>> first we bring you a conversation on the environment, live from the gallagher theater. >> welcome to the fourth annual tucson festival of books. i codirect the department of environment at the university of arizona. i'm going to be moderating the panel which has the title "will the planet survive the age of humans" i'm pleased to be here with these three authors, their

works cover so many of any interests and parks, climate change, communications, and women and the environment, and the future of the southwest. we'd like to thank the university medical center for sponsoring this venue, and kxpi radio. the presentations will last for approximately one hour, including questions and answers, so please hold your questions to the end. at the conclusion of this session, all of the authors, except for dyana furmansky, who had to jump on a plane -- all of the authors will be signing their books or meeting with you at the media tent b, which is located south and just west of the union along the mall, and they will be there to meet you and answer your questions. could i ask everybody to turn off their cell phones now. what i'm going to do is introduce the three authors and then they're each going to talk

for ten minutes or so, and when we'll open it up to a discussion amongst the panel and with the audience. we have three really terrific authors with us today. they care deeply about the future of the planet, the role of science, changes to the environment and the american west. he met introduce each of them and then give each only them time to tell you about their books. first, dyana furmansky. her book on northwestern west has appeared in many publications, including odd dough bon magazine, high country news, and american heritage. she co-authored these american lands, parks, wilderness and be public lands. but her latest book is, rosalie, automobile of mercy, the activist who saved nature from the conservationists. she received a nature award as

the 2010 colorado book award. secondly, next to me, i'd like to introduce chris mooney, a science and political journalist, blogger and trainer of scientists in the art of communication. i hope to learn some lessans from him. i league his blog in the houghing ton post. the latestes whether universities create liberals or liberals create university. his books include a book been hurricanes and global warming, and the republican war on science. he has a new book coming out in a few weeks with the uncontroversial title: the republican brain, the science of why they deny science and reality. [laughter] >> finally, at the end of the table, i'd like to introduce william debuys. he is a writer and conservationist.

hi books include pulitzer list, river of -- the walk, and salt breeze. he helped to protect more than 150,000 acres of wildland. directing -- chairing the trust. these are partnerships for public lanes and rangeland management in new mexico. his latest book, is, a great aridness, climate change and the future of the american west. so late start with diane in tell me about rose allee edge. >> thank you, diana with an i. it's very good chat chris mooney is here because he helps education scientist about how to talk to the public, and what he probably doesn't know and perhaps most of you don't know is that maybe the inventor of that in the environmental movement was a rom named rosalie edge. if you were not at my talk

yesterday you probably have not herd of her. okay. i don't think this huge swell of recognition. and rosalie edge was born in 1877. she was new york socialite. a child of the gilded age. very, very prominent family. her father was first cousin to charles dickens. she had her family hob knob with the vanderbilts and the carnegies and had a very, very fine life, and certainly none of these things prepared her to be the godmother of the environmental movement. which she did become rather late in her life. nothing prepared her. she was a complete dilettante. and she had a very, very cushioned, safe life, until certain things happened to her that changed everything. you probably have heard of rachel parson, david brouwer,

the wilderness society, you are perhaps members of the nature conservancy, edf, and a number of organizations. all of which she influenced. she had an influence, a direct influence many times on the founders of all those organizations. she was also a reformer of the national association of odd dough bon societies, which changed its name after her war against them. she was a woman who had two parts of her life. she had this very, very protected, cloistered world health several awakenings as she describe them, and she became the godmother of the environmental movement, only to be eclipsed in 1962 by the publication of silent spring. interestingly, she died 50 years ago, just weeks after silent spring was published. rachel carsons went to her

organization, called hawk mountain sanctuary, which still exists in pennsylvania, and it was the first sanctuary to protect birds of prey in the world, and the data that silent springs -- that rachel carson got for silent spring, came from hawk mountain sanctuary, because of rosalie edge's concern about the destruction of birds of prey, which in those days, not even the bird protection organizations really did much about. birds of prey had no value. they -- conservationists of that era were about conserving resources that had a value and birds of prey didn't. they were slaughtered by the thousands. bounties were put on their bloody heads and destruction went on and on and on, until she, for reasons of her own, decided it had to stop. and i came to her from writing

the book that i'm happy to hear diana used in her course -- and the research on that book someone mentions that a woman named rosalie edge deserves to be recognized as the true heir to john muir. and that makes you pay attention, particularly if you read a lot about history and the environmental movement. so i paid attention and did nothing about it for five or six years until my editor on my book said, remember that woman named rosalie emwho you thought deserved more attention? he said her conservation papers are at the denver public library. by the way i do live part of the time in denver and was busily driving my kids to car pools and would spent time at the library doing the initial research into miss edge's papers which were interesting and wonderful but they weren't enough for someone like mist, journalist, who cares about the human interest side of a story, what we relate to in a

person rather than their knowledge of a subject area. it didn't -- it wasn't enough until i met her son. and her son was very kind and we had a great relationship, the late peter edge. his granddaughter goes to this school. and he gave me a suitcase because i was curious about what made his mother do what she did, and he gave me -- bill and i have worked this out so no one will get injured. people are always worried when i bring out the suitcase i'm going to be speaking for more than ten minutes. he gave me this suitcase. and he sort of sent it to over with a wave and he said, i don't know, maybe you'll find something in there, and it contained 300 letters, and family documents, dating to the 1850s, before she was born. she died in '62 so the letters go from 1870ish to 1962, and

they're letters her father wrote to her when she was four years old, telling her what a wonderful child she was and how she could do no wrong, and that prepared her for her life as an agitator, activist, militant, whatever you whatnot to call it. actually what she was called by in the new yorker magazine in 1948 was the most honest, unselfish, hell pack in the history of conservation. so all that was in the letters, hugh she prepared herself for that. something happened in her life which are shocking and allow to us look at the human side of how someone relates to nature, and this is a book about what you say, and what she saved was very important. to what she became, and i also should mention the title, the active gist who saved nature from the conservationists, really eludes to her prior life as a sufferragist.

