You are so embarrassing. How could you get that confused with this? One's not an interview (your's). One is...
Mine is the right link. I'm not even sure what you thought I was talking about.
Everyone else, just ignore Catawba. I'm not sure he has any idea what he's talking about, and I'm not even completely sure he isn't merely acting the stereotypical "environmental nutjob idiot" motif in an attempt to discredit legitimate individuals who believe the science behind Climate Change.
Just to clear this up. Temperatures are in almost universal disagreement with the IPCC's idiotic papers. However, that doesn't change the fact that carbon is a greenhouse gas, and greenhouse gases names' aren't coincidences. They cause a greenhouse effect. There is definitely evidence to support Climate Change, if not "AGW." Saying that current temperatures, or models, or anything else other than observable and replicable scientific hypothesis supports AGW is beyond idiotic. The legitimate evidence supports Climate Change, and a smattering of correlation between temperature and CO2. That is to say, everything that isn't in Al Gore's docudrama.