of valentine's day for people without romantic partners. singles day has grown into the biggest online shopping event worldwide. can't buy me love. that's how "fox reports" this saturday. i'm jon scott. thanks for watching. hello, this is "life, liberty & levine." welcome. it's a great honor to see you. doctor, expert on all things, as far as i'm concerned. little bit of your background. director of the center for study of science at the cato institute. you hold degrees in biology, sciences and plant he kecology

the university of chicago. pretty good school. university of wisconsin, madison 1979. you are past president of the state association of climatologists. you were research professor of environmental sciences at the university of virginia for three years. i'm giving extensive background that you have, i'm giving that to the public so they know you really know what you're talking about. and you are contributing author and reviewer of the united nations intergovernmental panel on climate change which was awarded the nobel peace price in 2007. let's get started. climate change, global warming, global cooling. we have heard it all. what's going on out there? >> well, surface temperature of the planet is warmer than it was 100 years ago, about nine-tenths of a degree celsius.

>> is that a lot? >> no. it's not a lot. there are two periods of warming. one in the early 20th century that could not have been caused by human beings, because we hadn't put enough co2 in the air, and one in the later part of the 20th century that either slows down or ends, depending upon whose data you use, somewhere in the late 1990s, only to resume with a big el nino that covered the news over the last couple of years. so that means that probably about half, maybe half of that nine-tenths of a degree might be caused by greenhouse gases because when the planet warmed beginning in 1976, the temperature of the stratosphere started to drop. that's a prediction of greenhouse theory that's not intuitive. the great philosopher of science, carl popper, said if you can meet a difficult prediction with your theory, you can continue to entertain your

theory. so the theory's right but the application of it is wrong. it is nowhere near as warm as it's supposed to be. the computer models are making systematic dramatic errors over the entire tropics which is 40% of the earth and it's where all our moisture comes from, or almost all of it. >> let me stop you there. >> yeah. >> who does these computer models? >> governments. there are 32 families of computer models that are used by the united nations, each government-sponsored, and all of them are predicting far, far too much warming. the disparity between what's been predicted to happen which looks like this, and what is happening continues to grow. >> we know that for a fact. >> yeah. because you can just look at the weather balloon temperatures, you can look at the satellite temperatures, you can look at something called the reanalysis data. they all behave in concert.

they are showing the same things. and the same thing is a lot different than this thing. however, we need to call a special council. >> special council. >> yes. because one model works. know what it is? it's the russian model. >> let me get this right. so all the government models are like this. >> yeah. >> the russian model's like this. >> yeah. the russian model has the least warming in it. >> the russian model has the least warming, and the russian model pretty much follows reality. >> yeah. >> what's been tested over a few decades. >> yeah. correct. if we were rational about this, think about the daily weather forecast. you watch the weather channel, you go oh, this model says that, that model says that, we think this one's working the best so we're going to rely on that. well, for climate forecasts, we should be using the russian model but we're not. we use this big spate of all the other models that have this warming in them that's not occur. >> why are all these other government models, 31 of them, wrong? and why do they all go in the

same direction, up? >> because they are what is called parameterized. they are all parameterized. can i translate parameterized into english? fudged. >> okay. >> they don't get the right answer, don't know the right answer for certain phenomena, so we essentially put in code steps that give us what we think it should be. and the systematic error that was made was the models were tuned, as it's said, tuned to simulate the warming of the early 20th century. began in 1910, ended about .45 degrees celsius. that could not have been caused by carbon dioxide. >> because there wasn't -- >> we hadn't put enough in. the background carbon dioxide concentration is 280 parts per million. when the first warming started it was 298 parts per million.

