figures to review their investments.

the figures show that all 3 oil companies are at the low end and chevron is at less than one percent. 2 combined figures show that the wells, 5 largest oil companies, fossil fuel investments, are at 95 percent. on average blue . i think it's fair to say that the climate change nurse have why that in 19 any age em, hanson tells us the climate change is underway. so if it had not been for the denial campaigns, i think it's pretty clear the political momentum was there with the political will, was there. they have succeeded in preventing climate action for several decades where it would have occurred earlier, had it not been for their efforts. today, we could be living in

a world where $6080.00 maybe even 90 percent of our energy would be from renewable energy. we've had 30 years, that's a lot of time to make technological change. and we'd also be living in a different world politically. and in some ways, maybe this is even the more horrible thing about the effects of what these folks did. they may just information mainstream. they made it okay for the president united states to say the climate change was a hoax. my name is marnie bell and i'm leaving the trump transition team on environmental matters is an added climate change deny or? well, mr. trump, when he ran for president i did the environmental protection agency. i was the leader that team mm. ah

ah. the mother clattering moment of the ravening, more than you might like. often it's disguised because he is fairly hazy anyway, but this is like developing to sherry stuff, possibly thunderstorms, anywhere from iraq down through the bulk of saudi arabia, down towards the he just mountains, yemen and across the red sea. so little late in the season, see significant maybe the last ball that they are so you could get some flash flooding out of this the selling the forecasts on in riyadh on monday. and that might last tuesday as well. the temp is not changing much. they're not big significant thunderstorms, but we have had those recently in easters. becky stanley enough to produce widespread flooding in the east. it's about a month with

a raining few hours less than 2 days at least. and the whole last moved on that a neighboring countries leaving sunshine behind to find a but still you got these shells creeping in. they haven't got away. that's monday . and if i take to tuesday, they're still around in iran. no surprise. maybe more of a surprise still hanging around in riyadh, maybe don't and across into iran. but this jumps after the more significant rain, particularly in mozambique, less of madagascar this spinning store might be a dame cycling later in the weekend or early next week. ah. or china in the u. s. sleep walking their way to war in the struggle over ukraine. here's the test for president joe biden with proven, is really trying to do is rewrite the security architecture in europe. it's your personal united states. if you're, if you go to walk and chew gum at the same time, your weekly pay on us politics and society,

that's the bottom line. ah, ukraine's president again calls for a meeting with his russian counterpart, but warns talks are off if soldiers of maria pull are killed ah, watching on to 0. my for my headquarters in del hi, debbie navigator also ahead. ukraine says washington's top diplomat on defense chief are due in keith as the war enters its 3rd month, but there is no confirmation from the bite and administration. the french are voting for their.