evening, there was talk and people bring up the left on the right than do liberals and conservatives. i wanted to say from my own heart and say that, during the course of this debate, i have run across and made friends with, shared opinions with folks on all sides of the political spectrum. skeptics whocalled are liberals, who were socialists, you name it, are on the political spectrum. there are so-called alarmists who are generally conservative on other issues, whatever. my personal opinion that come up or you find more conservatives being skeptics, is because the prescriptions reading -- being advocated involved big government, more money and power to government, infringing upon people's rights to choose. so we will have an initial skepticism. but we need to make sure it is justified. let's make sure we are destroying the planet before we start destroying our economy and our way of living. we certainly respect and welcome all perspectives and that should be the case on all sides of the debate. it is not just left and right. it is interesting how so many folks that are global warming skeptics come from environmental activist brack grounds -- background. i consider myself an environmentalist. i do travel quite a bit and every chance i get, when i travel, i want to go out. i want to see the lay of the land. i want to go hiking through the forest. i want to experience the beauty we have in this country and make sure we are good stewards of it. however, it does not mean we will just jump on board for every asserted environmental crisis. like i mentioned earlier, we want to see the proof in the pudding before we jump on board. it takes courage if you are concerned about the environment to critically examine some of the assertions, some of the empire mental activist assertions. sometimes you -- the environmental activist assertions. i am going to stand up for the truth. i am proud and honored to introduce a man who has done that throughout his life and continues today. dr. patrick moore has been a leader in the international environmental field for over 30 years. he is a founding member of greenpeace and served for nine in greenpeace canada, seven years of director greenpeace international. as the leader of many campaigns, dr. moore was a driving force, shaping policy and direction while greenpeace became the largest environmental activist organization. , he has worked on consensusbuilding. as chair of the sustainable for theet committee, he leads process of developing the principles of sustainable for street which have been advocated by a majority of the industry. it is my pleasure to introduce to you dr. patrick moore. [applause] >> thank you. good morning everyone. thank you for inviting me here to give my opinion on the subject of climate change. this was my home for my first 14 years, a small logging camp on the northwest tip of an hoover island on the rainforest by the pacific. i did not know how lucky i was. i was sent off to vancouver for theding school and then to university of british columbia to study life sciences. in 1960, before the world was known to the general public, i discover the science of ecology, how all things are interrelated and how people are related to them. heightmid-1960's, at the of the vietnam war, the height of the cold war, and the threat of all-out nuclear war and the growing concern for the environment, i was transformed into a radical environmental activist. [laughter] i can't seem to get it to go that way anymore. a churchyself in basement with a like-minded group planning a protest voyage against u.s. hydrogen bomb testing in alaska. we proved that is somewhat ragtag group could sail an old halibut boat across the pacific, help galvanize of the composition, and change the course of history. that turned out to be the last hydrogen bond the united states ever detonated. president nixon canceled the remaining test in the series due to the overwhelming opposition we had spearheaded. on our way back from alaska, we were welcomed into the big house near my northern vancouver island home where they made us brothers of the tribe. this began for greenpeace the position of the warriors of the rainbow. it is after a cree legend that says, one day, when the birds are poisoned, people of the world will join together to save the people of europe. we named our ship the rainbow warrior and i spent the next 15 years on the front lines of the movement around the world. next, we took on french nuclear testing in the south pacific. detonatingstill hydrogen atomic bombs in the air in the 1970's, sending radiation around the world. it took some years to drive these nuclear tests underground. french as 1985, commandos bombed and sank to the rainbow warrior killing our photographer. 1970's,ck again to the here i am driving a small rubber boat into the first encounter with these soviet factory whaling fleet in the north pacific in 1975. we confronted the whalers, putting ourselves in front of their happens -- their harpoons to protect the fleeing whales. that got us on television, bringing save the whales to everyone's living room for the first time. just four years later, whaling was banned in the north pacific. here i am sitting on a baby seal off the coast of newfoundland to protect it from the hunters' clubs. i was arrested and hauled off to jail. the seal was clogged and skinned. but this picture was in newspapers all around the world the next morning. this eventually brought changes to the way canada manages its seal herds. by the mid-1980's, we had drawn from a church basement to a group of 100 million a year coming in and in 120 countries around the world. for me, it was time