Return to Transcripts main page
Campbell Brown
Global Warming: Trick or Truth?; Airport Screening Secrets Posted Online
Aired December 08, 2009 - 20:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
CAMPBELL BROWN, CNN ANCHOR (voice-over): Tonight, breaking news: a massive airport security breach. The TSA posts its screening secrets online for everyone, including terrorists, to see. How in the world did this happen?
Plus, a special investigation, "Global Warming: Trick or Truth?" The big announcement tonight, this is the hottest decade on record.
BILL NYE, THE SCIENCE GUY: The world is still getting warmer. Humans are still to blame.
BROWN: Scientists from across the globe say urgent action is needed now, but a hacked e-mail scandal has skeptics saying, not so fast.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We should not be making decisions that will cost the American rate payer billions or even trillions of dollars based upon scientific fascism.
BROWN: Who's telling the truth and who has their facts all wrong? We're taking you around the world tonight for answers.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
ANNOUNCER: This is your only source for news. CNN prime time begins now. Here's Campbell Brown.
BROWN: Welcome, everybody.
Tonight, a major announcement coming out of the climate change conference in Copenhagen, hanging over it all, hacked e-mails that some say call into question the very science behind global warming. We are looking at all the angles, but we are going to start tonight, as always, with the "Mash-Up." We're watching it all, so you don't have to.
And our top story tonight, a secret government manual for screening airline passengers accidentally makes it online for all to see.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: It's being called the most serious security breach since the creation of the TSA after the 9/11 attacks. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The 93-page manual prepared for federal airport screeners shows sample of law enforcement and official credentials, federal air marshals, CIA officers, and members of Congress, I.D.s which criminals or terrorists could copy.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The secret details have been online for everyone to see. Most damaging, say officials, what size electrical wire can go undetected by airport screening machines, valuable information for a bombmaker.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Each page of the report carries this notice. Warning: "This record contains sensitive security information. No part may be disclosed without a need to know."
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BROWN: The Transportation Safety Administration is promising a full review. We are going to have much more on this troubling story coming up in a few minutes.
Turning now, though, to Afghanistan and a surprise visit from Pentagon chief Bob Gates. He sat down with Afghan President Hamid Karzai, who said Afghanistan will be counting on American help for a very long time.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
BLITZER: Afghanistan's president raising serious doubts about the new 18-month U.S. timeline for his country. He's talking about decades.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
HAMID KARZAI, PRESIDENT OF AFGHANISTAN: For a number of years, maybe for another 15 to 20 years, Afghanistan will not be able to sustain a force of that nature and capability with its own resources.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Defense Secretary Gates today urged President Hamid Karzai to speed up the training of Afghan security forces, so they can take over as soon as possible from the U.S.
ROBERT GATES, U.S. SECRETARY OF DEFENSE: As President Obama has made very clear, this is not an open-ended commitment on the part of the United States.
BRIAN WILLIAMS, HOST, "NBC NIGHTLY NEWS": This nation's top commander there closed ranks today with the commander in chief, as expected, on his new plan for this surge and exit policy.
GENERAL STANLEY MCCHRYSTAL, U.S. COMMANDER IN AFGHANISTAN: The next 18 months will likely be decisive and ultimately enable success. I fully support the president's decision.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BROWN: And we have breaking news to tell you about right now, a possible deal on health care reform.
Dana Bash on the Hill with the very latest on what's going on.
Dana, what have you got?
DANA BASH, CNN SENIOR CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Well, Democrats in the Senate, moderates and liberals, have been meeting behind closed doors in marathon talks to try to figure out an alternative to the very controversial public option.
And sources coming out of the meeting just moments ago told us that they believe they have a tentative deal to work around this public option and find a way to, they think, accommodate moderate Democrats and liberal Democrats, moderate Democrats who never wanted a public option and liberal Democrats who have been demanding it.
We're waiting for all the details, but the headline is that breaking news tonight in that they have -- they say that they have a tentative deal among divided Democrats on this issue of a public option -- Campbell.
BROWN: All right. Dana Bash, we will be waiting for more information on that. Appreciate it.
We're going to turn now from health care policy to a personal health care crisis.
Bryant Gumbel speaking publicly for the very first time about his battle with lung cancer. He broke the news this morning on "Live With Regis and Kelly." Take a look.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
BRYANT GUMBEL, HBO: Two months ago I had cancer surgery.
KELLY RIPA, CO-HOST, "LIVE WITH REGIS & KELLY": What?
GUMBEL: Yes.
RIPA: Are you kidding me?
GUMBEL: No.
RIPA: Oh, my gosh. I had no idea.
GUMBEL: I know.
RIPA: I thought we were friends.
GUMBEL: Well, we are. I mean...
RIPA: What is going on?
GUMBEL: Hilary and I kept it private.