if the atmosphere's that sensitive to an 18ppm change in co2, we wouldn't be talking about this right now. we would be sweating bullets. >> so what you're saying is manmade carbon dioxide earlier in the last century could not have produced -- >> early 20th century. >> early 20th century, could not have produced this heat. so what did? do we know? >> no. three most important words in life may not be i love you. it may be i don't know. i don't think anybody really knows what kicked off that warming. there's lots of theories. one is that it was the final escape from a cold period, multi-century period known as the little ice age. that's a plausibleity but why did it happen then? we just don't have a good explanation for that but because we forced the computer models to say ah-ha, human influence, co2 and other stuff, we made the

models too sensitive. that's why when you get to the late 20th century, all of a sudden they're warming up like crazy and the reality is down here. it was guaranteed to happen. this was revealed in "science magazine" in late 2016. there was a paper that was published by a french climate modeler called "the art and science of climate model tuning" and in it, he speaks of parameterizing. we can say fudging, the models, to give his words, an anticipated acceptable range of results. so it's the scientist, not the science, that's determining how much it's going to warm. a lot of people don't know this but it happens to be true. we can speculate as to why that paper was published right before the 2016 election. i wouldn't want to impute

causation. >> i want to ask you about causation. >> sure. >> you have 31 governments. >> 31 different models. >> 31 different models. multiple governments. fudging the numbers. >> they're not fudging them. they're parameterizing. >> you used the word fudging. does our epa do that? does nasa do that? >> good question. the epa was told by the supreme court in 2007 that if it found that carbon dioxide endangered human health and welfare, that it had the power to regulate it under the clean air act. well, they produced an endangerment finding, 2009, and the endangerment finding for its prospective climate is 100%. i didn't say 90%. i said 100% based on those models. so if you can demonstrate that

those models systematically are not working, you can take down the endangerment finding and that would be the basis for all those policies that came out of the obama administration. >> which would mean you don't get to regulate -- >> absolutely. >> -- carbon dioxide. >> absolutely. the endangerment finding is the heart of the matter. to give you an idea how gung-ho the obama administration was on this issue, if you listen to his first inaugural speech, january 20th, 2009, it's the second substantive paragraph of the speech is about global warming. after health care. 90 days after he finished that speech, his epa produced a preliminary finding of endangerment from carbon dioxide. they were working on this before he was president. bureaucrats can't work that fast. then the final finding was made in december for the climate

conference in copenhagen that was supposed to produce another global -- >> you're telling us that we have a massive bit of public policy that has enormous effect on society that's built on, i'll use my word, phony models? >> it's built on a house of cards. the models really don't work. if i could really be arcane, i could explain the mechanism as to why they don't work. >> as long as i understand it. >> the models systematically predict that as you go up in the atmosphere in the tropics which are 40% of the earth, that the temperature should rise dramatically as you go further up in the atmosphere. so when you get to the level of the jet stream, the computer models are predicting seven times, i didn't say seven tenths of a degree, i said seven times more warming than is being observed. why is that important? why am i boring you with that? because it's the vertical distribution of temperature that

determines upward motion, which means it determines precipitation and guess what? almost all the atmospheric moisture that we have around us today in humid washington, d.c., that comes from the tropics. so if you get that vertical motion wrong, down there, you get all the subsequent variables wrong. it's a fantastic systematic error and again, that along with the difference between the surface temperatures or rather, the lower surface air temperatures and what's being observed, that's sufficient to kill the endangerment finding. >> okay. so to the average pedestrian like me, if you get that wrong, what does that mean? you get all the weather models wrong? >> you get the subsequent weather wrong. i mean, that's why if you look at all these families of models, they predict radically different changes in precipitation from model to model. well, probably because they got the precipitation initialization out of the tropics wrong.