to make a change. i had been against at least three or four things every day of my life for 15 years. i decided it was time to figure out what i was in favor of for a change. i made the transition from the politics of confrontation, which is basically about telling people what they should stop doing, to the politics of trying to find consensus on what we should do instead. there is no escaping the fact that 7 billion people wake up every morning on this planet with real needs for food, energy, and materials. sustainability, which for me was the next logical step after environmental activism, is partly about continuing to provide for those needs. maybe even getting a little more food and energy for people in the developing world while at the same time consolation revving to reduce the negative impact caused by getting the food, energy and material from the earth's environment. i could go on forever but that is my story from the early years. [applause] why did i leave greenpeace. had ae started, we humanitarian mission to stop nuclear war. by the time i left 15 years later, greenpeace had drifted into a position along with the rest of the movement as eric rising humans as the anime is of the earth and that was not for me -- of characterizing humans as the enemy of the earth and that was not for me. van chlorine worldwide became one of the slogans. i was trying to convince them that chlorine was one of the most important moments for public health and medicine. 75% of our synthetic pharmaceuticals are chlorine-based chemistry. anyway, i had to leave because of that. look at them today in the philippines with a mask on in a parade that could help 2 million kids dying each year and they are associated with the death . that is where greenpeace went and i didn't want to go there. about just tell you forests for one second because it is the most important thing and it has a lot to do with climate. most important renewable energy in the world and sequester carbon in the greenpeace is against four straight. they are against the most important renewable resource in the world. we should be growing more trees and using more would. -- more wood. [applause] bey activists say we should cutting fewer trees and using less would. here is what the ipc says. they are actually correct on this except it takes them 38 bureaucratic words to say it. in the long term, rent is maintained at maintaining our foreign carbon stock -- that is what they called trees -- [laughter] will generate the largest sustained mitigation benefit. that means the best thing to do. , they areords saying use trees instead of using steel and concrete wherever you can and you will be using something renewable. sayspeace says the ip ct the easiest and cheapest way to -- to prevent climate change is to stop cutting trees. that is not true. ipct is just saying grow more trees, use more words. six words. [laughter] [applause] -- sorry, howpcc did i get there? read the second one worse. extremely likely -- does it make it more likely to put the word extremely in front of it? they say yes. that means 99% because very likely is 90%. so they put percent along with adjectives to go with likely. what it turns out is that this is not a scientific word at all, likely. report, theypcc say it is an expert judgment. that is not a fact. that is an opinion. this was an opinion. so let them have their opinion. but they should make it clear that it is an opinion. sorry, back up your. -- back up here. whoa. ok, start over again. went too far back. this is not even an internationalist so so much for your consensus. i put my faith in the late michael creighton who said i am certain there is too much urgency in the world. [laughter] [applause] that you arey certain you are right when someone in authority says that it is extremely likely. that is not certainty. i will show you what i always show people. . you honestly know this. . first, yes, co2 is increasing in the global atmosphere. but let's look at the last billion years of global climate change. i chose the most recent billion years. there is 3 billion more years before this. but we know pretty clear that this is what has happened over the last elliott. it -- last of billion. it has generally been warmer than it is today. there have been 4.5 ice ages during this period of time where temperature plummets on average down to 12 degrees, even 10 degrees celsius global average. today, it is 14.5 degrees celsius. we are in an ice age. that is why both polls are covered in ice. people don't understand that we are in an ice age now. this is an interlace your -- interglacial period. it is generally a cold time in terms of the earth's history. why are there 300 million people in the united states and only 30 million people in canada? one word. cold. [laughter] sometimes i think that is why they let us have it. [laughter] you saw this graph yesterday in a different format. it is the most recent. 