RIPA: You did? GUMBEL: Yes.
RIPA: Oh, my gosh. Well, not that private, because Gelman knew.
GUMBEL: Gelman knew, yes.
(LAUGHTER)
GUMBEL: Michael and I had talked about it at dinner before I had the surgery.
RIPA: Oh, my gosh. And are you OK? Do you want to discuss it, or should...
GUMBEL: Well, I mean, it's nothing to hide from. They opened up my chest. They took a malignant tumor, and they took part of my lung and they took some other goodies. And the pathology on most of the stuff came back benign, but enough aggressive cells had escaped the tumor that it warranted some treatment. And I went through that, and it's done now.
RIPA: And it's done now.
GUMBEL: And we hope -- we hope it's over and done.
(CHEERING AND APPLAUSE)
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BROWN: Gumbel says he wanted to keep the news private, even hiding his condition from his staff of his HBO show, "Real Sports."
And moving on to something a little bit lighter, a picture worth -- well, you know. Behold the oddest couple ever, Lady Gaga and Queen Elizabeth. The meeting of the royals took place in England last night. The ladies of "The View" chewed it over this morning.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
BARBARA WALTERS, CO-HOST, "THE VIEW": So, Lady Gaga is wearing an outfit. That's the outfit, OK?
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: She's dressed like Queen Elizabeth I.
(CROSSTALK)
WALTERS: And did not take off her sunglasses.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: And that was red latex she was wearing as her homage.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Hopefully, she doesn't have an allergy to that.
(CROSSTALK)
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: It's an attraction-getting device. It's very clever.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: It keeps people interested.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BROWN: The queen also met Miley Cyrus at the very same event. It must have been quite a night for her majesty.
And that brings us to the "Punchline." This is courtesy of David Letterman. He, of course, was recently embroiled in his very own sex scandal, so he has a distinctive take on the most recent fallen star.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DAVID LETTERMAN, HOST, "THE LATE SHOW WITH DAVID LETTERMAN": Boy, it looks like that Tiger Woods is having some trouble, huh?
(LAUGHTER)
LETTERMAN: You know, I was thinking, if this thing had happened three months ago, I would have material for a year.
(LAUGHTER)
(APPLAUSE)
LETTERMAN: I wish he would stop calling me for advice.
(LAUGHTER)
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BROWN: David Letterman, everybody. And that is the "Mash-Up."
A massive security breach tonight being called shocking and reckless. The TSA posts its secret screening manual online for all the world to see.
Plus, our special investigation, "Global Warming: Trick or Truth?" The scientists tonight say this is the hottest year on record, so why do some skeptics say they are still not buying it?
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The truth is the truth. The facts are the facts. This whole theory of manmade global warming is just that. It is a theory.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
BROWN: Breaking news tonight.
The TSA, formed after 9/11 to keep you safe in the skies, has allowed a massive security breach, accidentally posting a detailed airport screening manual online for pretty much anybody to see, including terrorists -- 93 pages outlining which people and items are supposed to be screened which are allowed to go through without a second thought, everything from diplomatic pouches to prisoners, complete with photos of official I.D.s that some now fear could be duplicated.
The TSA says what was posted was both outdated and unclassified, but the whole thing creating outrage, nonetheless.
And with me now to talk us through this is Fran Townsend, a CNN national security contributor and former homeland security adviser to former President Bush. Also, Clark Kent Ervin, the former homeland security inspector general, with us tonight as well.
Fran, in the grand scheme of our national security, how big a deal is this?
FRANCES FRAGOS TOWNSEND, CNN NATIONAL SECURITY CONTRIBUTOR: Oh, you know, Campbell, you know it's a big deal when the department itself begins to go into sort of press management, right? "This is not really that big a deal. We have updated it six times since then. We didn't really implement this one. They have also said to with us, well, this was the supervisor's manual."
Look, if you want to judge it, you have got to look at the manual that was released. This has got incredibly detailed information in it. It's got to be of concern. And, frankly, while they're going to do a deeper dive into what happened and a look-back, we need to know what they're going to do right now.
What are they doing to put random measures in place so that terrorists can't go to school on the manual that's now out there and potentially do us harm? People are rightly outraged by this release, I think.
BROWN: And let me just show viewers what we're talking about here, Fran. This is -- we just printed it out. And this is a couple hundred of pages. This is not like a three-page little here what you ought to do kind of document.
Clark, walk us through exactly what was disclosed here. What were the most damning disclosures, do you believe, in this document?
CLARK KENT ERVIN, FORMER INSPECTOR GENERAL, DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY: Well, Campbell, it goes on and on.
It says that, for example, only 20 percent of carry-on backs are hand-checked for explosives. It says that, at peak travel times, when there are lots of travelers, and you would think that security would be at the highest, that screeners have to check only 25 percent of the time, if they choose to, use these black lights, these special lights, to check I.D.s and authenticate them.