she was an officer in the new york sufferrage party are in carrie chapman, who taught her how to stand up and say things that were unpleasant to men, and she did that in the conservation movement where there was a way of doing things and her way was not the way to do things but she had identified with these beleaguered, slaughtered birds of prey for reasons i found in the suitcase, and she took them on and saved them and we have them today. so there were letters from her husband to her, there were letters from her to her mother, from china, where she was living with her husband. there were letters from her mother to her father, from her father to her mother, beautiful, beautiful letters written in long hand, beautiful envelopes, the stamps are probably worth more than our house. and they're not in the suitcase right now. but what is in the suitcase was something that was quite

touching, because i mentioned that she learned how to be an activist not in the conservation movement, but the learned it from being a sufferragist. she wore these banners while she was a womans sufferragist you see the pictures of women marching down the streets, in england it was bloodier affair getting the right to vote. and these are the bonds that tie the two -- two of the great social progressive movements of the 20th century, the women's rights movement, and the movement to save all sorts of wildlife because rosaie edge believed when sciences would not say we need to save it all. she believed in saving

everything and that is the reason i say she is the godmother of the environmental movement, which is different from the conservation movement. how am i doing on time? i'm done. thank you very much. >> thank you. >> okay, chris. tell us about republican brains and what they have to say about the environment and actually maybe about women's movements. >> i think i will just stick on the environment here. even though they're related. so, steven colbert once said -- i didn't say it yet -- he once said, reality has a well known liberal bias. what my book contends this is scientifically true, and i'm going explain that with respect the global warming issue in

particular. but in the book i go much further and explain it's true with respect to a large number of issues. let's think about why it is we have this incredible concert denial on the political right of the science underpinning the number one reason to be concerned about how we're affecting the planet. and by the way, the science underpinning human-caused global warming is incredibly strong and solid. it is over100 years old. people don't know that john continue del, the irish scientist in 1859, was doing experiments on the properties of carbon dioxide and figuring out how it workness the atmosphere and figuring out the fundamental science of the greenhouse effect. this is 1859. it's the same year that darwin published the origin of species. okay? so we knew what the greenhouse effect was. that long ago.

once you know what the greenhouse effect is, once you know what carbon does in the atmosphere, you've put more of it up here, you're going to have a warming planet you can't escape the physics. yes, we use computer models but this is physics. all right? so why would anybody deny this? also, you also can't deny that if you just keep putting it up there and you don't do anything about it, the planet gets warmer and stuff happens. and if you keep going and keep going, what kind of stuff happenses? evenly you melt land-based ice in places like greenland. if you do that, if you let it warm up, you start losing parts of florida. okay? and it begins. this is fies -- physics. why would anybody deny his? particularly, why would republicans deny this? and if you're a liberal, and your answer to this question is

along the lines of, it's because they're stupid, then you're wrong. okay? that is a liberal delusion and one that should be gotten past so we can actually understand the opposition a little bit better. it's actually the opposite. the evidence says that smarter or at least better educated republicans deny the science more than the less educated ones. this is what i like to call the smart idiot effect. okay? and i want to tell you how i stumbled upon it because it's really what sets the book in motion. the key moment came when it was typical liberal revelation because it was based on data and evidence. so i was going through a pew report about why we're so political divided on globe warming in 2008 and we're even nor divided now than we were then. but what you found in there -- there was little figure about the relationship between political party affiliation, level of education, and belief that goble -- global warming is

caused by humans and if you're a'ma, the higher your level of education, the less likely you are to accept scientific reality which is global warming is caused by us. if your democrat and independence the correlation between perception and reality goes in the opposite direction, this is consistent finding on the denial of global warming and pops up if you look at conservatives who claim false hill the healthcare bill had death panels in and if you look at conservatives who think that obama is a muslim. more education equals less reality. so what is going on here? kind of frustrating. how do you explain this? well, i think in order to explain it, and the book goes into lat more detail, and i'm really just talking about the global warming issue now because you have to explain other issues somewhat differently in order to wrap your head around the denial of global warming, the number one threat humans pose the

planet, why republicans deny this. let me give you three points and one, conserve tim is psychologically a defensive ideal and appeals to people who want certainty and resist change. okay? two, conservative morality impels climate denial and particular conservative individualist values and i'll talk about those. and, the three, fox news is the key feedback mechanism to take a phrase from climate science, and it's the feedback-people who are already incline to believe false things get all the license and the affirmation they need to believe those false things, and they get lots of truthy claims that they can cling to and they can use to argue with. so, point one, conservative jim is for people who want certainty and resist change. so we have a staggering amount

of research on the psychological and even some cases the physiological underpinnings of political ideology and we know the traits of people who opt for going right, going left. it isn't a perfect explanation why'em do this bus the correlations are there and they're repeatedly in studies. who are the people who opt to go right? they're more wedded to certainty. they want to have fixed beliefs. they want to be sure. they're more sensitive to fear. at the stream of these traits you find a character called the athor darian, and -- athor darian. seeing things in black and white, viewing the world in an in group and out group way, us and them. another trait you find here is the neat for closure, the need for closure is the need to have a fixed belief about something so you don't have to worry about that anymore. and if you have a high need for closure, then you do something

called seizing and freezing and you take evidence and you seize on it and you have the evidence you need to know what you need to know or what you need to think and then you freeze. you don't want to think about it anymore. okay. so, the upshot is that if people like this seize on a particular belief, which in this case is global warming is a hoax -- and it's historically contingent what particular beliefs they seize upon. which in the u.s. this case. and more knowledge about that and more education about it is not going to, like, change their minds. more knowledge, more education, more information, is what they're going to use to argue in favor of what they already think. and we see this in the tea party. not only are they the strongest deniers of the reality of global warming, stronger than traditional republicans, but you pole themmings they also say they -- they confidently say they know about a lot about the issue and don't need anymore information. okay? point two, conservative

