tv U.S. Senate Approves Harvey Disaster Relief Package CSPAN September 7, 2017 6:00pm-6:18pm EDT
members would soon employ on climate change. first, millions in contributions from affected industries often laundered through front groups and through foundations, these same array of donors, "the washington post" reports, would help finance charities behind the fight against climate science. they took the skills they learned and moved that same technology of propaganda, influence and politicking into climate change. the competitive enterprise institute became the lead group in this cooler heads coalition, taking over management of the coalition, joined by groups such as the heartland institute. the heartland institute is a really classy group.
they put up billboards comparing climate scientists to the unabomber. and americans for prosperity is another influential nonprofit organization which is a front for, guess whom, the koch brothers, ie, the fossil fuel industry. they got ramped up by the kyoto protocol. they went on a spending spree to thwart the kyoto with information campaigns in 1997. the cool -- the cooler heads coalition had a clear mission of countering what they called the myths of global warming. in early 1998 this cooler heads group met with energy industry executives and lobbyists in
closed door meetings at the american petroleum institute and began to soak up more money. and here's what the plan was -- i'm quoting from the story in the "post" -- one former cooler heads member who spoke on the condition of an nementy because of a fear of a backlash -- that's how classy this group is -- they enforced against each other this are former member said the coalition's mission was to simulate voices against climate change science. there's a whole web, the former member said, out to do this. the exxonmobil foundation, of course, had given millions to cooler heads members.
a 2009 i.r.s. filing for the competitive enterprise institute, the group that took over the coalition, managed it, inadvertently made public a filing that disclosed a finding from a coal mining country, consciouseses -- contributions during the obama administration boasted $7.6 million in 2014. and as the article continues, competitive enterprise institute and the cooler heads, so-called, were just the tip of the spear. between 2003 and 2010, energy companies, corporations, conservative foundations contributed hundreds of millions to that web to 91 nonprofit think tanks, educational groups
and associations involved in the fight against global warming regulations. to put it mildly, as the expert who chronicled this concluded, and i quote him, this is a large-scale political effort. we have one last report from inside that large-scale political effort. this is the first-hand voice of the individual whose name is jerry taylor. here's what he says: i used to be the number two person at cato institute. the cato institute is a constellation of right-wing groups that support climate denial and receives money from fossil fuel interests. he continues: i was responsible for building our resistance to
climate action. i discovered that a lot of the scientific narratives i was offering were really dodgy. one of the people i trusted most, he discovered, was in the business of consciously misrepresenting the debate. this really rattled me. he goes on: once i started looking closely at a lot of the convenient, plausible talking points i was offering, they began to fall apart. i then turned to look at economic arguments.
he says: this is pretty hard. it's a very difficult thing to find that you cannot trust any of the scientists that are being offered to resist climate action. this is the guy who used to lead the anti-climate action effort of the cato institute saying it is a very difficult thing to find that you cannot trust any of the scientists that are being offered to resist climate action. and then the economists that you have been relying on to put cautious remarks about cost benefit are now all walking away from the game. it goes on to say: we got to the point where you could not find
an academic economist who studies climate change who argued against climate action. not one single one. so here's his conclusion. believe it or not, he says, libertarians and conservatives and republicans were put on this earth with the perfect answer to climate change, harnessing markets and price signals via a carbon tax or a carbon tax-like mechanism to reduce greenhouse gas emission were perfectly
placed to do that, he says. so what is it, he asks, that keeps republicans from coming to the conclusion that climate change doesn't just threaten polar bears in the arctic, it threatens the global economy, it threatens capital flows, it threatens capitalism? it's not the republican base. let me tell you, he says, there's poll after poll, survey after survey showing that most republicans believe in doing something about climate. he continues. what prevents republican politicians from acting is that there are significant members in the republican party coalition who are denialists demanders. they are not just climate
deniers themselves, they are dienlist demanders,denilist demanders. the koch-controlled tea party movement has held the g.o.p. by the throat. by the way, if you were somebody who was trying to find some comfort in the widely reported phenomenon that 97% of climate scientists include -- conclude that global warming is real and problematic for the planet and exacerbated by human activity, if you were comforting yourself that maybe the 3% were right,
that the really smart place to place your bet for the future of the planet and our economy and our standing in the world is on those 3%, not take the 97% bet, no, take the 3% bet, if that's the way you were thinking, we have bad news. researchers tried to replicate the results of those 3% of papers, and guess what. they found bias faulty results. katherine haho is an atmospheric scientist at texas tech university. she said: every single one of those analyses had an error in their assumptions, methodology, or analysis. that, when corrected, brought
their results into line with the scientific consensus. so if you were hoping that 3% was somehow going to bail you out from having to face this crisis, that just blew up. there is no 3%. broadly, the report on this says: there were three main errors in the papers denying climate change. many had cherry picked the results, some applied inappropriate curve fitting to try to steb a -- step away from the data until you could match it to the curve of your own choosing, and sometimes -- this is my favorite -- sometimes the papers just ignored physics all together. so it's been quite a month with
the west ablaze, houston under water, the most powerful storm ever measured in the atlantic headed our way, heat and rain and other measures breaking records year after year after year, multiple departments of government aligning to warn us and how does the trump administration respond? well, the energy department asked scientists to remove the word climate change from a grant proposal. i have been asked to contact you to update the wording in your proposed abstract to remove words such as global warming or climate change the e-mail says. not just one fluke. in march ""politico" reported that staff at the department of energy were told not to use the terms climate change, emission reduction or paris agreement.
the department put out a power grid studys that been long -- study that's been long delayed, and in the power grid study, the words climate change never appeared. wherever they were in earlier drafts, they were scrubbed. the only reference to climate is a reference to rescinding energy and climate-related policies. the e.p.a. has been scrubbing the word climate change from its website. it removed its climate change page and then got hammered with a series of freedom of information act requests as to what is going on with that and so they quickly scrambled and published an archived version but buried it back in the website.
the department of interior has removed discussions of the effects of global warming from several of its pages. the department of agriculture has e-mails showing how staff in their natural resources conservation service were coached by managers to avoid the term climate change and instead use other language. that's where we are. all of those facts, the motive behind it, the fingerprints of the fossil fuel industry, the confessions by participants in those schemes, and where are we? if this -- in this room, silence. nobody will talk about it because the power of the fossil fuel industry is so strong the threats are so blood curdling
that nobody dares. we cannot have a grownup factual discussion about climate change in this building either. and, of course, over in the trump administration they have completely thrown in the towel of the fossil fuel industry and now we're hoping to dodge the problem by forbidding people to use the word climate change. it is pathetic, mr. president. with that, i yield the floor.. the presiding officer: the senate stands adjourned until senate stands adjourned until
discusses his book america in the age of trump. >> america in the age of trump tries to forge commonsense bipartisan solutions to the problems we're facing. i would argue those problems are getting worse and made worse by our political leadership. >> sunday at 9:00 p.m. on "after words", harvard university professor danielle allen examines mass incarceration. she is interviewed by author westmore. >> our prison system as big as ours, 25% of the worlds population, prison population is in our present despite we only have 5% of the world population. there are a lot of stories out there that we are not telling. i'm not telling those stories or letting this thing live.