600 million years since modern life emerged during the cambrian explosion. it shows is laid that there is no lockstep correlation between co2 and global temperatures. at times, they seem to be moving in similar direction. there seems to be correlations sometimes, but as you know, correlation does not prove causation. and you need to see more of a lockstep relationship. temperatures bounded on the top and the bottom probably got a lot of feedback forces that are creating a maximum and minimum and we are in one of those minimums right now. it shows right there, for example. now it is 14.5. co2 is about 400. the average over the last 600 million years has been around 2000, which coincidentally, is the optimum co2 level for plant growth. four to five times higher than it is today. that is why greenhouse growers quickly put the exhaust from their gas and wood haters into the greenhouse. so we can look forward to increase in productivity in agriculture from increased co2. this to me is the grass. if you accept this is true, which is probably something like true because it has been warming for the last hundred years or says we have been the dominant cause since the mid-20th century. that is 1950. in other words, they do not ascribe the rise in temperature between 1910 and 1940 to human caused emissions because we want him getting much back then. they only say it is the part between 1970 and the year 2000 that was caused by humans. rise int caused the temperature between 1910 and 1940? it is identical induration and size. .4 degrees over four years. they are both the same. it is not logical to be the secondikely that one is caused by us and the first one in is caused by something else. [laughter] this to me demonstrates the logical fallacy in explaining that we are the dominant cause for global warming. [applause] there has been no increase in global temperature for 10 months and running. the temperature has declined by a significant amount. the polar vortex had something to do with this, i think. i forgot, that was warming. [laughter] that's right. i shouldn't make that mistake again. and here of course is the arctic sea ice that right now is nearly a million square bloggers below its average since 1979 when we first started measuring it from a satellite. we have no idea what the extent of arctic sea ice was before then. but somehow someone got through their with a wooden boat and 1904. who knows what it was like back then during the heat wave of the 1930's into the 1940's. oceans the southern where, if you take the difference between the antarctic and the art that, there is now nearly one million square miles more sea ice than the average since we started measuring it in 1979. this is the sum total of our knowledge of sea ice. supposedly this is also due to global warming whereas the -- the decreasing extent is also due to global warming. so i get it. everything is due to global warming. [laughter] [applause] our children are not taught logic. they are not taught what the scientific method is. carbon isre told that soot. it has been a slow gradual rise. the pole melts a little more, too. this is tropical rain energy. al gore knows about this and he continues to say that it will be a devastation of the earth from message -- from massive hurricanes. no such things. right now today is the longest period we have known since the last category of three or category of four. they say there is no evidence of an increase in extreme weather events related to the warming that has occurred. and al goreibben and the whole bunch of them perpetuate the idea that every extreme weather event is because of us. this is why we will never be able to predict the future of other than about three days out as john coleman who is coming up soon will probably tell you he knows. [laughter] it is because of clouds. importanthe most greenhouse gas and is the only in both liquids and gaseous phase. and they behave in completely different ways with regard to solar energy. clouds can reflect the sun back. they can hold the heat in depending on where they are and how they they are and what computer model can predict the pattern of clouds in the world? it's impossible. that is why we will never be able to predict the future of climate and clouds are the wildcard and many people believe that, as the earth warms and more water evaporates off the seat, it will be cloud or he -- the sea, it will be cloudier and wetter and there will be negative feedback against the effects of co2 and that is as laws of the layup of the seas as the fry and help hypothesis that we keep getting from the alarmists. as a matter of fact, it is probably more plausible. co2 is the most important nutrient for all life on earth. please teach the children this. [applause] mating co2,ted in it was down to about 260 ppm. now it is at 400. if it had gone down by the same amount as we have caused it to go up, plants would have started dying because plants start dying at 150 ppm. one of the reasons that co2 has fluctuated during the iglesia nation we have had in the last 2.5 million years is, because when plans start dying, they e-mail the co2 that -- they e-mail it the co2 that -- they emit the co2 that they hold. james lovelock was a pessimist about climate and said that humans are a rogue species. gia is onethat, if great organism, maybe we are doing her bidding. it's like carlin said. the reason people came into existence is because the earth wants [indiscernible] the reason the bull came to existence is because the atmosphere wants a little more carbon dioxide for the plants. who knows? -- of world energy especially to people concerned about human-caused climate change, energy is the flipside of the coin and durable energy policies what they want to get their hands on, as if there is some kind of guile you can turn somewhere that is going to change the climate. ofy want to stop this 88% energy produced by fossil fuels, especially the part where oil is involved where there are not really many substitutes because that is transportation, getting the food into the stores. is the mostc effective cause of affordable energy. they are against it. about 85% of all the renewable energy in the world and they are against it even though it is reliable,, etc. cost-effective, etc. we buy enough flatscreen tvs that they can afford to build it without the world bank and they did. [laughter] it replaces 40 coal-fired