It says that if you're coming through a screening checkpoint, you go through the metal detector and you're in a wheelchair or you're wearing orthopedic shoes, and you alarm, that it's discretionary with the screener as to whether to subject that traveler to more scrutiny.
And it also lays out the limitations of X-ray technology. So, it goes on and on. As Fran said, I think this is the most serious security breach that TSA has been involved in since 9/11 and since TSA's inception in 2002.
It is really incredible.
BROWN: So, Fran, what happens now? I mean, they have said -- I have actually got a statement here from them. Here's a very brief bit of their statement.
"A full review now under way. The TSA has many layers of security to keep the traveling public safe and to constantly adapt to evolving threats."
That's their take on this, but it sounds to me based on what you two were saying that we are going to have to go a lot further here. Are they going to have to revamp all their security measures?
TOWNSEND: Well, you know, Campbell, there's only so much you can do. The reason that this is really hard, first of all, let's remember, while there are -- it is true there are many layers of security, this is really the last point at which you get a serious inspection before you get on that plane.
They could do it at the gate. They don't any longer, so it is -- it's very serious that we now have public what is our procedure at that last checkpoint. They can put in place some random measures that go beyond that are unpredictable. That -- the unpredictability is always a help when you're trying to thwart somebody who's trying to get past your procedures.
But I will tell you, there -- it's a real challenge, because the detail in this memo really does lay out what is our philosophy about checkpoint screening, how do we make judgments about when you can't do 100 percent, you can't everything all the time, what are the judgments about what's most important.
That's not going to change, even if you change the manual. And so that's part of what makes this such, I think, a serious breach.
BROWN: And, Clark, do you think they get it, how serious this is?
ERVIN: Well, you know, I wonder about that, Campbell. The fact that TSA has pointed out that there are a number of layers to security, every time I hear that, every time we have an incident like this -- and there's never been an incident this bad -- but, every time there's a similar incident, the response is always that there are multiple layers.
As Fran says, this really is the last line of defense. If terrorists get past the screening checkpoint, that really is the last time. And this comes against a backdrop of other problems. There's a GAO report out in the last day or so that says almost $500 million has been spent to deploy technologies against which no cost/benefit analysis has been applied or risk analysis.
There's an inspector general report out today -- or yesterday -- that says that millions of dollars of equipment is in a warehouse that could be used to make us safer. And, of course, every year, on a quarterly basis, it seems, there's another inspector general report or TSA report or media investigation showing just how easy it is to get these weapons past screeners if you are a determined investigator or a terrorist.
So, I think there is a laissez-faire attitude here, which the department has got to get a handle on. There's a new nomination for TSA who is pending confirmation by the Senate. And I know him, as I'm sure Fran does. And I hope that he will be swiftly confirmed. It's no guarantee that this won't happen again, but we need to have leadership at the TSA. And we need it now.
BROWN: Well, it's certainly not very comforting to hear all of as we all get ready for our holiday travel.
Clark Kent Ervin and Fran Townsend with us tonight, to both of you, appreciate your time.
TOWNSEND: Thank you.
BROWN: Tonight, our special investigation "Global Warming: Trick or Truth?" -- when we come back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
BROWN: An urgent warning on climate change tonight. The past decade has been the hottest on record, that big announcement made by the World Meteorological Society. The big question, of course, what do we do about it?
Thousands of world leaders and scientists are at the U.N. summit in Copenhagen trying to figure that out right now.
Becky Anderson is there.
And, Becky, this conference started with a hacked e-mail scandal calling into question the very science of climate change. Today, another scandal is hanging over it, this one involving a leaked memo. What is going on?
BECKY ANDERSON, CNN CORRESPONDENT: That's right, Campbell. It's day two here. And if you thought the toxic clouds of climategate had lifted, well, think again.
It's got all sort of polluted here in Copenhagen, this time by a conspiratorial and potentially much more divisive event. And this is what I'm talking about. This document has been dubbed the "Danish Text."
Now, it was written up by the Danes on behalf, we are told, of the U.S. and the U.K. And it has got the developing nations here in a right old spin, because, effectively, this proposal, if it were to be agreed on by some of the bigger nations here, would effectively give rich nations significant power over the billions of dollar that would be distributed to poorer countries as a result of any new agreement.
I have got to say that we can't quite work out what role this proposal would or might take. The negotiations, of course, are going on behind closed doors, but this has been leaked by the "Guardian" newspaper. And, as we understand, it is now doing the rounds, specifically with India, Brazil, and China.
Now, the sense from the other developing nations here -- I'm talking about the smaller ones -- and don't forget that climate change is so important to those smaller nations -- it's where you're seeing the visible effects of global warming. They say they are being cut out of negotiations.