moriality impels global warming denial, particularly individualism. tea party clearly doesn't deny every aspect of reality. if you tell them what the right day of mothers day is and it's the wrong day they're going to change their minds. so there's some things where you night be able to sway them. why global warming? well, here we have to look at the deep-seated, moral intuitions that differ from left to right, and i say intuitions because moriality is something felt, something emotional, and it sets you down a course of reasoning but it's prior to reasoning and not necessarily under your control. it's the deep sense you have of revulsion towards someone who disagrees with you or some situation. now, morally, conservatives in the u.s. tend to prize individualism. they prize a system which government leaves you alone. it's the opposite of commune tearan. a system in which the government

takes care of the people and they tend toward hire arctic cal value, and individualists are threatened by the science of noble warming and they're threatened because it means that markets have failed and governments, global governments, in some case, have to step in and fix things, and they might have to interfere in the economy. and this threatens the individualist's view of the way the world ought to work deeply, and some even go in for conspiracy theory asks saying that scientist the world collaborated with the u.n. to hoax us and make us believe this false thing. and why would they believe such an implausible conspiracy theory ; these people can't agree on thing. but it's because they embrace that kind of belief in defense of this deeply held individualist moral system. if you have this moral system, what dot do is to your belief about science. >> there's a great study at yale

and they look at individualists, conservatives, and showed them a fake scientist who either did or didn't accept the consensus, which is humans caused global warming and if you're an individualist hire, a kick and you're face with the face scientist that says global warming is caused bow humans, and only 23% of those conservatives agree it's a truth worth. >> -- in knowledgeable expert. so they won't accept they have the expertise to talk about the subject. and another study found if you take the same group of conservatives and frame the science of global warming differently so you say because global warming is caused by humans we need to advance nuclear power, which is an individualist solution, then they're more likely to believe the science. but if you say, because global warmings happening we need to use the epa to regulate, then,

whoa, they will not believe the science. okay? so moriality is driving this, morality and combined with who conservatives are, and then fox news. fox news is the feedback mechanism and gives them license to believe false things and re-affirms false beliefs. what i've talked about so far are these deeply rooted things about how conservatives view the world and their psychology. you might call these quote-unquote nature. they predispose towards this kind of denial but they're also clearly environmental factors, things that have come to exist in the world that did not exist before and that interact with the way conservatives are. fox news is one of those environmental factors. it is at the top of the list of the environmental factors that lead to the denial of reality. there are now seven studies showing that fox news viewers

are more misinformed than viewers of other stations about a huge array of topics. two of them are actually global warming studies, what do fox news vieweres believe? and fox news increases the risk about global warming, and another study

this is one slice of how the republican (works on a particular environmental issue, and in some -- what we need is a combined nature and insurgent tour or combined psychological and environmental account of the conservatives denial of global warm organize the conservative's denial of reality and only then we understand why they so doggedly espouse a set of beliefs that are so dangerous to the planet. thanks. [applause]

>> so, william, tell us about what things denied about what is happening the southwest. >> all right. i'd be happy to so nice to be here, thank you all for coming, and thank you, diana, and my co-panelist for what's been so far a really great set of presentations. i hope i won't let you down. i want to tell you that climate change in the southwest is a little bit of a good news/bad news situation. the good news is that if you like to watch landscapes change, and human relations shift, then congratulations, you've been born in possibly the best time in the history of civilization to observe such things. as the 21st century advances, these opportunities will only get better, believe me. so, live a longtime and you get to see a lot of stuff. the bad news is that things are

pretty well -- destined to change, and the fact that our region's already essentially living at the limits of its water supply and the fact that ecologically many of the systems have rather low thresholds for shifting and flipping to other states. so, things here are going to change a lot. the southwest is going to become an ever-more difficult place to live. hotter, and dryer, to be sure, subject to more and more of the kinds of devastating forest fires we have seen in recent years, insect dieoffs because of hotter climate is a great boon to those small little eaty things and ex-oexcel tans. we think our world is going to change because of dramatic things.

floods and earthquakes and hurricanes and so forth. we don't necessarily think that invertebrates are going to shift the way the world works, but they will. and just the heat itself -- did you know, for instance, that last year in the big drought in texas -- this is apart from the fire that made the headlines in the newspapers and on tv news -- two to 10% of all the trees in texas died last year. now, whenever anybody says, all the anything in texas -- that sounds like a whole lot. all the beer in texas, all the cheerleaders in texas. i don't care what it is, if texas has them, it has lot of them, and texas has lot of trees, and 2 to 10% died last year, and if the drought continues the percentage is going to accelerate and climb, an even greater percentage this next year because of the cumulative impact of drought on that vegetation.

and of course, chronic water shortage is going to be with us, and be with us -- the screws of drought are going to tighten down on us, climatologists say the new climate tolling of the southwest will be like what was experienced in the drought of the 1950s. or during the dust bowl years. and, you know, drought is exceptional. we don't say thesauri hurrah is in drought. it's dry by nature. the southwest, the norm is downshifting towards what was known as drug in the -- drought in the past, toward the conditions of the 1950 or the crushing drought in 2008. we're moving toward norm where that's going to be with us. ...

>> i wanted to do an environmental history of a broader scope, taking in the whole region, but the more i got into it the more i realized first that climate change would be a really interesting lens through which to view the environmental history of the region, and then digging in deeper i realized holy smokes, climate change is more than events. climate change is the new

reality. it was going to trump, it is going to trump many of the themes that i would be exploring in an environmental history. i mean, what difference does it make what the history of forced conversation in the region has been if climate change is going to destroy most of the forest. so i realized that climate change was a new dominant dynamic of the region, and i resolved in the book to follow where the action leads. and i realized that i had a terrific sort of expository problem ahead of me, and that was how one earth do you keep readers turning the page when you've got so much bad news to relate? and the only answer i could come up with to that is an age-old answer of how do you get readers to turn the page anyhow? and that is to develop human

characters who matter, who are interesting people, and to create a narrative momentum to tell a story. and in this case, the stories that i sought were really stories of discovery. my characters became the scientists and a land managers and water managers and land planners and the native leaders who have to deal with these issues coming on in the most explicit way conceivable, and whose personal journeys to understand what the challenge was, was a kind of eureka story. and with all the pessimism surrounding the essential information, in the story of discovery is inherently optimistic because that's what we humans can do when we're at our best, when we are not

exercising our republican brains, is learning to understand our world and learning to respond to it. and so, i had an absolute blast doing the research. i got to get on the road and travel around this most beautiful region and talk, i go to some of the most inspiring and interesting of its places, and talk to the people who know those places best. i also interviewed climatologist back in princeton and columbia and places like that, but here in the southwest was the most fun. and a lot of it was right here in tucson and around tucson, because of the resources in this magnificent city and at this magnificent university. i spent time talking, for instance, to dyana's colleague, and tom, who heads the laboratory research and jeff dean was one of the true dean of that practice at the lab.