power plants if you're worried about emissions from coal plants. it stops floods from killing nuns of people downstream. and it allows them to irrigate twice as much land. this is a sustainable development. [applause] get 60% of our energy from hydro. when the oil and coal and gas become scarce, this is what we will have to use. there is no question of that in my mind. [applause] 21 countries producing 15%, this used nuclear food they want to dump in nevada is one of our most important future energy resources. the russians have two of them running on their caspian sea. they just sold two to china last year. but we've got lots of oil and oil and gas right now and it is cheaper than doing this so maybe it will take a while. but 300 years from now, all of the fission products in their pretty well will be decayed and then it will be just the good stuff left so it won't matter if it takes 300 years before we start using that. but there is 5000 years worth of nuclear energy in the 50 we years worth of waste, so-called, that we have produced. nuclear and hydro are the only resources that can effectively replace fossil. here is a cost-effective use of solar energy. to heat water, especially in sunny places. this is the wind energy. countries.in rich things that will be left resting on the ground. here is what happens with wind energy. one day, you have 12,000 megawatts of energy. the next day, you have nothing. shut the schools, hospitals, office buildings? no, you started coal plant. as with -- this is what they are doing in germany. in the united states, because gas is replacing coal in some emissions have gone down steadily for the last five years. without any massive government intervention. fossil fuel dilemma, then you should they say is powered by super efficient electric motors and the wind. as if the wind is powering the super efficient electric motor. here they are protesting a coal plant eating built on the shores of the netherlands with all the wood forms around it. and greenpeace says you should be like us. you should power yourself with the wind. don't build that coal plant. what is in the engine of that vote? two big diesel engines. if the wind is not blowing, they have to fire them up. r if it is this is call sail assist, and those windmills are wind assist for the coal plants. when the wind is blowing. when it isn't, turn on the coal plant, just like greenpeace turns on their diesel engines. here's greenpeace protesting a russian oil rig with an oil-powered ship, saying we must ends our addiction to oil. [laughter] is this hypocrisy? i think so. now, let me just talk for a moment about something in my country that is being denigrated and demonized around the world, and that is the canadian oil fans. here's one of the upgraders there, which turns dirty oil off the sand. they are cleaning the sands in the world's largest natural oil spill. [laughter] when the rocky mountains heaved up, the oil that was in deep formations flowed out, out into the sands of the prairies, which is a former ocean bottom. and there it is near the surface now. but it's got to be cleaned up. just like a gas station when a little fuel leaks out of the tanks underground and makes the oil in the dirt thing. it costs $1 million to clean one of those up. we're making a profit cleaning up the oil off the sand in canada. here's what oil sands mining in canada looks like. it's a dirty business. it's true. doesn't look too pretty when you open up the earth to get the sand out. but here's coal mining in the united states, which produces times as much co2 emissions as all of the oil sands in canada. and i know that they're targeting this down here, too. but that there looks like pretty good energy to me. here's a map of google earth showing the western half of canada, therefore, about half the arbor yal forest of canada. they are saying it's destroying the forest of canada. you can see it there barely. it's like a pimple on an elephant. and there's edmonton, where you can see edmonton down there, too. when are they going to reclaim edmonton or las vegas, for example? when are they going to turn this back into a desert ecosystem? every square inch of zrubbed land must by law been put back to a native ecosystem, which this tailings pond which looked ugly when the operations were going on. once they finished, they turned it into a bison pasture run by the first nations indian people, who live nearby, getting $85 million a year from the oil sands in first nations contracts. this is all reclaimed mining land, and so is this. as an eek gist and environmentalist, this is good enough for me, and it should be good enough for everybody. [applause] dd thank you very much for listening to me this morning. you can follow me on twitter @ecosenso.now. i have a campaign going on golden rice around the world and i think you'll find it of interest. i didn't have time to talk about it today. we're talking about all the environmental issues there on ecosense, climate change, g.m.o.'s, nuclear energy and all those topics. i think you'll find it interesting if you're into following tweets to come and join the conversation with me. again, thank you very much for listening to me this morning. [applause] oh, i just wanted to mention one more thing. john l. smith, if you are here, your "las vegas review-journal" article is garbage. thank you. [applause] thank you. thanks very much. i appreciate it. >> my, what a wonderful talk. it was worth getting up this early from your short night's sleep after the crap tables, whatever. but the one thing you can take away from the talk more than anything else is "everything is due to global warming." and