precipitation's important. i offer you whimmiilmington, no carolina. precipitation is important coming from the tropics. get that wrong and you get that wrong. >> is weather getting worse? >> no. i love that question, because what you really want to look at, the university of colorado does this, yes, there's more damage from weather because there's more stuff and people and property in the way of weather. what you really want to look at are weather damages as a percent of gdp. when you look at it that way, there's nothing whatsoever. i'm sure hurricanes are getting worse. i heard that on every legacy network during florence and harvey and all that stuff. well, fact of the matter is, there's a guy ryan lowey, a

hotshot young tropical meteorologist, also a scholar at the cato institute, and he tracks the energy in these tropical cyclones. since we got global records that began in 1970, and you would think there would be some relationship between that integrated energy and global warming, after all, it's only logical. vice president gore says that must be the case. it's not. there's no relationship whatsoever between the accumulated cyclone energy and the surface temperature of the earth. it's just not there. now, wait a minute. why does our government say this? they said it in their last report called global climate change impact on the united states. they said oh, there's been a significant increase in hurricane power in the atlantic ocean from 1970 to 2009 or something like that, 1980 to

2009. well, wait a minute. why did you stop in 2009? it's a 2014 report. because if you take the data after 2009, the increase goes away and it goes back to where it was. why did you start in the mid 1970s? because we have records that are really good back to 1920 and if you look at 1920 to 1950, you see an increase that is exactly the same as the one that occurred -- >> so the information they're providing us is incomplete. >> skewed. >> here we rely on the climatologists, meteorologists, and they become hyper political. i want to get back to that as soon as we return. don't forget, ladies and gentlemen, you can watch levin tv almost every weeknight. go to crtv.com/mark. sign up there. or call us 844-levintv. we'll be right back.

hi susan!hs) honey? i respect that. but that cough looks pretty bad... try this new robitussin honey. the real honey you love... plus the powerful cough relief you need. mind if i root through your trash? new robitussin honey. because it's never just a cough. ♪ spread a little love today ♪ spread a little love my-y way ♪ ♪ spread a little something to remember ♪ philadelphia cream cheese. made with fresh milk and real cream makes your recipes

their holiday favourites. the holidays are made with philly.

theii am a techie dad.n. i believe the best technology should feel effortless. like magic. at comcast, it's my job to develop, apps and tools that simplify your experience. my name is mike, i'm in product development at comcast. we're working to make things simple, easy and awesome. . dr. patrick michaels, the politicization -- let me read you something from ayn rand, return of the primitive, the antiindustrial revolution, a book which i found rather

compelling. she said consider the old promises that collectivism would create universal abundance and their denunciations of capitalism for creating poverty. they are now denouncing capitalism for creating abundance. instead of promising conflict, comfort and security for everyone, they are now denouncing people for being comfortable and secure. the demand to restrict technology is the demand to restrict man's mind. it is nature, it is reality that makes both these goals impossible to achieve. technology can be destroyed and the mind can be paralyzed, but neither can be restricted. whether and whatever such restrictions are attempted, it is the mind, not the state, that withers away. you agree with that? >> yeah, i do. now we should ask the question how did it happen? how did we use the authority of government to direct essentially

technology, energy, et cetera. how did government become so intrusive in the science process, and to do that, we have to know history. it goes back to none other than franklin d. roosevelt, who at the end of world war ii saw that the manhattan project was going to be successful, probably, and he wrote to the director of the office that ran the project and said hey, we need to keep all these scientists working for the government. they'll do great things and everybody will have a greater life. and that produced a document called science, the endless frontier, which laid the blueprint for the federal takeover of science. prior to world war ii, there was very, very little federal money in science except in the land grants and scientific process was perfectly fine. we were the envy of the world.

if science is involved in developing economies and i believe it is, we were doing really, really well. now when the government takes it over, the government gets what it wants and the government can give out money to basically only study the global warming via climate models, to not take a look at climate history and to see what that really tells us, and then the government can have the policies that it wants, because do you expect, do you really expect scientists who have been paid for decades to study the effects of warming and to create models that by the way, have too much warming, do you expect them to testify in front of congress when asked do we need more research money, to say no, it's really a non-problem? they would get thrown out of their jobs if they did that. so it becomes self-perpetuating. global warming is a cosm, not a