and i talked to peter, a wonderful scientist who did so much to try to protect mount graham, which is kind of a crucible of climate change in the mountain. and just one other side to units of arizona, a representative of the university of arizona not withstanding all the permits we had to go into the red squirrel refuge in at the top of mount graham, said he was going to throw us off the mountain and would summon the police. so the university of arizona has a slightly complicated record as revealed in my book. but there were so many other people, dave here at the university and kathy jacobs who used to head the arizona water institute before the legislature destroyed it and stopped it from being, which is one of the recent arizona might see some water crises in the future. and i spend time with mark, a wonderful archaeologists up in

southwestern colorado and with activists down on the border, and with edward at the sunni. and ferguson down and the planes of magnificent grasslands that are the reserve. and i often spend time with one of the most amazing women in the west, patricia mulroy, the star of nevada water, the head of the southern nevada water authority. and i will never forget my lunch with her but she was wearing a beautiful green pantsuit and gold lemay ballet flats. and not withstanding are very feminine attire, when she spoke to me i had the feeling i had back in high school when i was a wrestler, and someone would put a headlock on me. patricia mulroy is one of the most dynamic and powerful women in the united states today. so i want to say just another word about this business of

optimism and pessimism, because climate change truly is a tragedy, unfolding in the region and our world. a true tragedy, and it has the limits of classical tragedy. i compare it to a fellow, for instance. we have a bullheaded protagonist. that's our society. who is listening to the wrong sources of information. they got those who work for fox news, the yacht goes to address -- dress in suits and swim over capitol hill when the least suggestion of legislations to do with climate change arises your and at stake is the feminine, his mother earth, as dimona, and things are not looking very good for her because othello is paying attention to the wrong things. but i made a discovery about myself in the course of doing this book, and i suspect what i

discovered about myself is true also of many of you. and that is, while i am an intellectual pessimist, i am a neural chemical optimist. and it may just be the serotonin talking, but although the future, the outlook is grim, the sunrise is beautiful. and the sunrise is always beautiful. and this glorious blue orb circling a star of just the right intensity is an extraordinarily beautiful place, indeed, the beauty of the earth and its creatures and its creatures include human beings, include people like you, it's unbearably beautiful. and as long as there is beauty to protect and defend, there is good work to be done. and good work is the greatest of

all, and good work is the root of all optimism. thank you. [applause] >> we have about 20 minutes for discussion. and i'm going to begin by asking some questions just because i read their books and i love what they do. it's not one of those cases one just doing it because i'm up here. but if you'd like to ask a question, you would come to one of the mics and hopefully make it brief and directed properly to just one of the panel members of the people can take turns. so, i think you will of course have seen a lot of connections between the panelists, but i'm going to start with the question first for dyana degette's she will be rushing back to denver. for someone to thank you for introducing me to the rosalie

edge. now she joins rachel carson and others in my environmental hair wasn't. and they mean a lot to me. my dog is named after rachel carson so that next on my rossellini or edge or something. and am going to be talk about her and my lectures. my students will hear about her a lot. but i think that you chose a bit more about that sometimes, about who she took on, because that was what surprised he was the way she identified tremendously not with hypocrisy and emerging conservation movement. so i wanted to be toast a little bit about that, but my real question was issued still alive and fighting today, which part of the environmental movement might she be taking on and why? i've got one that i think she could help me with.

>> i will start with the easier question. i feel him not to be identified as rosalie edge, for one thing. so i don't, i want say that i know what she would do, but judging from and a lot of study of her material and her original which are and what happened in her life, i do a sense of vision was. she would like any of us, diana. so we were not born high enough on the food chain perhaps to be her friend. but the activists who saved nature from the conservationists, the conservationist that i'm referring to at that time were the u.s. government, the forest service which was founded in 1906 or so, to save america's national forests. she was taking on the national park service which, of course, was saving beauty that bill was talking about. and more personal issues taking on the national association of

audubon societies, which today we know as a national audubon society which was the really and leading perhaps the oldest continuous national non-scientifically based, i don't mean that, i mean it had signed it, regular people to join the audubon society, and the audit and society had started around 1905 by taking on the millinery trade and really putting an end quite successfully to the destruction of egrets and other birds that were used in fashion. interestingly enough, maybe it was just luck, but no species actually in the united states that i know of became extinct on accounts of women's fashion. however, the list of species that became extinct because of overhunting is rather impressive, including the passenger pigeon. we can go way, way back, but the passenger pigeon which last, the last one killed off in 1914,

which was also the year that -- so conversation had been activist. we have john who sort of embodies that with yosemite national park and saving of the big redwood, all of that. the opposite side was very active, but then it went into a low. the victories have been one. much of the women's suffrage movement also went into a despond, and it became corrupted by special interest. it did not face space it did not at market value. so again, byrd had no market by, the ivory billed woodpecker had no market value. the california condor had no market value. no predator had a market value. rosalie edge comes along and she is furious and their something in a. she's not a scientist but she says no, you save everything. you don't know what it is connected to. and that was the idea that she

introduced to the conservation movement. to the ottoman society and other societies, other environmental movements grew as a result of her demonstration of that fact. >> so i was thinking perhaps she would take on the way in which conservation groups happen in environmentalism, the solution to saving the planet. >> there were some things she probably -- i would not say she would have joined earth first. i don't know why i think that. i guess it was unladylike for her, and she was always a lady, but she would've been anti-market. i think that is true and she might've been wrong about that. but she would've been on the radical site. she probably would have not condoned the corporatization of the environmental movement. she did believe that it was each

