Skip to main content

tv   [untitled]    October 31, 2021 9:30am-10:00am AST

9:30 am
patricia's in individuals pay $5000.00 to name an elephant. the aim this year is to raise $1000000.00. much of it for conservation initiatives. ah, i money insight into how he top stories on al jazeera g 20 leaders are discussing the climate crisis cove at 19 and rebuilding the global economy at a summit in rome. pledges made so far include a global minimum tax for multi nationals. what will happen here is that said, developing economies, we'll see significant increases in the revenue own own source revenue that would be able to generate on the back of those reforms. and, you know, indian people consigned to write should have been higher. this should have been different, you know, 80 percent of something is always better than on the percent of nothing. and,
9:31 am
you know, indian people can say it's not, it's not good enough, but sometimes, you know, we should never, let's be perfect beauty enemy, of the good mythic. this is a very good reform. it's a historic reform and it will deliver significant benefits to countries around the world, including any particular developing countries around the world for us and the you have agreed to ease tariffs on steel and alimentary him imports. the deal to resolve the trade dispute was announced at the g 20 summit. the u. s. will now allow, says, and missiles from the you to enter duty, free activist, say another 4 people have been shot dead in sudan during protests against the military coup. hundreds of thousands demonstrated in what's being described as the most significant challenge to military leaders since they seized power on monday. at least 12 people are now known to have been killed in an explosion at aiden's international apple in southern yemen. several more wounded in the car bomb attack
9:32 am
. the u. k. prime minister says he can't rule out taking legal action against france as a post for exit fishing dispute continues the rift going. we're study this week when from seized a british vessel. polls of opened in japan's general election as voters decide whether to keep the country's newly appointed prime minister. a sluggish economy on current of ours recovery is expected to hit the ruling party's popularity. columbia police have seized more than 2.2 tons of cocaine. officers found almost 2000 packages and a container bound for the netherlands. the seizure is worth a $100000000.00. a wooden canoe that's more than a 1000 years old has been discovered in southern mexico was found almost completely intact. there is the headlines now. it's back to the campaign against the climate. to al jazeera in the field goes to one of the world's most dangerous migration that
9:33 am
are crossing little this dangerous jungle to make it to north america and meet some of those trying to cross the columbia, panama borden. in search of events in london, they say the only thing left or their expired passport on al jazeera boone. 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. ah, back to naomi arrest guess we left her with a pile of papers and this pile became the beginning of a big investigation where she 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
9:34 am
scientists. bit by bit she begins to understand why these pundits a so effective in general, they're much better communicating then real scientists are because real scientists are. well, i don't want to insult my college, 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. 2 2 ah . 6 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?
9:35 am
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 radically changed jerry taylor's life. i was in the debate in the early 2, thousands with joe rome, the and on this tv show where we were debating, i said, look joe, it's been more than a decade since james, hans and testified him from the united states and about global warming. we've only seen about a quarter of a warming that james hanson says we should have seen by now. and if this continues
9:36 am
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 even 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 scenario be you'll find that the emissions we've seen since is testimony pretty much crack. what he hypothesized under scenario be. 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, we read 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,
9:37 am
because i'm not debating you again. i don't, you know, i hate this. got 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 thinking he got the better of me in the green room. right. and i read the testimony to look like it. actually reflect with joy to me. so i went down the hallway to the scientist and explained what an average estimator, joe. this is how the conversation we had. i looked 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.
9:38 am
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 and knock apart. sometimes you would find that the, the papers which it looks, all 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 bath, i found that the story i just told you played itself out over and over and over
9:39 am
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 it had the courage to do nothing. get any money from the oil companies, we might get some and competitive enterprise institute. we don't disclose our
9:40 am
dinars. 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 records, 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.
9:41 am
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, is 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, 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,
9:42 am
the man behind the leipzig declaration, the danish broadcasting corporation investigated that list in 1997 from on your piece going as clueless you tears you sweetie, has kind of own older european sciences there 15 of him that say that they are not climate scientists. blue days. 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. ah, what's your question? i mean, you present them as climate scientists. i told i was told that with climate scientists, french singers organization s e p p, which is behind the list. well, they also received money from exxon mobil. they, the 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
9:43 am
we had the references and the citations that we needed to make the credible argument. one is the earth getting warmer and there's a lot of discussion about that? is it? ah, 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
9:44 am
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 curricle. oh, the oil industry strategy of sewing doubt? has it been done before? i believe nicotine is not addictive. yes, mr. johnson, our congressman,