They say that the Danes, on behalf of the U.S. and indeed the U.K., are going after the big guys and trying to drive a wedge between Brazil, India, and China and the rest of the developing world. What they're saying is simply this: Don't leave us out of the meat-and- potato negotiations, the bargaining that's going on behind closed doors before these world leaders turn up next week.
This could be really big. We don't know how it's going to play out at this point, but it's certainly extremely divisive and potentially quite destructive to any political agreement we might get by the end of next week -- Campbell.
BROWN: Oh, so, bottom line, Becky, President Obama could be really walking into a firestorm next week. And beyond the intense negotiations going on there, there are also a lot of theatrics in Copenhagen right now.
ANDERSON: That's right. I think I told you last night that people have come from every corner of the world, delegates here and there, and there are thousands and thousands of them. And they have also come from a little bit farther. Have a listen to this.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Our planet was destroyed by global warming. We are here in search of a real climate deal.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
ANDERSON: Whatever it takes to get your message out -- Campbell.
BROWN: Thanks, Becky.
And while the world leaders are trying to figure out a plan to fight global warming, critics here at home telling President Obama to do nothing when he goes to Copenhagen next week, billions of dollars at stake, not to mention clean water, clean air, clean food. So, who has it right? We are going to hear from scientists, skeptics, lawmakers, and try to get to the bottom of it.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) REP. JAMES SENSENBRENNER (R), WISCONSIN: The U.N. should throw the red flag. It should call a time out. If it takes a year or two to get to the bottom of the climategate scandal, so be it.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
BROWN: The climategate e-mail scandal is sending aftershocks way beyond Copenhagen, all the way to Capitol Hill. It is giving new ammunition to opponents of President Obama's plan to cap carbon emissions.
The president has been pushing his far-reaching proposal for years, but his political opponents say the controversial e-mails are really -- a really good reason to push pause.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
BROWN: I'm joined now by Republican Congressman Darrell Issa and Democratic Congressman Jay Inslee.
Appreciate both of you joining us tonight.
Congressman Issa, let me start with you.
I know you want the Obama administration to hold off on changing environmental policy in the wake of these e-mails. But, yesterday, you said that you have always believed the science that says global warming is happening. So, why hold off, then?
REP. DARRELL ISSA (R), CALIFORNIA: Well, the important thing is that depending upon the speed and how much of what is happening in the way of cyclical warming depends on whether or not we have a 150-year or a 300-year problem or a two-year problem.
If we have, let's say, a slightly slower warming and less of it is coming from the human element, we might very well be able to transition out of fossil fuel, get to a sustainable environment with all positive investments.
On the other hand, if we need to do it immediately to stop a cataclysmic event which we could stop, then the president's initiative would probably fit. The important question is, what is the honest science, so that we can use the best solution at the best value with the least loss of jobs, perhaps even no loss of jobs? The difference is creating jobs or losing jobs.
(CROSSTALK)
BROWN: OK.
Let me bring Congressman Inslee in here.
Congressman, clearly, people have questions about these e-mails. Our latest CNN poll shows that more people now doubt the global warming science. Do you think the controversy, fairly or unfairly, could ultimately derail any legislation?
REP. JAY INSLEE (D), WASHINGTON: No, because inaction is deadly here.
It's deadly for our health and it's deadly for our economy. And the world really is revolved in here into a couple groups that deny facts. There's the birthers, who deny that President Obama is a legitimate president. And there's the deniers that deny that global warming and ocean acidification are in fact threats to our health and our economy.
And the simple facts -- and these are not opinions -- these are facts. We have now found, talking to NASA and the National Oceanographic group and scientists across the globe, that the rate of global warming has accelerated in the last few years. We have lost 1.5 trillion tons of ice in Greenland.
The rate of melting of the Arctic has increased by 40 percent. The rate of acidification of the Pacific and Atlantic Oceans is now 30 percent more acidic than in preindustrial times. The scientists have told us that delay is deadly. And we have recently had a health report from the United States government about the health impacts in this regard.
BROWN: Let me just stop you there, because the problem is, you keep say, the scientists say, the scientists say, but can't you see that what's happened with these e-mails, again, fairly or unfairly, has caused a lot of people to doubt what the scientists are saying?
INSLEE: Of course.
BROWN: Their credibility was damaged by this, you know, whether, again, it deserved to be, or not. So, how do you address that problem going forward?
INSLEE: Look, we have seen this movie before.
The tobacco industry tried to discredit the science, the huge scientific consensus about lung cancer and tobacco connection. We're seeing the same movie play out here today. And we have the same degree of scientific consensus, regardless of what happened in England. Those scientists may have sent untoward e-mails with language that's not in the King's English, but the scientists, John Holdren, Jane Lubchenco, NASA, NOAA, the people who put the man on the moon have told us that the climate is changing in deadly ways.