person's duty and you don't need an organization to tell you how to do that. she believed very, very much in individual initiative, and that's who she was. she would have stayed of course and it would have been a contrary one. >> thank you. so chris, you've introduced me to "the republican brain," and i think your writing has been most helpful to me of someone who came from another country where climate change was actually completely bipartisan, at least until recently, not politicized in the same way but it also is helping explain to the rest of the world sort of what's going on here with this sort of partisanship around science. some the science is here in tucson, in fact the ones that william interviewed have targets of hate mail. even i feel, i'm sitting here realizing i was intimidated sitting next to you talking about republicans and climate science, because of the politics

in -- >> don't blame me. >> but i'm wondering if in your new book, which i haven't a chance to read, what is going to to help me communicate with those, that deny the science. and also i wonder if you could talk a bit, you focused mostly sort on what's happening at the federal level in your previous book, but there's also issues at the state level around the treatment of signs that maybe even more serious know what's going on at the federal level. so i wonder if you could comment? >> how do you communicate with someone who views the world radically different than you? first one option is you don't. which honestly might be the best choice. if you want to be strategic about it. the middle is the place to go for most of your communication efforts, not, people are the hardest, to convince and for whom convincing is most

unnatural to you because you're not one of them. that said i gave a published example of using framing effects if you open the lines to concerts together individuals, and declared are, and they love private industry. so if you frame the science of global warming in such a way as to support private industry and nuclear power seems to be one way of doing that, i could think of others, then it does seem to be might opening. however, notably that was the obama green jobs strategy, wasn't it? and so it appears that if you use a messenger who they view as the enemy, to frame it in this way, then hell and group outgroup thing kicks in and it no longer will the message were, even though there seems to be a pro-market and, therefore, pro-industry message. there's any other dynamic there where, you know, because there's so much demonization in our politics, because so many

conservatives view democrats as the enemy, something that democrats espouse, becomes something that they cannot accept. so the second question is, do people mess with signs in places other than washington? and so, i'm not exactly sure what you mean but i think you may mean grassroots attacks on science at the level of -- >> legislature. >> i have a beta study of them but i'm sure they do all kinds of terrible things. [laughter] know, but there's also, there's the grassroots, grassroots attacks on teaching evolution which are now being compounded by the grassroots attacks on teaching global warming. that's the next thing you don't want our kids to learn proper. those are incredibly hard to stop because we have this whole fragmented educational system, and activists can sway it and

all kinds of giveaways in all different kinds of places of weakness, which very in different states. with the national center for scientific education tracking all the to does anyone time, now they're bundling global warming into the and the evolution bills. it's going to be a rough by the basically it will be evolution part two, and it's even harder because an evolution part one this thing called the first amendment, which is really awesome. and this is that you can't establish religion, for some kids and boom, you can do. so we always had to court. is libertarianism our religion? the denial of global warming a religion? i can say he would make the arctic but the courts are going to buy a. so you're not going to actually be able to win with the first amendment to stop attacks on teaching global warming in school. so it's going to be even rougher. >> thank you.

just a quick question for william, and then i will go to the person has been standing there patiently. your book was so close to home and was like sitting in one of my staff 80s, partly because you interviewed so many of my colleagues. but the thing that i thought was most important about your book is yours is one of the first books on climate change at the regional level to really exercise the importance of at that station, both adaptation in the past but the need for adaptation now. and effective things we need to do to adapt to climate change are things we should be doing anyway because we are not always that well adapted. that was music to my is because that's what we've identified as the sort of big focus work going forward at the university of arizona. we're hosting a big conference in may. i hope you'll come back for. my question is really, do you think we can adapt, what are the limits to edit station in the southwest?

are we going to be able to adapt to a warmer world? you seem to find some optimism in that but are you really optimistic we will be able to cope with, say, eight degrees fahrenheit warmer in this region? >> the short answer is no, i don't think we are. the southwest is going to be transformed over the century ahead. we are probably not going to have forests. the largest ponderosa pine forest farm in the world copiers the plateau just don't get it is not all going to be gone. the forest in the mounds are already well underway, to being gone. the water stress in this region is going to be fierce, not just because of climate change but because of continued overuse, because of just the colorado and other systems moving out of what

had been relatively recent way periods in going back to basically their pay legal means. we're going to see our cities probably shrink a good deal. some of us, the true desert rats, and i consider myself to be at least a semi arid mouse will stick around no matter what. but it's going to be a severe kind of place. but in terms of adaptation, cities like tucson and phoenix right now are at the edge of probably the greatest opportunity they will ever have to refashion themselves in a more adapted away. and that's because the real estate bust has given pause to the phenomenal churning of the growth industry in arizona. so during this pause when the economic pressure for just continued rapacious growth and

moneymaking is at a dull roar, this is the opportunity for tucson and phoenix and other communities in the so-called son carter and throughout the southwest, do we think about their future and we plot and we plan for a very different kind of future from what's been going on in the past. but as one real estate said to me, do you think quality and good sense can overcome 50 plus years of tradition? maybe not. so anyhow, this is the chance. if tucson and phoenix are going to change their ways, it'll happen now, or it won't happen. and if it doesn't happen then the price to pay will be even greater in the future, and meantime, that's an ad that patients. there's also mitigation where climate change is concerned. and the sooner we can take national action, we really need of a carbon tax.