when dr. moore said that, i couldn't help but think of one of my favorite movies, "the acht law josie wales." there's a scene where clint eastwood is leading this entourage across the country and he's chewing on this big old chaw of tobacco. and approaching the party comes a snake oil salesman. he has a bright, white fancy suit on. as he comes across josie wales, he looks to the native american and says, this snake oil is especially good for curing those who can't hold their liquor. then he turns to a young man who's been wounded and says, it's very good at cleaning out wounds and restoring health. and josie wales, chewing on his tobacco, says there's just about nothing it can't do, huh? it can do just about anything. he says, yes, sir, that it can. and josie spits all over his white suit. how is it on stains? [laughter] sometimes i feel like that snake oil salesman is even a bit more crediblen't alarmists who have been putting up the garbage of patrick moore just now. so thank you so much. one of the things that also just cracks me up is oftentimes i'll have folks, usually in the media, after i'll give a talk or when we're talking about the issue, and they'll say, but all the skeptics, they are so old, as if this is a horrible thing. and there are a couple of reasons it stands to reason, it makes sense. first of all, if you're a young professor sore yal candidate, if you're looking for tenure or research dollars, it's like whack a mole. you stick up your head. wait, i.p.c.c. is wrong. bam, no funding for you. that's one reason why you'll see some of the younger folks just saying let me bide my time. i can points out some of the young scientists who don't have the courage to speak up, joe bastardi, jennifer, sebastian mooney, they're all here. but one thing that jumps out at me about this ageism -- how is it that folks who have been working in this field their entire lives, if you've put in 10, 20, 30, 40 years of experience, all of a sudden all that experience, not only is it worth nothing, it's a negative. it has nothing to do with age, it has to do with experience. you have some folks who i mentioned who have been working in the field for a long time. when you pull together that experience, it teals you something. joe bastardi, as he was mentioning the hurricanes in 38 and 44, he was mentioning in times past in, the early 20th century in different phases, that wasn't just preparation for his talk. talk to him. he'll be reeling them off the top of his head. he knows his history. he has experience. he can put all these so-called alarms in proper context. that's why the folks who are skeptics look at this and say, wait a minute. we've come across this before. we came across this with the global cooling scare. we've come across this when temperatures were warming and we saw how it turned out. let's make sure we have all our facts straight. it's not so much age, it's experience and courage. now, i had the pleasure this morning of introducing to you a man who's been working in the weather industry for more than 60 years. he has seen it all. he knows the proper context of weather and climate events. john coleman began his career in 1953 at wcia in champaign, illinois, where he was a students at the university of illinois. he went on to work at stations in peoria, omaha, milwaukee and chicago before becoming the original weatherman on abc's "good morning america." in the early 1980's coleman helped establish the weather channel, serving as c.e.o. and president during its first year of operation. he joined kusi in san diego 20 years ago and earlier this spring, after 60-plus years in the industry, announced he was finally stepping back a little bit to enjoy his private life. and just in case you think his recent retirement is slowing john down, just last month he made it to the cashier in a world series of poker official bracelet event. so you're my hero, john. my pleasure to introduce to you john coleman. [applause] >> oh, james, thank you very much. and hello, everybody. this is spectacular to be here with you today. i want to begin first by asking up. nd diane bask to stand ladies and gentlemen, these are the people who make this event possible. these are my biggest heroes. stand up, diane. stand up, diane. she's not here? wherever she is -- she may be out at the reception desk. now, while i was sitting at the table having my breakfast here this morning, i was watching the live stream of this event on the internet on my cell phone. that's the way most of the world is watching video today. and i hope there are thousands and thousands of you watching this live stream. and i hope and pray that you will go to the heartland website and done nature to joe and -- donate to joe and his organization for the hundreds of thousands of dollars that are putting on these global warming conferences and wait costs them. it is a spectacular achievement that they make it happen, but they can use support from people around the world to keep this battle going to correct this bad science. in this room here today with me are my heroes. these men and women who have stepped forward and put aside their professional status and not worried about who respects them or likes them, but stepped forward to say ladies and gentlemen, there is bad science today. this global warming thing that is so popular politically, so popular with the environmentalists, so popular with the politicians. this bad science must be corrected, and they have had what it takes, which is incredible intestinal fortitude to step forward. and many of them are brilliant, as we just heard from patrick moore. and to these men and women, i tell you i am honored