0 to travel with the food that yo can digest and blow a hole in the ozone: i.t.'s -- m.i.t., this famous professor, he needs a food taster for what he's saying in public. he studied at harvard and other schools and came out and he said, you know what? there is just not a lot to this catastrophic argument that they're making. he says this is all about money, all the funding for this comes from the government. so they're doingfo this to keep their funding sources alive. and he is an expert. he spent his entire career studying climate change. >> yes. bob, here is the thing, the debate is not between us. it's not over if man has an a impact on the temperature. i happen to think they do and you do, too. but the problem is with the exaggeration and the inaccuracies in predicted models. is that what leads to this kind of conclusion, let's go to communist china? is that the issue? >> the communist china thing is ridiculous. whereched the olympics they had too clear the streetsut off for four weeks to clear the smog out. and china has a terrible,chin terrible reputation on environmental issues. we have some problems ourselves, but nothing compared to that. but having said that, so we don't get into a big argument, nasa released their -- redid their report, which we've had this debate about. 97% of climate scientists agree that the temperature is rising.r now, eric, you can sit there and laugh, but you and a bunch of -- i won't say flatter.oing when you talk about nasa, american medical association, you go donahue these people whot believe this is true and it's t the highest temperatures since temperatures have been recordede you've got to say something is going on. >> it's not the highest.fact >> the past 130 years theempe temperature increased. >> i was here at the beginning of. >> thousands of years or millions ofni years? >> millions. >> so you're going to go on a study that shows that minuscule increase in temperature over 13e years, which by the way, it has gone up and it's gone down. right now -- >> not a minuscule. >> it'sn not 1.4%. >> it's less than one degree, over 100 some. communist china isye ridiculous. bob ismu right. beijing olympics, it was like four or five months prior to thi olympics that people were not o allowed to drive a car anywhere near the city of beijing because of the smogri problem. it's also the reason why the sm u.s. doesn't get involved ine things like poetcal and cap and trade because china, the biggest polluters on the planet won'tbig play ball. if we're going to cut our pollution and force our businesses, like coal-fired somebody said yes.ebod >> has it increased faster than predicted or not? >> i do not know what the d president's context was for making that. i do know that -- >> do you believe the temperature has increased fasteh than predicted? do i not have the right to ask a simple question that's relevant to the -- to what's put before us? is the temperature around thegl globe increasing faster than was predicted even ten years ago? >> i can't answer that question. >> the issue here is that nobody can really answer this question. >> nobody can answer that question, but they all know the answer. the answer is climate change,cle yes, global warming yes. more money for it, yes.for actually the answer to climate change or any other energy issuo is not communism. it is the private sector and capitalism because the only wayi to grow yourself out of this is to have a lot of economic growtt where you have companies -- orcp governments that have enough money to be able to pay and fun for new projects that will be scalable, that will actually work so you could replace coal and oil. you can't actually do that now. the best thing is to get america back to work so we have more money in our own pockets so the companies can invest appropriately. >> it took the government to get the clean air and clean water act to get the corporations to clean up their act.ter, >> who created the epa? >> it was richard nixon. >> but leaving -- >> i thought he was evil. >> the fact of the matte r is, anybody who denies that this country has polluted and has taken massive steps to correct a lot of that and that we have coal fire plants that are goodaf for us when they're pollutingut the has mott severe. >> coal fire power plants have done an amazing job of getting new technologies to scrub out as much as they possibly can. it's not entirely risk free. but they've done a ton not just because of the government telling then, because it makes e good business sense. i go back to the private sectorb is the better answer than government. >> could i make point about the woman we just saw? she was at anu hearing in novemr and was asked about the keystone pipeline and gave a very simila answer to the one that she justa gave. she wasla hammered, why is this bad for the environment? she couldn't answer it. in fact, she sounded more like an advocate for the keystone pipeline and this is obama's ows person at the epa, why we shouldn't develop our own oil here at home. >> does anybody know how much -- i'm not arguing, i want to know. >> 700,000-barrels a day. >> per day?day. >> yes. i'm sorry.y. part of the problem, keithpr ellison was on the other network this morning. i wase listening to him. they were talk being certain things. he said definitely notey thether keystone pipeline. i'm waiting, one of those idiots would say, why not? just ask the damn question and no one could do it because there is no answer. he's talk being creating jobs. he said definitely not with the keystone. why? >> also for safety. because earlier this week theree was a big report and a lot of news articles about the hazards of moving all of this energy by rail.y >> right. >> you have key tone pipeline that's -- keystone pipeline that's a safer way to do this. >> you're still going to haul. >> not as far. >> i have a feeling that this topic is now over.star when we start to -- >> who started this topic? >> i didn't! they told me to do it! no. i love climate change.met. next, the most awkward today show moment since matt lauer ate that squirrel. we'll show you what happened when reality ice queen kate gosselin sat down for anat interview with her twins. it did not go well. feisty former first lady barbara bush doesn't hold back in a newa interview when asked about whether she would like to have another one of her sons in the white house. her answer when "the five" returns. ♪ ♪ there's a new form of innovation taking shape.