it's the most sensible way to begin the big economic shifts we have to have. the sooner we can get that going, the better because there's so much inertia in the climate system that even if we stopped all greenhouse gas emissions tomorrow, we would still be warming for another generation or a generation and a half on the planet. >> okay, we're moving towards our last few minutes so i would love to give the opportunity to ask your question. >> i i should have do for chris mooney, and they have to do with his analysis about republicans and the roots of the opposition. the first one is, you've talked a lot about psychological and intellectual but i didn't hear you mention anything about the financial contributions made by various industries, particularly to republicans of course they give to both parties. how much of a role do you think that play, particularly when you

see that five or six years ago president bush was saying global warming is our reality, although we didn't hear a lot of the solutions democrats favored. and now the republicans are running for office are uploading that position almost entirely. and secondly, maybe this is a broader question. back 30 years ago environment in general was more of a bipartisan issue. there were republicans who passed environmental bills. and with publicans i had it personally in my job were in favor of environmental legislation. now it's almost 100% in the state and other states a polarized partisan thing. is what we're seeing the republicans on climate change really just a part of that bigger picture? >> i view the relationship between money and this issue very, very differently. i think that at the beginning of the climate issue the fossil fuel industry was a line behind

attacking kyoto and selling debt. they funded think tanks for do not. but we have seen that decline. that's not the drink anymore. most fossil fuel companies accept the science of global warming a. and what's been exposed is this ideological individualism libertarianism which it is actually more powerful and more emotional than the affiliations within industry. we had a lot of the fossil fuel industry behind cap-and-trade, and that wasn't enough. so then why did the republican party turned this way? that, it requires a combined nature, explanation and very briefly, it involves a shift of the authoritarians, you know, the reagan democrats were am all of them were in the democratic party. they moved on to the right and made the party more of a haven for these kinds of psychologies. >> does anybody else have a quick question? yes. spent i want to ask a question

about convenience. in my lifetime, i've seen our lives to become constructed by convenience in itself. there is a new poem about it. if it's not our nature, how can we can't instruct ourselves so that convenience is not our primary concern? >> okay. do you want to drive, put a couple sentences in, william? >> i'm afraid we're knocking up against the essence of human nature here. we are a lazy biological composite, and listening to what chris had to say about the republican mind and so forth, i recalled a quote from john kenneth galbraith. he said that faced with the

necessity of changing one's mind, we are proving it is unnecessary. nearly everybody gets busy on the proof. [laughter] which is always take the past -- the path of least resistance so i don't have an answer for how we can overcome that. except that i think when we finally get busy to do with climate change, it will be out of fear. our reaction is going to be disaster driven. we've already had quite a few disasters. has a long menu of more that will be coming our way, and one of these days, one of those disasters will be strong enough really to wake us up and scare us into doing something. let's pray it might be something close to the right thing to do. [applause] >> well, i would like to wrap up on a more optimistic note.

first of all, to remind you that these three people have written several books, but the point you might want to be looking for our dyana furmansky's book, "rosalie edge - hawk of mercy: the activist who saved nature from the conservationists." i believe it i believe it has been's sold out here but i'm sure you can find a way to buy it. chris mooney has books he's writtenand edited his forthcoming book on "the republican brain" i'm sure we'll be something you want to read. and williams wonderful book, "a great aridness" i believe is still available and you'll be able to sign it. i would like to thank you for attending the session and i want to thank the authors, dyana furmansky clear that what women can make a difference on the environment. chris for helping me understand the politics of science in the united states. and william for caring so much about the future of the

landscape that we live in. and actually using university research as a writer from which is something i appreciate. so the authors will be autographing books right now in the signing area which is south and west of the. and books are available i believe that the signing area. and last but not least, if you're enjoying the festival and you'd like to become a friend of the festival, do go to the information booth on the mall or online at our website. i'd like to thank you for being here this morning to like to thank these wonderful authors and wish you a very good day. thank you. [laughter] >> that was trembling, dyana furmansky and chris mooney on the environment. we will be back with more live coverage at the 20 to two some

festival of books shortly. >> here's a look at some books that are being published this week.

>> i teach at georgetown university, and this year i met the woodrow wilson center as a public policy scholar so occasionally i write books. and i talk to some veterans and soldiers about going to war and coming home. >> what is your connection to the naval academy? >> i used to teach at the naval academy for two and a half years. i was there and knock your distinguished chair in ethics.

they had a cheating scandal, and they were in the limelight being near washington and they needed to brainstorm about how to teach ethics. and so they called me in and before -- >> why you? >> that's a good question. i taught ethics for 20 years. and some of that before at newmac as a graduate student. and they were surprised that they been people that were teaching ethics as part of the curriculum. so we modified the course to talk about the character in war. character of midshipmen and sailors and marines. it was fascinating. it was an absolutely fascinating tour of duty. >> what is your educational background? >> i went to bryn mawr college, proud of women's college in pennsylvania, and then they had a stint abroad. i have a degree from university

of edinburgh, so second home you might say in scotland. and then i came back and i went to harvard. i've a ph.d from harvard. >> in what? >> in philosophy. and then after harvard i started teaching at yale where i was associate professor of philosophy, and then i came to georgetown with a stint at the naval academy and a few other lectureship here and there. >> what did you learn? was this your first exposure to soldiers when he went to the naval academy i had you been exposed to them before? >> it's an interesting history. i love the era of vietnam, and with a brother and husband who were of age to serve in vietnam, but in one case there was a graduate school deferment, and my husband? and in another, my brother, was for medical reasons not eligible.

and that was as you know a momentous historical moment on college campuses in the late '60s, early '70s. and it was an unpopular war, and given that there was conscription, it was an especially unpopular war. so when i went to the naval academy, i ended up serving, as i like to say, because i did serve, public servant, next to a marine colonel had been in the non, and navy captains have been into delta in the mekong delta. so my formative years came back to me but now i was with individuals who may been there as opposed to those who would then in the mall in washington protesting the war. but also looking back to me, probably the most significant full circle for me was that my

dad is a world war ii veteran. he was a medic. and he was silent of a laconic generation, never spoke. and when they came, when i showed i had real professional credentials now with the military, abstracts and badges, my dad took an interest and he began talking about his war. and as a daughter of a side a world war ii veteran, that was about the most wonderful thing that could happen. he opened up a life for me. >> well, dr. nancy should become your most recent book is called "the untold war: inside the hearts, minds, and souls of our soldiers." i just want to read a little passage here and then have you expand on it if you would. this is from the prologue. you write soldiers are genuinely torn by feedings of war. they desire wrong revenge at times, though they wish they wanted a nobler justice. the field -- they feel pride,