to stand before you today, and i greatly respect you. [applause] and i honor you. [applause] we have just been through the coldest winter in 30 years in the united states. [laughter] it snowed and it froze, and thousands of temperature records were set across our country. and i couldn't resist sending out this tweet to the democratic party and the sierra club and to all the rest. al gore, my friend, where the heck is your global warming? today i am not going to talk about the science. patrick has done a beautiful job and we will have sessions hroughout the day, where great scientists with ph.d.'s give 'wonderful scientific presentation. but instead, i am going to concentrate as a journalist -- and i'm also a journalism graduate -- on my journalism investigation in which i determined that there is a story behind this case of science gone bad, a story that everybody needs to know and understand. how did we get into this awful spot today? and it begins with this man, the great roger revel. a great man, a great scientist, roger revelle received a ph.d. from the university of california at berkeley in orb nothing gravy. then he became the head -- in ocean nothing gravy. then he served in the united states navy during world war ii and is the director of the scripps institute of ocean ography. he found a way to expand that organization by obtaining huge government contracts to investigate the impact on the atmosphere and the ocean of our atomic testing in the atols following world war ii. and this small organization blossomed into a large scientific organization of great significance. and then he came to a real problem in his life. what can he do next to keep this organization thriving? because the atomic tests had come to an end, the government funding was coming to an end. he needed to do something more. and that's when he hired this man, hans, from the university of chicago, a man who was an expert on carbon and the atmosphere. and with him produced the seminal paper on global warming in 1957. and in this paper they looked at the increase and the atmospheric carbon dioxide caused by our burning of fossil fuels, coal and oil and gas, and they asked the question -- if this was having an impact on the climate of the world. well, think about that period in our lives. many of you are not old enough to remember, but i remember very well. our cities and small towns were all clogged in the winter with a smog that hung heavily over us and little particulates of carbon covered the walks and streets as our stokers burned dirty coal to heat us and get us through the winters. oh, my, we have done a wonder in cleaning up our atmosphere since then. but during that time it was easy for people to say, oh, there must be something awful happening here. and that was it, that paper. revelle r in 1957 by and suess, that was the beginning of the global warming frenzy and that has launched what has continued today and what were attempting to battle. and it's david vs. goliath for us, as we fight this battle. but we'll keep fighting. well, what happened next for mr. revelle? he campaigned next to bring the new sity of california campus co-located with the scripps institute of oceanography in la jolla and succeeded and brought that campus there. it was a huge accomplishment for this great man. but then he suffered the greatest failure in his life, because he thought that he would become the chancellor of that university. he thought he would seize that great organization. and instead, the politics interfered and another person was selected as chancellor. and here this great man was crushed. nd this is what happened next. he left scripps institute of oceanography and moved to boston and joined harvard university to start their organization for population studies. so there he was in boston starting something brand-new. but his work he had done at scripps on carbon was still very much on his mind, and he brought it up in great detail in the first class he taught there. do you know who his student was? there he is, sitting in the front row of that classroom, al gore. suess had elle and begun they transferred to al gore, the son of a tobacco farmer and politician from tennessee. and al gore found a meaning for his life in that classroom. he was inspired by revelle, and he wrote a book, "earth and balance." and with that book, became elected to the united states senate. and there in the united states senate held hearings, where he brought scientists before the senate committees and amplified the cause of alarm from global warming and said this is what we must do to correct it. we must spend our federal dollars on research to find ways to combat global warming. and as that money began to flow, the u.s. congress and al gore took charge of the entire scientific organization across this nation and its climatology research and focused it on global warming. and there in the senate of the united states al gore proudly stood up and proclaimed that roger revelle was his mentor and teacher, that he was the father of this global warming movement. and all of that was heard by this man, maurice strong, a former canadian oil executive, who is now a beaurocrat with the united nations at the headquarters in new york city. and he organized the first environmental conference of the u.n. in stockholm in 1972 based on what he had learned from al gore, who based what he had learned on roger revelle. and there was born the intergovernmental panel on climate change. so it had all begun there with that one paper in 1957. it had all spread through that chance meeting of roger revelle and his young student, al gore, in boston, at harvard. and now it had