microcosm but there are other issues that the government abuses science on to take people's stuff, if you don't mind, and that governments distort in service of a political end. think about the dietary advice that we have been getting from the government for 20 or 30 years. turns out to be wrong. might be associated with the epidemic of obesity and diabetes. when the government gets together and makes a plan, people get hurt and that is what's happening. ayn rand was right. part of the plan was to get us off our energy stream, to get us off of oil and on to so-called renewables, renewables that don't provide nearly enough energy and it's intermittent so that they take down the technology. what ayn rand was talking about

is what actually happened. as a result of roosevelt and bush, we created the state science institute. if you remember in at atlas shrugged" it was the state science institute that [ inaudible ] society. >> the final say in science was by attacking science, by climate change deniers -- >> by shading it, if you will. >> so you actually lose knowledge. you lose science. correct? >> yeah, that's a problem. if you say well, they are just studying the greenhouse effect and the greenhouse effect is real and it will create some warmi warming, so all these things, all these pronouncements that we

get on diet, on whether we should exploit the world's largest copper deposit in alaska, what the government says will have a small kernel of truth in it, then it will be built into an artifice the size of mt. everest and that's the problem. >> to simplify this, and who are these people? are they ubiquitous? are there ten of them? >> when you buy off the academy, you can get what you paid for. and you know, when we went into the federalization of science, the academy said okay, we'll apply for your money and we're going to tack on 50% we will call overhead. and we will use that money as we choose. so a lot of it that the

engineering and science departments generate all this revenue probably goes to keep the germanic languages afloat which doesn't have enough student traffic. so now the academy roots for anything that is big government that it feels it can tie on to to maintain this relationship. the roots of political correctness, they are many, mannifold and varied but one of them certainly was the enslavement of the academy. >> this is a very important point, because you're not the first one i've talked to who has mentioned this in their different fields. so the academy, universities, colleges, more and more less in terms of pure science, less in terms of pure knowledge, less in terms of even pure debate and so forth, more and more directional, more and more ideological. is that your point? >> yes, it is. and it's not just in climate change.

in fact, i'm just completing a book manuscript that looks at more than climate change, it looks at diet, it looks at drug policy, the opioid war and all these good things, and i think we have developed a sciencetocracy. there are things we can do about it but there has to be a public will and the public is so scientifically misinformed it becomes a very, very heavy lift. >> in fact, it becomes very political. in other words, if you don't believe in climate change and you can't even explain it, you don't know what it means, you don't know where it comes from, you don't know why it exists but you know as a political matter, you better believe in it or you are a denier like a holocaust denier. we'll be right back. ♪averlife

did you know not all fiber is the same? try citrucel. it gently relieves occasional constipation by absorbing water to make stools easier to pass, without causing excess gas or bloating. help relieve occasional constipation with citrucel. your insurance rates skyrocket you could fix it with a pen. how about using that pen to sign up for new insurance instead? for drivers with accident forgiveness, liberty mutual won't raise their rates

because of their first accident. switch and you could save $782 on home and auto insurance. call for a free quote today. liberty mutual insurance. ♪ liberty. liberty. liberty. liberty. ♪

live from america's news headquarters, i'm jon scott. recounts are ordered in florida for the senate and governor's races. unofficial results show republican governor rick scott leading incumbent senator bill nelson by just 12,000 votes in the senate race. while in the governor's race, republican ron desantis is ahead of democrat andrew gillum by 33,000 votes. both within the margin needed to trigger a recount. the process is expected to begin tomorrow and wrap up by thursday. wildfires continue to ravage northern and southern

california. nine people found dead in the town of paradise. officials say only 20% of that fire has been contained, while two deaths have been reported in the woolsey fire. thousands of homes and businesses destroyed ft firefighters are working around the clock to get a handle on both fires. i'm jon scott. now back to "life liberty and levin." dr. michaels, everybody says this global warming, it's a terrible thing, the oceans are going to rise. we just talked about this. the hurricanes are going to be more intense and so forth. you're saying not really. >> well, we never talk about this. are there benefits from increased heat on the planet? >> the whole philosophy here is straight out of voltair. we don't live in the best of all possible climates. our atmosphere is not in the best of all possible composition. so what's happened as it's