(CROSSTALK)
BROWN: OK, let me go back to Congressman Issa.
Congressman, just explain to me -- you are going to Copenhagen now, as I understand it.
ISSA: Yes, I am.
BROWN: Explain why. What's the point of your trip? What are you trying to say?
ISSA: Well, first of all, although Jay's assumptions, I have some questions about, and I would be glad to meet with him offline, the fact is, we do have some real questions about the underlying facts.
"An Inconvenient Truth" was based on these studies which now are in doubt. It's a question of not, do we need to deal with our environment? And, certainly, Jay and I would both say that we have got to get off of coal and the acid rain coming from it. There are a lot of pollutants we have to deal with that we're not even denying.
When it comes to CO2, it's a question of, do we have to take the draconian measure of getting rid of CO2 immediately, having offsets? Is that the most important place to put trillions of dollars? Or should we be working simultaneously, getting off coal and other fossil fuels, reducing pollutants, and finding sustainable energy?
And do we have enough time to spend the money in a proactive way? I will not buy into the hysteria that the world is going to end tomorrow if we fly to Copenhagen on a 747 that consumes fossil fuel. At the same time, I certainly want to make sure that we're looking and listening to all science, that we get accurate science to replace the corrupted information we now know exists, and that we reach a good -- a good conclusion, and, oh, by the way, in the case of Copenhagen, make sure that any treaty that is agreed to covers China, Brazil, India, so that we're not reducing CO2 and jobs in America while China and India are increasing.
We've got to make sure that if this is the right course of action, that we do it in a way that holds all of us responsible to reduce CO2 gases. I don't want to save half the world because that doesn't work in climate. You have to save the whole world or nobody.
BROWN: All right. Congressman Inslee, in our attempts, as we do here many nights to find a little common ground...
INSLEE: ... what in what Congressman Issa just said, you know, can you agree with going forward?
INSLEE: Well, I think it's important to pay attention to China. It is very important. Because if Darrell goes to Copenhagen, I hope to go as well, what we're going to learn is what I learned in China last month. They are spending $11 billion a month on clean energy. And the question is, which country is going to dominate the production of electric cars and lithium batteries? Us or China? Are we going to generate the jobs here or in China on solar panels and wind turbines?
It is real clear that there is going to be a huge market for clean energy. We want to make sure that those jobs and those products are created in America. Now, if we do what Darrell wants to do, which is to not act for another 10 or 20 years, China is going to eat our lunch. Good jobs are going to go China.
ISSA: Jay, Jay, Jay --
INSLEE: Let me finish my thought.
ISSA: We agreed on not what --
(CROSSTALK)
INSLEE: What we agreed on --
ISSA: You're saying I don't want to do something for 10 or 20 years. That's not fair.
BROWN: In fairness, that's not what he said. I mean, he did say he wanted to look closer at the science. He didn't lay out a timeframe, so let's try to keep it in the realm of what he actually said.
INSLEE: Well, Darrell, but tell you how long it's going to be. But I will tell you China is not waiting to move forward to create jobs in China. We should not be waiting to create jobs in America. Now when we do these policies and the energy bill is passed in the house --
ISSA: That we agree on.
INSLEE: When we do this, we are going to jump-start the creation of millions of jobs, green-colored jobs in this country. Building solar cells, building electric cars, building lithium ion batteries.
Now, if this energy bill does not pass the U.S. Congress this year, those jobs are going to China. That's one of the reasons we cannot wait.
BROWN: I got end to end it there.
Congressman Jay Inslee and Congressman Darrell Issa, appreciate your time tonight, gentlemen.
ISSA: Thank you, Campbell.
BROWN: Thanks to both of you.
INSLEE: You bet.
ISSA: Of course.
BROWN: There are the politics of climate change and then there is the science. The facts are stubborn things, and Tom Foreman is working the magic wall tonight to help us break down the facts, when we come back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
BROWN: Some breaking news tonight. A possible deal on health care reform. Democrats apparently have worked out a plan that would drop the government-run public option. We're going to have much more on this later in the hour. But, first, 2009 could be one of the warmest years ever recorded. That word today from forecasters at the U.N. climate change conference. They expect this year to go down as the fifth warmest worldwide, despite cooler temperatures in the U.S. and Canada. Nearly 200 countries trying to hammer out an agreement to combat global warming. Not an easy task when you consider even the most basic questions undergo intense debate and scrutiny.
Well, tonight, our Tom Foreman is breaking down the arguments on both sides of these key issues that are at stake here.
Tom, take it away.
TOM FOREMAN, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, you know, Campbell, one of the real issues that people have been debating here is whether or not the earth is still warming or may be getting cooler. Some skeptics say they believe it's getting cooler. Why do they think that?