9:45 am
cigarettes and nicotine clearly do not meet the classic definitions of addiction. there is no attack, so we'll take that of know, in the mid 19 hundreds scientists realised that smoking was dangerous. the tobacco industry made every effort to counteract the new knowledge. and internal documents says bout is our product. since it's the best means of competing with the body of fact, it 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
9:46 am
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 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, a part of the smokers, me and fred singer, co author to report downplaying the danger passive smoking depended steve malloy
9:47 am
who was present at the a p i meeting concurrently worked for both tobacco and oil companies and 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 at the epidemiological evidence had 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, i mm hm. but what did the industry know about climate change?
9:48 am
when it launched this campaign, in 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. 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 facts will increase 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 to thought exxon needed to be involved and,
9:49 am
and they were concerned about climate change. it gobby 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 atmosphere that 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, x on fails to mention. the ad says later put out, calling the science unsettled. i mean the, as they were put out, i don't think anyone in their scientist, scientific division can support them as a scientist and say, this needs a truthful facts that we're putting out. but i think the statements 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
9:50 am
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 man 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
9:51 am
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 handsome testimony. it said, we're not going to argue with james, hans, because we think he's right. we think this is correct. had they done that? it would have cut the legs out of climate denial ism and skepticism. right. well, if you can persuade exxon mobil as we then i'm not sure why edge and listen to you, right? but that's not what happened to me as a human being. and as a father and grandfather and hopefully a great grandfather graph someday. it's, i'm really scared for our children,
9:52 am
and their future was not to do with changes on a planetary scale. we can't just turn on go back to the other way. you can, i mean for my own experience, you can clean a river in clean an essay where a clear lake do the reset it so to speak. we don't get reset button on the planet. we don't get a reset button. and that's, that's really frightening. and we don't get a reset. that's. that's really scary. dish. oh. with
9:53 am
exxon mobil denies withholding data on climate change. it's website states that the risks of climate change are real and that exxon mobil through such has been published in scientific journals. we'd like to ask x on mobile, wyatt funded climate skeptics and, and add some statements as cost bout 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 doubts about climate science. but a p, i hasn't replied nor agreed to an interview.
9:54 am
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. what if other kinds of plans captured it to if reduced carbon emission levels to the lowest generation? let's make tomorrow better together. ah, beyond dogs, light beyond petroleum b, b. but how green all the oil companies actually to day we asked the wells 5 largest oil companies, how much they invest in green technology, and how much they invest in extracting fossil fuels
9:55 am
shall answers that it now spends 5 percent of investments on green technologies. the french oil company total says it spends 10 percent. b, p. chevron, an 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. wow. oh, i think it's fair to say that the climate change deniers have why?
9:56 am
that in 1988 jim 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 made dis, information, mainstream. they made it ok 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 your well, mr. trump,
9:57 am
when he ran for president, i did the environmental protection agency. i was leader that me ah ah, now officially we're into a season where rain can fall anywhere in the radium peninsula, but there's not much sign of it to be honest at the moment. there's still a few showers, which is not unusual in the high ground of western yemen. now there is a hint here of a bit of a trough coming out to the east. admit that means
9:58 am
a change in the weather type, bringing showers for normally chip jordan, moving towards syria. not a huge amount of rain in that. but some, all the same that if we focus the bit further east and north where wind to duck talk to you few days ago when directions changed, it's no longer getting colder nose becca stanon, turkmenistan, for example in the teens to and that's true throughout iraq. a few shots for the west and nasa by john, maybe i think the focus is still beyond that. this is what caused all that flooding the stormy weather in in sicily. now it dispersed, it'll bring a lot of heavy rain to sudden turkey and rush ouster out turkey. it'll go across cyprus and towards syria may be lebanon during tuesday, but the south of that, you end up turning much dryer. there also is, i think will be an increase in the matter potential ran into booty and the whole of africa. but really in tropical africa has been the case for a few days. the heavy strain is obviously further west.
9:59 am
ah, ah 25 years ago and you are in television use in the middle east began with a 2 part documentary series, monday the 25th anniversary of al jazeera in telling the story in the channels. now it became a recognized global brand with the story of algebra, but unique. ah, we tell the untold story, loo, we speak when others don't. ah, we cover all sides no matter where it takes us. a fear sir, got my eye. and power and pasha, we tell your stories,
10:00 am
we are your voice, your news, your net al jazeera. ah . ready g 20 leaders to focus on climate change on the final day of the summit in rome, after agreeing on a global corporate tax to rein in big business. ah, you're watching al jazeera light from a headquarters and tell her i'm getting you navigator. also a heads japanese voters go to the polls and the 1st.


info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on