warmed this half a degree in the late 20th century and the co2 has gone up and up in the atmosphere, what we have done is created a greener and greener planet, and the greening of the planet earth is profound. there's a very recent paper that just came out a couple of months ago showing tremendous increases in how much green matter there is on the planet. >> vegetation. >> vegetation. the largest increases, by the way, are in the tropical rain forests. it's growing like -- >> is that why we never hear about it anymore? >> i don't know why we don't hear about it anymore but it sure is growing. and in grassland, which is, a lot of it is used for agriculture. prairies, cows. the data for 17 years of satellite data showed the grassland green mass, if you will, is growing at 5% per year.

that's huge. another paper in "nature" magazine two years ago looked at the planetary greening and said what are the causes. they did something called a factor analysis. 70% of it was a simple direct effect of putting more carbon dioxide in the air because it's plant food. one of the other big causes of the planetary greening was climate change, the warming of the planet. we never hear about this but it's real. >> so even though it's warming just a little bit, it has an enormous positive impact on the planet. >> main reason for that is because the way the greenhouse changes work, is they warm the coldest temperatures preferentially to warming the warmer ones. so the growing season, which ends with the first frost in autumn and begins with the last frost in the spring, the growing

seasons get longer and longer and longer. the greenhouse effect also affects nighttime temperatures more than daytime temperatures, and that's when the cold temperatures are. so you have a longer time for the planet to green up. then you have longer growing season and you have direct fertilization effect with carbon dioxide which is even more important than climate change itself, and you are winding up with a much greener planet. i looked at these numbers. i can tell you that the amount of agricultural productivity that is now being induced in the planet by co2, particularly in these grassland areas, is going to provide a lot of our food for the future. >> it gets a little confusing, frankly, the politics and the logic of all this. that is, you would think if a tiny little bit increased in heat and it comes and goes, right? that's the way nature works. that's the way the planet functions. that's the way it is. would be so beneficial that we

wouldn't be trying to regulate the hell out of it. we would pretty much just leave it alone. >> well, you would think. but unfortunately, like we talked about early in the program, if we parameterize the models to produce large amounts of heat in the 21st century, then we're going to say it's all bad and we're going to try to, if you will, de-techonologize. >> when did this all start? >> it started in the late 1970s, when a group of folks that i know decided that they could -- they wanted nuclear power and they decided that carter, who sold himself as a nuclear engineer, he's actually a technician on a submarine, that carter was favorable to this so that if they pushed the issue of global warming as a catastrophe

caused by the burning of fossil fuels, that could lead to the nuclearization of the country. that's when it started. it spun out of control because the green allies who wanted us, the fossil fuel thing gone, they didn't want nuclear power, they are dramatically opposed to nuclear power so they pushed solar energy and windmills. now we get an unreliable grid and expensive electricity. it actually has a history, it happened, it was an international movement that started out in sweden with the first head of the united nations intergovernmental panel on climate change and it was a very conscious plan to impose this on not just our society, but the world. >> what is this de-growth, de-industrialization movement? is it sort of part of this massive progressive movement or even worse, socialism or marxism

or anything of that sort? i studied, i wrote about it, i read about it, it really kind of got born in europe, was exported to the united states? >> that is true, and the problem with it is that it enjoys broad support as long as you demonize the producers of energy. we should celebrate the producers of energy. it is energy that drives the technology that has doubled our life expectancy in the last 100 years. we should be celebrating this. if you take this away, you're going to take that away, too. >> don't forget, folks, almost every weeknight, join me on levin tv. give us a call at 844-levin tv. we'll be right back. (music throughout)

♪ whoa! (phone rings) daddy, mommy's on the phone! hi! how are you guys? at&t proudly offers wireless and tv discounts to military, veterans, first responders and their families. visit att.com/hero. ♪

♪ ♪ ♪ comfort. what we deliver by delivering.