Well, I want to bring up something here for you to look at. These are pictures taken by NASA from the early 18 -- or developed by NASA, based on temperature readings from the early 1880s. And you can watch, as time passes on, year by year, with these average out temperatures, that a lot more yellows and oranges and reds start appearing over time.
Let's go back again. This is back in the early 1880s, very little of it. As time progresses, you see it starts getting darker and darker and more of this appearing. Based on these numbers and these maps put together by NASA, what they've created is a sense of how the earth really is warming up. So if that's what's happening, then when we look at the globe, why do some people say it's getting cooler when you look at that?
Well, because of this. 1998, we laid it out on the earth here. This was a very, very warm year. Look at this. This is the United States down here, up into Canada. Here's Hudson Bay. Look at all that warmth up in there.
This was the hottest year ever. So skeptics say, look, if this was the hottest year ever, obviously, it's getting cooler. And other people say, no, the simple truth is, that's not the case. They look at something like this and say, there's still substantial evidence that was a spike, but all of these pictures we've seen so many times really do mean something. They mean the earth is getting warmer.
So let's break it down just a little bit further than that and say, is there a consensus? Because that's one of the arguments. Does the scientific community know what's going on and agree on it?
Let's fly down to an iceberg as an example. Here's our little iceberg here. And listen to what the skeptics say.
The skeptics say, no, there's no consensus that humans are a significant factor in rising temperatures. There's no consensus the results of warming will be catastrophic. Part of the evidence is, if their scientists are saying this, then, of course, there's no consensus, if you mean a complete consensus. But when we turn this iceberg around and look at the other side over here, you see that, basically, a lot of the supporters of global warming theory say, maybe there's not complete consensus, but, boy, is there a lot of agreement.
In a survey, 2,400 -- more than 2,400 of the earth's scientists, 75 climate scientists, this is the vast majority in both of those categories, feel that humans are a significant factor in rising temperatures. So not everybody agrees, but most do. And they warn of floods, droughts, disease, and maybe a climatic tipping point, where we simply reach the point where we can't cool the earth down.
The problem for both sides is, and if you look at this, you can see one side seems to have a lot of scientific weight. The other one, not so much. The problem is the last part, which we're going to go through right here as we move under water. And that is the great amount of unknown data about this. Both sides will say, the reason we're having a debate is because, for as much as we do know about climate change, there's still a lot we don't know that we have to work on.
That's what's fueling the debate. People would like it to be black and white. It's harder to make it that. There is a lot of evidence on one side, but the other side is not entirely without things to say, too -- Campbell.
BROWN: All right. Tom Foreman breaking it down for us tonight. Tom, thanks very much.
TV's Bill Nye, "The Science Guy," has some very strong views on global warming, but at least one of his fellow scientists is not buying it and they are here tonight to make their case when we come back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
BROWN: Scientists at the Copenhagen climate conference today said global warming shows no signs of slowing down. They are confident in today's data because it comes from three separate sources. That's something we might have taken at face value before the hacked e-mail scandal called the very science behind global warming into question.
Joining me right now is educator Bill Nye, "The Science Guy," and also Patrick Jay Michaels, who is a senior fellow at the Cato Institute, a libertarian research institute. And his book, "Climate of Extremes: Global Warming Science They Don't Want You to Know," he has a very different take on this from Bill.
So let's get into this with you first, Patrick, because you were singled out in some of these e-mails and the scientists in question, not at all fans of your work. One wrote, quote, "Next time I see Pat Michaels at a scientific meeting, I'll be tempted to beat the crap out of him." Why are they targeting you?
PATRICK J. MICHAELS, CATO INSTITUTE: Maybe they need some anger management treatment, I don't know. They did not like the fact that I had written an op-ed in October that was called "The Dog Ate Global Warming," which had to do with the fact that East Anglia had said that they lost the original data on global warming in the mid-1980s. I took exception with that because we used to have these things called nine-inch tape drives.
You know, I want to tell you something. We hear a lot of noise, a lot of heat about this thing. There's going to be some good news come out of this, and I bet you Bill is going to agree with me that scientific data is going to become much more open on climate change. The journal editors are going to do everything they can to act to show that they're not being intimidated, so we're going to see more diversity. This is going to turn out to be a very good thing if we just wait for the storm to, you know, to settle itself.
BROWN: And, Bill, to that point, I mean, these e-mails did make it seem like scientists aren't willing to have an open debate on this. Do you believe that there is room for debate?
NYE: Room for debate about what?
BROWN: About the specifics of global warming.
NYE: Well, sure. You talk about the specifics. But this -- I complete agree. You're right, Dr. Michaels, way to go.
MICHAELS: Thank you.
NYE: It will -- it will make --
MICHAELS: It's going to be a good thing.
