already voted for his order will make board of security. a wall is different. it s symbolic. i think that s where the horsetrading has to occur. security that is not a wall the president even changed the language of it. he s talking about slats, not a wall. bret: he tweeted a picture of what it would look like, slats. there will be a fudging of language, some money. to mollie s point, once the shutdown you feel the negative coverage he wants to show, i m the hard charging. the candidate trump. that will matter going into that presidential election year. whether you know it or not, whether we know it or not, a mode of americans did vote for him then. i think the president benefits, the democrats seem to oppose
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
causation, but gee mark: but i want to ask you about causation. sure. mark: have you 31 governments. the 31 different models. 31 different models. multiple governments. right. mark: fudging the numbers? not fudging them parameterizing. mark: you used the word fudging. does our epa do that? does nasa do that? who does that for us? good question, mark, because the epa was told by the supreme court in 2007 that if it found the carbon dioxide endangered human health and welfare, that it had the power to regulate it under the clean air act. mark: this is the massachusetts. the epa. well, they produced an endangerment finding, 2009, and the endangerment finding for prospective climate is 100%, i didn t say 90%. i said 100% based on those models. so if you can demonstrate that
causation, but gee mark: but i want to ask you about causation. sure. mark: have you 31 governments. the 31 different models. 31 different models. multiple governments. right. mark: fudging the numbers? not fudging them parameterizing. mark: you used the word fudging. does our epa do that? does nasa do that? who does that for us? good question, mark, because the epa was told by the supreme court in 2007 that if it found the carbon dioxide endangered human health and welfare, that it had the power to regulate it under the clean air act. mark: this is the massachusetts. the epa. well, they produced an endangerment finding, 2009, and the endangerment finding for prospective climate is 100%, i didn t say 90%. i said 100% based on those models. so if you can demonstrate that