there lots of people who are confused about which medicare plan is right for them. hey, that's me. i barely know where to start. well, start here with me, karen. i'm a licensed humana sales agent. well, it's nice to meet you, karen. i'm john smith. hi, john. at humana, we know you're unique. so you have different needs from other john smiths. yah, i've always thought so. and together, we can find a plan that's right for you.

great! i go to the doctor a couple of times a year. and i have some prescriptions. but i'm never fully sure of what's covered and what's not. with humana's all-in-one medicare advantage plans, you get coverage for hospital stays, doctor visits, and part d prescription drug benefits. all for an affordable, and sometimes, no monthly plan premium. do you have any more information? sure. i'll get a decision guide in the mail to you today. they're free. finally. someone who understands the real me. your health and happiness is important to us. call or go online now to get your free decision guide. call a licensed humana sales agent today.

the top of the show, went through your biography a little bit and you worked for the intergovernmental panel on climate change in the u.n. i don't know a lot about it, know a little about it, written a little about it, but it was sort of notoriously corrupt intellectually, as i understood it. tell us about that. >> well, the ipcc as it was called is the intergovernmental panel on climate change. the united nations is tellingry tell you something there. it wants the governments of the world to have a unified view and therefore, unified policy, on climate change. that's what it was there for. now, i was asked to write a small portion of second report. people say why did you work with the ipcc. fact of the matter is, all garden parties need a skunk. there were a few skunks on

there. the skunks eventually kind of dropped out because they tended to get so disgusted with it. but we got our two cents in, then as you know, it simply kind of run away with the issue. all these documents that are produced like the ipcc documents, u.s. national assessment on climate change, they are summaries of scientific literature. the problem is, the scientific literature itself has to be biased, because we are working, we are funding the hypothesis that climate change is this horrible thing, has all these horrible effects, and you don't get your grant renewed unless you publish, so that literature that you summarize is biased in a given direction. that's how we get to policy. did some people sit in a room and say wow, this is how we'll do this? i don't know. but it might have happened.

>> the u.n. is notoriously anti-capitalism and sovereignty. naomi wolf once said that really, it's the environment, climate change, all these issues through which we're going to change the capitalist system. is that what's taking place? >> they're trying. they certainly had a block in the road that occurred, a bump in the road that occurred a couple of years ago. >> what happened? >> well, we got a president that wasn't going for it. and he promised to get out of the paris accord on climate change. that's an agreement that was hatched in december of 2015 in which the nations of the world submit what are called voluntary plans to reduce their emissions, so for example, we volunteered to reduce our emissions a pretty

substantial percentage. the indians volunteered to increase their emissions. the chinese volunteered to increase their emissions until 2030, whereupon they might level off. the president looked at that and said this is a bad deal. what i just told you, doesn't that sound like a bad deal? and he got out of it. meanwhile, what country on earth reduced its emissions the most? of all the nations on earth, u.s. of a. >> this would have formalized an agreement where we're compelled to lower, and the chinese and indians could increase. >> yes. the thing, nobody is compelled. there's no enforcement mechanism in the paris accord. so when our negotiator, john kerry, came back and it was on the sunday tv shows, he said well, how are you going to enforce this, what are you going

to do, if countries don't do what they said they're going to do, he said we'll shame them. honest to god. i guess we have a shame bomb now and that's going to do something. of course emissions are going up. >> why have we lowered ours? >> we have lowered ours largely because of good old capitalism and technology, discovering that we were not running out of natural gas, that if we just break rocks underneath our feet, we can extract the natural gas from shale -- >> fracking. >> that's right. we're substituting natural gas, which is cheaper, for coal, for electrical generation and that produces about half as much co2 per unit of electricity as a coal plant does, and so our emissions are going down. i see a lot of big companies are experimenting with natural gas for large scale transportation. you can do it on a railroad because the size of the engine really doesn't matter. might be able to do it in trucks. so the emissions, it's more