NYE: It will make -- ultimately, yes. But in the meantime, like, for example, Ms. Brown, you guys are running the scroll across the bottom of the screen that goes, I've been watching it, it goes about evenly people who support the idea what we're doing in Copenhagen is very important and people are opposed to it for political reasons. And what makes it look like the debate is even, like there's as many people on one side as the other. But in the scientific community, we strongly emphasize that that's not the case at all and this is why, I think is why, you find people who want to sock Patrick Michaels in the chops, as he's very well credentialed and he's on the other side of this thing. So, OK, all this aside.
BROWN: But hold -- let me stop you there, though, Bill, because you're right. I mean, here's the problem you have. The scientific community is not evenly divided on this. There are a few people who disagree with the vast majority of the scientific community. But the fact is --
NYE: Nobel Prize.
BROWN: The fact is, though, and you can't deny this, is that these e-mails, the way they were written, it was very troubling to a lot of people and that was damaging to the credibility of that majority of scientists who may have been doing work properly and following all the right regulations. And so what's happened is you see this division among the general public. And that is that little crawl (ph) you see under your screen.
And that's a problem. That's a problem for scientists who believe global warming is a problem. You've got to get people on board.
NYE: Well, sure. Yes, I think the analogy that Congressman Inslee brought up earlier in the show about smoking is -- it's a very common analogy, but it's pretty good, where people deny it for a long time and after a while people get worn out. And as Dr. Michaels pointed out, after a while, after these data are public, it will blow over and this thing will become common knowledge. But, in the meantime, I'll just remind you, that the few phrases that are in there show you the power of the Internet and that, ultimately, these things will, I think, sort themselves out.
MICHAELS: Let me tell you the way they're sorting out.
NYE: There's a lot of e-mails. There's a lot of -- say again?
MICHAEL: Let me tell you the way they're sorting out. Something very interesting has happened in the last two days.
We hear that the East Anglia e-mails were not important because there are other climate records. Well, now, it's been found out that the National Climatic Data Center, a global historical climate network, has data in Australia that has a six-degree per century trend in it that was put in the data when the real data don't have the trend. And we're seeing in Alaska, in central Alaska, where every climate scientist knows there was a jump in temperature in the mid- 1970s, and they haven't done much after that. We e see another trend superimposed upon the data there. So the result of "climate-gate," people are looking very carefully.
NYE: This is specific stuff.
MICHAELS: They're looking very carefully at the data. It's going to be good, Bill, just hang on. We'll get better science.
NYE: These are very specific things, especially when you talk about surface temperatures in one part of the world, especially a part of the world where we have very good sensors.
MICHAELS: That's true. Bill, I agree with you. And let me just tell you something about stratospheric temperatures. As you know, greenhouse theory predicts stratospheric temperatures will decline. Well, oddly enough, if you look at the satellite-base stratospheric temperatures for the last 10 or 12 years, they don't show a decline. Something very, very funny is going on in the atmosphere.
I'm not going to tell you that I know and anybody who tells you that they know, I'm going to be rather skeptical of it at this point in time, because that stratosphere is a global behavior, that's not a local behavior, and it's not doing the right thing.
NYE: Well, everybody presupposes that it's a global behavior.
MICHAELS: The satellites measure the temperature globally. They go round and round the planet.
BROWN: All right.
NYE: OK, all right.
MICHAELS: You're the science guy.
NYE: Well, I was of the opinion -- well, I was of the opinion that hurricanes would get stronger.
BROWN: Let me --
NYE: Well, somehow, there's something going on where they're getting decapitated.
MICHAELS: Well --
NYE: So if you have a theory that disagrees with what goes on in nature, the problem is almost certainly with the theory, not with nature. So I am open-minded there with you on that.
MICHAELS: Hurricanes are real complicated beasts.
NYE: But the claim --
BROWN: All right.
NYE: The claim -- yes, exactly. The claim that the scientists in Copenhagen have a conspiracy to defeat conservative elements, especially in the United States, is not a very reasonable theory to me.
MICHAELS: No, no, but they did certainly try and pressure journal editors to keep (INAUDIBLE) out of the journals.
NYE: Well, let me ask you about this one.
BROWN: All right, guys, we --
NYE: Oh, we got to go?
BROWN: Well, I would love it if I could get a little common ground between the two of you to end on.
MICHAELS: We had it. We said it's going to be good in the end. Trust us, Campbell.
NYE: Ultimately, it's going to be good.
MICHAELS: We agree. It's going to be great.
NYE: On that one thing, do you agree that we'd be better off if we were less inefficient in our energy production?
MICHAELS: Of course.
NYE: The future belongs, do you agree, that we could save --
BROWN: And on that note --
NYE: Do you agree that we could save about 30 percent? OK?