taken over the united nations as well. and this was it. now we had a huge international global warming campaign underway. around the world science was focused on this great catastrophe unfolding because of man's use of fossil fuels. and there at their meetings, was it all scientists? oh, no, it was bureaucrats, politicians, environmentalists. of people nsortium with agendas of one-world government led by taxation on the nations that burned fossil fuel to help third-world countries, and this was it, this was it. and the scientists were invited to international conferences at glamorous places around the world and they compiled these great reports and issued them and published them. and the entire focus was adopted by the press around the world and it became a great concern. and meanwhile, al gore is writing his second book, "an inconvenient truth." and you know what happened from that. that sci-fi movie. and there's al gore with his academy award. "an inconvenient truth." best documentary 2007. and then al gore and the unipcc received the nobel prize and the global warming scare has peaked, all beginning with that one innocent paper. that frenzy has reached its peak. the movie is shown in schools throughout the world. and we have little chance to be heard. the media has totally adopted it. but what happens to this man who started it all? he gave up on harvard. he gave up on boston. concept that he the earth is overpopulated and we must worry about population growth. and that entire center was closed at harvard. arevelle came back to his old hometown of san diego and accepted a professorship. and what did he do there? he wrote these letters to congressmen and senators. and what did the letters say? you can read them. look, folks, they say, we have perhaps become over-alarmed about global warming. we should give at least 20 years to study. we should be patient. we shouldn't take extreme measures today that will harm our civilization. don't wait, study, panic. the letter went out from roger revelle. his signature reached washington. a united states senator, congressman, receives the word from him. he said, i have started this global warming movement. i'm trying to stop the frenzy. and then he joined with fred singer and wrote an article -- a paper that appeared in the new scientific magazine, "cost most." and what did that article say? what to do about global warming? look before you leap. and it concluded that it is time for the scientific community to stand back and have a longer study to make sure that they have the data to justify taking any extreme measures to battle global warming. he had taken a strong position, roger revelle had. what did al gore say at that point? he said revelle has gone senile. and he declared that the debate was over, and he still declares it today. and as his great mentor, he said he was senile. he wondered about that. but i never got a chance to talk about revelle about it. a heart attack, and we lost him in 1991. and then a great debate raged. on the one side fred singer, who said revelle had changed his mind and was trying to tell us that global warming was not a great crisis. but the scripps institution of oceanography, the revelle family, the unippc, members of the u.s. senate and congress said no, no, revelle is the champion, he's the father of global warming. and singer, you have done a bad thing here. well, i was able to interview dr. singer about this controversy. and he joins us live from washington, d.c. dr. singer, what was roger revelle's view of carbon dioxide as a greenhouse gas hen you co-authored that "cosmos" article back in 1990? >> he was really relaxed about it. he basically looked at this as a grand geophysical experiment. after he and his collaborators, like david keeling, found that co2 was in fact increasing in the atmosphere, he and his colleagues were wondering if it would have any impact on climate. he wasn't about to make any judgment on the matter until the data were in. of course, at that time, by 1990, we had about more than 10 years worth of satellite data, and the satellites didn't show any appreciable warming. and this is what actually set off my own thinking on the matter. i wondered what was going on. after all, carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas. it's increasing. there's no question about that. where is the warming? well, it turns out that the atmosphere is much more complicated than the climate models believe, and the warms is offset probably by a kind of negative feedback that comes from clouds and water vapor in the atmosphere. >> are you saying that back in 1990 that revelle was somewhat regretful of the excitement that he had caused about global warming? > revelle at that time had written some letters to his congressmen and also to senator worth, telling them to calm down, not get excited about it, but wait and see what would happen to the climate. in other words, he was telling him don't assume that things are going to warm up just because of models say so. revelle actually was skeptical of climate models, much more so than i was. i was always more optimistic, hoping that they would improve enough so they could really simulate what's going on in the atmosphere. revelle had not much faith in models. >> well, since that time many people have said that you were the one who manipulated revelle, that you kind of calmed him down or changed his feelings in the way you put that article together, that gore said he was a senile old man when you co-authored that paper, and that, therefore, you took your position on co2 and more or less assigned it to revelle, and they put a lot of blame on you. >> well, that's