efficient, the emissions go down, then 30 or 40 years from now, because there are so many pressures to be efficient, i don't know what technology we'll have but i'll bet it will be more efficient. the old advertising slogan, the future belongs to the efficient? well, welcome to the united states. >> we'll be right back. is our b. and like any baby, it's loud, stressful and draining. and we love it. i refuse to let migraine keep me from saying... "i am here." aimovig, a preventive treatment for migraine in adults, reduces the number of monthly migraine days. for some, that number can be cut in half or more. the most common side effects are pain, redness or swelling at the injection site and constipation. talk to your doctor about aimovig. and be there more. talk to your doctor about aimovig. after bill's back needed a vacation from his vacation. so he stepped on the dr. scholl's kiosk. it recommends our best custom fit orthotic to relieve foot, knee, or lower back pain

so you can move more. dr. scholl's. born to move. whooo! want to take your next vacation to new heights? tripadvisor now lets you book over a hundred thousand tours, attractions, and experiences in destinations around the world! like new york! from bike tours, to bus tours, to breathtaking adventures, tripadvisor makes it easy to find and book amazing things to do. so you can make your next trip... monumental!

to learn about their medicare options before they're on medicare. come on in. you're turning 65 soon? yep. and you're retiring at 67? that's the plan! it's also a great time to learn about an aarp medicare supplement insurance plan, insured by unitedhealthcare insurance company. here's why...medicare part b doesn't pay for everything. this part is up to you. a medicare supplement plan helps pay for some of what medicare doesn't. call unitedhealthcare insurance company or go online for your free decision guide about the only medicare supplement plans endorsed by aarp. selected for meeting their high standards of quality and service. this type of plan lets you say "yes" to any doctor or hospital that accepts medicare patients. do you accept medicare patients? i sure do! to learn more call or go online today for your free decision guide. oh, and happy birthday... or retirement... in advance.

dr. patrick michaels, why does the media do such a lousy job at reporting basic information, like you explained to us right now? >> well, the end of the world fell, look at the ratings for the weather channel every time there's even a modest hurricane, and if you are predicting and projecting global weather and climate armageddon, people are going to tune in and even if it doesn't happen the way it's supposed to, you don't really have to report that, do you? you don't have to report that the climate models are predicting way too much tropical warming, all that good stuff. no, you can just keep on going as you will. there's a niche, though. i have often thought of this. wouldn't there be a market for a good weather channel that just,

you know, had pictures of the beach and bright, sunny days with advertisers, aun anheiser-busch and viagra? >> there's an opening right there. it's a great disservice how you see this across the board on a lot of cultural, social, scientific issues, where the free press doesn't provide information, doesn't provide facts, it provides ideologically pushed policies, and this is particularly troublesome to me in this area, because there's a lot of correcting that needs to be done, so it's politicized, it becomes an ideological movement, we talk about this, people want to raise objections to it. you, you have come under a barrage of assaults as -- >> not very pretty. >> not very pretty, simply because you say wait a minute, i have different information that shows something else. what's it like? >> it's not fun.

but it must be enough fun that i continue to keep on doing it. the problem is that a lot of the journalistic profession, lot of people go into it because they are idealistic, they want to change the world, and my god, here's an ooiissue that affectse energy structure of our society which really affects our society, and i can be involved in this, so then they form pressure groups or lobby -- internal lobbying groups like the society of environmental journalists. >> i didn't know there was one. >> yeah, very powerful within the profession. it enforces a speech line, there are certain things you don't say, certain things you say, they have annual conferences where the likes of issues like climate change come and give them lectures on the end of the world. it's a self-feeding process and

an institution. >> is the epa a good agency or bad agency? when you hear about it, clean air, clean water, saves the polar bears, but do they really interfere and overregulate and make progress that much more difficult? >> polar bears are saving themselves. they are growing in numbers. the epa was the outgrowth of the early environmental movement in the united states. it was created by richard nixon and by the way, the air in some of our air sheds was crap. >> by the way, we are going to finish when we come back. we'll be right back. ish with th