MICHAELS: I believe Campbell says I've got to say goodbye, Bill. Have a good night.
BROWN: Because actually, Bill, you're going to get more time because, no offense, Patrick, but we are going to talk, not necessarily about climate change, but about conservation and some of the specifics of what we can all be doing. I think we can all agree on that, with Bill Nye when we come back.
Stay with us, Bill. You'll get a little more time to finish your thought. Thank you, gentlemen. We'll be right back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
BROWN: The U.S. Department of Energy says the average family spends about $1,900 a year on home utility bills. Electricity generated by fossil fuels for a single home puts more carbon dioxide into the air than two average cars. So whether you believe in global warming or not, we can all agree it is a good thing to try to conservative and to save some cash in the process. And Bill Nye, "The Science Guy," is back with the top few ways to save money, save energy, everyday things that you can do to cut your carbon footprint.
Bill, welcome back. And just tell me the single most important thing people can do at home to save energy. What is it?
NYE: Well, the quickest payback is to weatherize your house, to seal the leaks. And if you want to get serious about it, insulate your attic more thoroughly. If you want to get really serious about it, put in new windows.
Now those things, those new windows is pretty expensive, but the decrease in your energy bill is remarkable.
Then you hear a lot of talk about light bulbs. It's a real thing. If you replace all your light bulbs, your electric bill -- replace your light bulbs with modern, more efficient ones, either compact fluorescent or the next generation light-emitting diode, LED, your electric bill just goes down. It's not magic, it's remarkable.
The striking thing, the thing that's really hard for a lot of us to get our minds around is that if everybody does it, if everybody reduces their electric use eight percent, 10 percent, power companies don't have to build, if I may, a whole another power plant. It just doesn't seem -- it's not intuitive, at first. But if you think about it, it all has to add up, and indeed, it does.
And it's really satisfying, I'll tell you, personally, when you pay seven bucks a month for electricity. It's really -- it's fun. I mean, it's cool.
BROWN: Fun?
NYE: It's a lot of investment.
BROWN: OK.
NYE: But it's a lot less investment -- let me just say, a big investment in windows is usually quite a bit less than the investment in a typical sport utility vehicle. And the windows 25 years, not three or four, 30 years.
BROWN: And like you said, you don't even have to go that far. I mean, it can be about changing your light bulbs.
NYE: Yes.
BROWN: And on a separate issue, you know, we all have these electronic gadgets that we basically just leave plugged in, charging our various -- you name it.
NYE: Oh, man, so I want a young engineer to solve that problem, so that the charger knows it's not plugged into the phone and turns itself off without using any energy. We need big ideas.
BROWN: Well, people don't realize that, that if you leave it plugged in, it's using energy.
NYE: Yes. Eight percent of our energy in North America goes to nothing but keeping stuff -- electronics on standby. It's a solvable problem. Let's get on it. Let's change the world.
BROWN: Bill Nye, "The Science Guy." Bill, appreciate you coming on tonight. Thanks so much.
NYE: Thank you.
BROWN: "LARRY KING LIVE" coming up next with breaking news tonight from Capitol Hill. A deal in the Senate on health care reform. Could it take the public option off the table?
Our Dana Bash has the very latest when we come back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
BROWN: Breaking news right now. We want to get right back to Dana Bash on Capitol Hill where there is a deal tonight on health care reform. Could that deal spell the end of the public option?
Dana, what are you hearing?
DANA BASH, CNN SR. CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Well, Campbell, as we first reported at the top of the hour, the Democratic senators who have been meeting for some time, and this is led by the Democratic leader, they have reached a tentative deal to, effectively, drop the public option from the Democrat's health care plan.
Now, the public option, as you well know, is one of the most controversial parts of the plan and one that divides Democrats, very much so. And so what we understand is that they have put that aside and that they have a tentative deal to try to come up with other ways to make insurance more affordable and to increase competition for private insurers, which is really the goal of the mostly liberal Democrats who have been staunchly supportive of a public option.
Now, earlier, during these negotiations, our understanding was that one of the main components of this deal was to offer nonprofit insurance run by private insurers, but it would also be overseen by government agencies. Our understanding is that it's still in here. But very interesting, Campbell, these Democratic leaders who just actually had a press conference on this deal, they are being incredibly mum on the details. They won't give us any information about what's in this. They say the reason is because they're sending it to the Congressional Budget Office to get information about how much all this is going to cost and that they don't want to give that to us before they get that information.
So we're digging for more information, but that's what we know at this point. Headline is, tentatively, a public option is now going to be gone from the Democrats' health care plan.
BROWN: All right. Dana Bash from Capitol Hill tonight with the very latest on that. Dana, thanks very much.
That's it for us for now. Appreciate you joining us. We will see you right back here tomorrow night.
"LARRY KING LIVE" starts right now.