complicity, betrayal and kill. they worry they have sullied themselves. if they love their war buddies more than their wives or husbands. if they can be honest with the generation of soldiers that follow. they feel guilty for returning home in tact. i suspect many have talked to me, you, so openly because they since they're being listened to by someone who may help them find in the chaos of war a small measure of moral clarity. >> well, i think that captures much of what i aim to do in the book, and hope i achieved. the book is testimonial from soldiers. the person who looks at herself in the mirror was one of my

students, or a student at georgetown, who was a west point graduate, a basketball player, star basketball player at west point, and went and headed up a unit of the security detail in iraq, and all was quiet. she had enormous trust for those she was training, the iraqis, and then one night they were ambushed. and she lost her arm, and she was in a coma, medically induced, for two weeks or so. and when she woke up at walter reed here in washington, she was all wrapped in white blankets, and her parents begin to tell her what happened and she said i don't want to know. it was hard, but then she went

on to be a remarkable patient, to make a physical exercise program down was tougher than any physical therapist could put together, and run the ceo, or was of a beltway bandit kind of consultancy firm for the military. and so unique stories of resilience. but in they will be a little glimmer come and she said to me, the vote i rumor she said you know, occasionally i will be in a store at kmart or something, and i catch a glimpse of myself in the mirror, and something missing, you know, and i feel freakish. or she went with other veterans to the beach in san diego, and she's from san diego, and she said the water felt so good on her body. she's wearing a little cat top and she said that a don't think i would ever wear a bathing suit again. so these are losses, and i'm

very much reminded of a better and i'm speaking to again now, an outpatient at walter reed bethesda naval hospital here, two years. and his parents, my spoke to as well said, then had a beautiful body, you know, and he is lost mobility. he lost both legs and an arm, but he's rehabilitating with remarkable prosthetics and bionic leg, and with a hard driving, you know, alpha male kind of ability that many military men and women have. it's amazing. so i get enormous inspiration your this is not an essay on war mongering. it's not an essay on the warrior calls or glorifying it. it's the truth. it's trying to be honest. these are, these are

non-conscripted professional men and women, that we often don't know because less than 1% of our population serves, and yet they are so remarkable. >> so professor sherman, why you? why are they talking to you? >> that's a very good question. when i went to the naval academy i often thought i learn more than i talk because this was a culture that i've been kept away from. even my background. and my dad kind of get me out of it because he didn't talk about war in a nice family, especially if you came home from war and wanted to begin again in the mid '40s, as my dad did. why me? i.ti the background also in psychoanalysis. i don't see patients but i have a fear bit of training camp and so i think it's google not just for me but for any of us who see our returning service members to

listen with empathy and without judging. they want to be heard but they don't want to be sermonized to order prejudged, and so i think that's really a critical part. >> can you give us another example of someone you talked to in the book, another story? >> sure. there's so many interesting individuals. one individual named erika pines. -- derrick vines, in the reserves i believe. and he worked with me at the wilson center. i was a fellow a number years ago at the woodrow at the woodrow wilson international center for scholars and now i'm a public policy scholar there. and derek was mobilized them a part of the reserves from maryland. and he really wanted to go to afghanistan. he thought that was the war was going to. and his unit was ready to go to

afghanistan. but they went to iraq. he was part of an intelligence unit. he wasn't looking for weapons of mass destruction, debbie indeed. that wouldn't have been his job but it was presumed that they were there and that is part of the nation. he said to me, did we ever find that the m.d.s -- this is after he returned. did we ever find that the m.d.s? no. and he said to be suckered like that by a top rows, that's a hard pill to swallow. and this is a man who's been around the block. he was called pops by his unit. for his seniority. he was a senior enlisted, had served in bosnia as well. so he was not a naïve young kid, and there was a sobriety to his remarks. and what i came away feeling, he wanted to explore with me is, we

chatted, learning a little more of clarity, there was a sense of betrayal that he was experiencing. that he had been betrayed by his command come in some way, or by the president of the united states, or by the people that sent him. and that he had to bear the burden alone, and bearing the burden meant coming home, and he was a person who bagged body parts that were scattered on trees and and, you know, in fields. and he played over and came home with a tape that would repeat in his mind of smells and sounds, you know, chart, sizzling bodies and flush. so he came up with that and have to and has to reintegrate. and those, resentment of a sore. but those very same ring. not anger that was raging, but

simmering below the surface. and it comes up sometimes when has to do with the da and the system, navigating the bureaucracy and making his way through, especially if you're in the reserves sometimes or your in the national guard you don't come home with a unit. you are isolated. you're not coming home to fort bragg. you're not coming home to large basis. to camp lejeune or when the. you're coming home on your own. and so you have to work to make your community. and so i think of that as a because he was not the young eager bushy eyed 18 year-old who enlisted. he was with the reserves have been there before, and still had, you know, has a lot of adjusting to do. >> is it easy to lose the moral clarity? >> well you know, we just have

seen a disturbing incident, and played the video of them are in fear nation over dead taliban bodies. >> did that surprise you? >> i think i may be a bit on it. it didn't really surprise me because as the war has gotten, or the enemies bombs got dirtier and more precise, and yet the enemy remains invisible, and they dart in and out of the population, our own rules of engagement in this decade of fighting with counterinsurgency operations have become tighter, much more constructive. so what soldiers, marines can do on the ground is, or insurance are bringing in an airstrike is much more limited. so under tight rules, sometimes the other hands are tied, the terms they use. they grumble. and so if they can't let out some of the revenge against the

living, though they may do it against the dead. one of my students here who is a former marine said to me, he said it's not uncommon that you have bodies at your feet and your waiting for the proper authorities to collect the bodies, and they will be the impulse to spit or defile in some way, and it's really the command culture. it's the leader, the sergeant in that group. i believe there was a sergeant present who sets the tone, who sets the culture. and so the control and check out the impulse it is just critical. that's what teaching at an academy at the naval account or west point or air force is all about. it's about how to be a professional and ethical military member but and so doesn't surprise me? no. is a grievous? yes. does one small misstep set back