absolutely untrue. first of all, if you knew revelle, you would know that he was sharp to the very, very end and you could not change his mind. i mean, he knew what he was doing all the time. and furthermore, we have written proof. we have the letters he wrote to his congressmen and to his senator. we also have an interview in a magazine. so there's plenty of evidence to show that he was quite independent-minded and that he didn't believe in global warming until data would show him of warming. >> that full interview can be seen on my website. but it's perfectly clear that singer was clear that there was a real change in heart in roger revelle, the man who had started the global warming movement. but at the scripps institute of oceanography, oh, no. it continued strongly there. and in fact, they established the first roger revelle award. and who got the roger revelle award? let me see if i can go back. i want this video to play. can you figure the video back there? this was the tv coverage in 2009 of that award to al gore, who stood before the group at the scripps institute. >> former vice president al gore was honored tonight at the scripps substitution of oceanography. he was given an award in recognition of his environmental work. tom jordan is live in la jolla with more on that, tom? >> paul, al gore was the first ever recipients of the roger revelle prize. honored tonight for his work in environmental preservation. [applause] >> a rousing welcome for a man continuing his campaign on environmental awareness and protection. former vice president al gore, being honored for his efforts for the first ever roger revelle prize. >> i want to express my very deep and genuine gratitude for this honor. >> this marks the 1 thunth birthday of roger revelle who >> and credits him for igniting his passion on the environment. >> as a former student, still a student, trying to learn, but still inspired by a great teacher, who was a great scientist, and a great man. >> his work back in the 1960's was at the time considered revolutionary. many scientists consider that work pathetic. >> we were told it was a short report saying climate change is an issue and the earth is heating up and therefore something needs to be done about that. >> gore was moved by his early work and now considered at the forefront of the global movement. all from his work on the environment, he adds a new distinguished honor to that list. >> i'm deeply grateful. >> and tonight's celebration was part of three days celebrating the life of roger. he would have been 100 years old tomorrow. >> john believes there is no significant manmade global warming and travels the nation speaking on the topic. >> i got the opportunity for the first time to tell the story of roger and that global warming campaign on television. and now today, standing here before you, i wonder where would e be today if he were alive. here in las vegas, sitting hero andeside my great joining this conference and probably receiving an award here or would he be hiding with al ore talking about respect, the deniers. and the tons and tones of carbons that we are emitting into the atmosphere. where would roger be today? i think i would be able to look down and say, doctor, we honor you. as i conclude my presentation, i would like to take just a moment to speak to those probably not in this room, but those who are watching streaming, perhaps watching the rebroadcast of this on c-span or youtube, young people who love this earth and globalder if we who deny warming are destroying our planet. i want you to know, we all of us here today, honor and love this planet as much as you do. its water and its air are precious to us and preserving it is vital to us. and if we thought that our activity in having this magnificent civilization of cell phones and computers and smart tv's and jet airplanes and fasty cars, if we thought air -- tioning and computer look something up on google, if we thought that was destroying our climate, we would stop. and when i speak about this and tell these young people about my love of earth, they say to me, ok, let's say you're right but there isn't any global warming crisis, but still shouldn't we protect our environment, get rid of fossil fuels and i say to them that day will come and i look forward to it as much as you. yes, but 30 years from now, it with scientific break-throughs. and if we took that $2. billion a year that we are raising studying the impact on insects today and other silliness and put it in research to find new forms of mber try energy, it might not be 30 years but 15. look how much we have cleaned the atmosphere already with our reformulated gasoline, with our totally redone injection systems d catalytic converters relatively cleanly, we have come so far. support the scientists and we will all love planet earth together. thank you for letting me speak here today. thank you very much. [applause]

Related Keywords

Vietnam , Republic Of , New York , United States , Caspian Sea , Oceans General , Oceans , Canada , Philippines , Nevada , Germany , Alaska , Vancouver , British Columbia , Southern Ocean , China , Boston , Massachusetts , Illinois , California , San Diego , Russia , Washington , District Of Columbia , La Jolla , Jordan , United Kingdom , Champaign , Tennessee , Stockholm , Sweden , Netherlands , Las Vegas , Harvard University , Vancouver Island , France , Arctic Sea , Chicago , America , Canadian , Russian , French , Soviet , British , Russians , American , James Lovelock , Clint Eastwood , Michael Creighton , David Keeling , John L Smith , Sebastian Mooney , Patrick Moore , John Coleman , Al Gore , Josie Wales , States Al Gore ,