international relations and talks with cars like and the taliban? yes. in general, the top brass are furious, i'm sure. but it's a tough job and it's been a long, long decade. >> nancy sherman, a word you used several times in your book, "the untold war" is solely to. what does that word mean and how do you use at? >> sullied means dirty. it means feeling like you lost your honor. and i use it in particular of a guy who was a philosopher, and we got to know each other through the circle of philosophy. he cared a lot about ancient warrior ethics. he was also a west point star student, and he wanted to go back to west point, then was

lucky enough to do so after he received his ph.d. he hadn't really served in a robust war, and wanted to go to iraq for the adventure, for the thrill, and to i think have street credentials in a sort of way. and he worked in a really messy part of the war, which some do, with contractors. that is, american private contractors. with iraqi police, and security details. and he saw some, you know, i think probably a killing that wasn't authorized. he was accused of getting too cozy with some of the contractors. his mood just deteriorated over time, apparently. and the best of the best, he was the head of the honor code, or

the on a board at west point. he started to unravel, and he wrote a suicide note before he committed suicide, committed suicide in iraq, essentially saying that his honor had been sullied. so it's a right image of the story. it brings back feelings of well, you think of ajax in the greek place he feels his honor was sullied because he didn't get shielded it is supposed to be the grace water yet he didn't win the prize. there's that sense and that stature almost, invulnerability i guess that's it. there is a vulnerability. and i think we sometimes forget the vulnerability that war requires, because you are being exposed to so much. you are asked to be so strong, and yet you still can be fragile. so suicide rates have been at an

unprecedented level these past three or four years. they are just starting to go down. but that's like the tip of the iceberg, to give you a sense of the real risks of soldiers and sailors take on as they fight war. >> if a soldier came to you, nancy sherman, and said was it worth it, what's your and your? >> i answer that, for a service member. they all struggle with that themselves. each war, you have the luck often of fighting the war that you fight. you don't often get to pick your war. my dad's war was world war ii. for some it was korea. and they thought they didn't have the glory of world war ii. for others it was vietnam, and for this generation iraq and afghanistan. some may protest the war they fight early on, and you know, maybe side of the yet didn't want that were and so i think

they should be a possibility for selective of refusing. others are struggling with this issue now. when they see iraq unravel a bit, they see the cities that they worked so hard to stabilize, mayors in the city, head of the elders in peace and stability operations. i think they wonder and worry. for others, the war will always be about each other. it will be about covering each other's back, about a trust that is so deep. it will be about, you read a passage from a book about fearing that you love your buddy more than you love your family members at home, and then having to figure out how to we negotiate those family relationships. when you have seen and experienced something so vital

and exciting and so potent. >> this is your second book on the military. your first being stoic warriors, the ancient philosophy behind the military mind your did you have before he went to the naval academy come before you start working with these soldiers, did you have a background in military, any type of military training beside your father being a world war -- >> no. know, i've been trained as a straight up moral philosopher. i work in h. and ethics, aristotle, plato, enlightenment. so all this was new territory for me. i was a bit of a fly on the wall. and have apologists in a new environment. but what i noticed, especially in thinking about that book, "stoic warriors" was that when they came to teach the element, the segment on stoics, and these are the individuals like

cicerone, cicerone is not stoic but he we tax the view. my military men and women from midshipmen to admiral, you know, 88 at. they loved it. it was their philosophy. it set me thinking, why. and partly it's because it's a version of sucking it up. it's a version of typing it out, and it's a version that makes that very real. and might effort in writing "stoic warriors" was to say it's more complex than just sucking it up, or just restricting your desires in order to deal with all the losses and vulnerabilities. if you read carefully between the lines, they're often struggled themselves with how much are they willing to give up in order to toughen themselves. they realize at times that stoicism is a blessing and a

curse. so i wanted to expose there. so i got my training on the job, you might say, but i brought with it a lot of tools and a toolkit that served me well. >> when he went to the naval academy were any restrictions put on your points of view, or what you could talk about with the soldiers of? >> no, none at all. and i very much celebrated and, and was very happy. i was very respectful in the way at any university you respect their customs, be it gets it institutes and like georgetown or a military environment. you know, i can think of one instance where there was ever a censorship. and, in fact, people don't really realize this but at the naval academy certainly i believe it is true, west point, the best officers want their midshipmen to say no when they get an unlawful order. they want them to protest the

unlawful order or the unethical and unreasonable behavior in their senior command. you know, they want them to be the messenger that takes a writer. but they want to do know it could cost you a court-martial. it shouldn't come lightly. you shouldn't fret about whether celebrated case, could you keep tougher were in your locker or square and, of course, yelling this or that, or eating six bytes, and then spit out some great marine campaign, you know, the trivia you are required to learn and recite in these academies. they didn't want you to complain about that. but if you got an unlawful order or an unethical order and it was really somehow called into question, your dignity or the dignity of your colleagues, buddies, then you were responsible for bringing that up. and partly the reason i was there to deal with cheating is

because that was a small potatoes i am that could just blossomed into a huge fiasco, if you're at sea sea or if you are at war. and so, not so much censorship but very responsible individual leadership is what was required. >> and finally, professor sherman, what's the take away on this book? >> i think the take away on this book and in my future work is talk to the servicemen and women that you see coming off the planes in the airports. ask them as if they were your sons and daughters neighbors, where they've been and what they've been up to. don't judge. just listen. they are amongst us. they have been serving us, you know, with a heavy burden and share the burden in some way. with him, and try to understand not just their visible wounds,

visible injuries, but the invisible wounds that they may not so easily talk about that they might feel. and maybe even learn from them come later in a little bit about resilience and help. >> talk about your future work. >> yes. i'm not thinking about the returning soldier, kind of tentatively titled the book making peace with war. how to come home and be resilient and find meaning and purpose again after the temple of war and for some, the adventure but also the vulnerability and laws. again, example, it's an example from which we all can learn. it goes well beyond where. >> booktv is on location at georgetown university. we have been talking with professor nancy sherman about her most recent book. your disk, "the untold war: inside the hearts, minds, and souls of our soldiers."

it's a norton of publications. >> thank you very much. >> here are some of the top selling nonfiction titles and independent bookstores around the country.