all writers are asking about that. from my vantage point as an agent that's not their first and foremost ambition. >> no wonder the big debates in publishing is how low can a price go. the rising of to beat the downward pressure that is being put on pricing. early numbers are i would say next. it's really not clear that you can make up in volume what you will lose in a dollar, and that's a whole nother discussion. we do have a few minutes for questions, time for questions. fire away. >> i have a simple question. this book they are motivated me to study the website and to get

here at 10 a.m., and how helpful is this book fair, or others like it? >> well, depends on what you're looking for. i think this is a great microcosm -- >> not to me. >> well, there are a lot of would be writers out there. there's lots and lots of fairs around the country. and i think there are over 60 writers here. to help build funds, writers love to meet their customers, with their fans. they are important your publishers obviously helped supported by a wrenching ticket, helped arrange to get the 60 authors here. and politics and prose is selling a few bucks. so it's one of the pieces. publishing is made up of a lot

of pieces. it's amazing what takes place, you know, to sell the copies that are involved. and literally every week millions and millions of books are being sold, so sometimes especially mainstream media, "new york times," your kind here about the demise of book publishing. it's really not the case. it's not going to go the way of music, as a parallel that a lot of people like to try. sales are flat, so from that vantage point things are great. >> my question may only directly deal with the expertise of the panel but i'd like to ask it, and if it doesn't pertain i'll just sit back, okay? i am a retired educator, local schools here in the area. and the one thing, guidance gaza, the one thing i stressed

to all my students is three points. weed, read, read, okay? and no with the e-book revolution i think that's fantastic but i looked up the entire students, not just -- the person. i'm looking out at the fact that this individual who spends hours and hours on something called screen time, okay, tv, movies, the little gaming has in his pocket, the laptop in the schools now which in times will be like a textbook to everybody. screen time, and then the kindle book, e-book. i know there are tremendous advantages of that but i warned, go to google and you'll find out that the main bill a facts of screen time would be the physical, mental and social, okay? this is my child. don't want him to fall into that category of getting these negative effects?

you might say, i'm sorry, sir, there's nothing we can do. that momentum is there and that will go on because that textbook that you like so much will be like that phone booth out in that quarter. it's gone. >> does anybody want to talk about? i've got a few ideas on that. one thing is that publishing industry, everybody in the, keenly aware that there is a competition for eyeballs, if you will, with everything you just described. it's something that they think about a lot. they tried to make, again, maybe fairs like this make meetings sexy, more lively. that's one aspect. the other aspect is, is there's a whole debate going on over what the definition of a book is. there's enhanced e-books which are linked to video, link to

audio. there are apps, which is a whole new -- a whole new way of reading coming. so, again, nobody knows where it's going exactly, but the definition of a book is not what it's going to be. i would agree with you also, one of the things the publishers have to do, the whole industry, is try to keep pressing forward. does anybody else have -- >> i like your eyeballs glued to a page, less distraction. all of the devices have these moments where you can duck out and go someplace else. that's one of the great things about having a physical book in your hand. the batter is not going to run out. you can turn the page when you want to, and if it's engaging you, you will probably stick with it. but the world has changed. you guys are changing that more than we are. it's up to us.

even the libraries have made technological innovations, service there to the communities that publishers have yet to catch up with. >> i just want to add one quick point from the vantage point of a retail business. all of this is obviously true. people are increasingly using screens for all sorts of things but i think if you want to be hard and you should come to our story go to her children's department as he the vast number of kids in their reading physical books, looking for physical books come and join physical books, wanting -- unit, reading a book a sort of attack that experience. it's not like listing to music on a different kind of device. i think that experience is -- were some people that's a refuge and it's kind of a solace that i think is important the other thing is we have a lot of young booksellers who work at pnp. they tend to be hired out of college or graduate school. of nursing a more passionate

devoted group of people to the fiscal book than this group of young people. if you have doubts about whether young people love reading physical books, just type in and talk to some of them. >> when you see something in the book and you underline and you look at it, it does something. but now with e-books, you can underline in e-book but it's not the same thing, okay? you can write in the corner. i can do in the book, too. it's not the same thing. but you're an old-fashioned man, you're in the '70s, forget it, you're gone. i accept that. >> i read in "the new york times" where authors are now being pushed to publish two books a year. i know my reading time seems to be less and less as i get busier and busier. how am i, why the bush?

for two books a year, and especially when there's a problem in getting reviewed. spent cannot ask for your favorite author is? do you have a favorite novelist, for example? >> sarah paretsky is one among. >> when she loved that one from her twice a year rather than twice every three or four years of? >> once a year, yes. twice a year, can't possibly keep up with all the other authors i want to hear, and all the other new authors i discovered at events like this. >> again, they are doing shorts. part of it is to fill in the gaps between the books. and there are a lot of voracious readers out there in john roos, and romance readers, they will read a book a day.

and really i'm not exaggerating. so that's what they are thinking. to go back to the earlier point, to keep the eyeballs on the books and not let their mind to go somewhere else. >> the justice department was suing google -- >> apple. >> right. why not, why have they not look at amazon with its anti-competitive practices and its strong-arming of publishers? do you have a clue that you can depart? >> why they sued apple and the five publishers, because they saw in many ways an old-fashioned price-fixing case, prices that have been $9.99, thanks amazon, are now $14.99.

there's no -- well, 95% of publishers think that the justice department is crazy. but i talked about the people, why can't you go after amazon predatory pricing, can't really prove it. it was an easy case to make against apple. how far it will actually go, i don't know. i mean, penguin and mcmillan are fighting it. it will be an interesting battle. all i can really -- >> this is one of the big challenges of our time, you exactly underscored a lot of it has to do with pricing. >> is all about pricing. and that's the case the justice department made. how can you say this is good for consumers when prices went up? well, the short term, maybe that's true, maybe it's not. and long-term it will be

interesting to see. as has been mentioned here, what happens is amazon is 55% of the market for years from now, what's the price going to be? >> can i add one thing to that? i really appreciate you ration the question. it's almost ironic that the justice department in going after apple and the publisher is doing so in the interest of the antitrust and preventing a monopoly. the fact is that when the so-called agency model when it affect what the prices went up and were across the board for e-books, amazon had at that point before the model went into effect about 90% of the market. when the model went into effect, their percentage went down to about 60% which suggest greater competition in the marketplace. and the broader array of people doing the selling. so somehow in the interest of ending monopolistic practices they may be creating the most

dangerous monopolistic possibilities out there. that's one thing. the second thing is, and this is something that we and many other independent booksellers are very concerned about, people love that amazon gets lower prices. why do they give lower price? because they don't collect sales tax. we bricks and mortar institutions have to collect sales tax. ecosphere hospitals, roads, police, fire. so we believe that is part of our role as a member of the community. amazon has not had to play that role. we believe that they're there for been given an advantage in the marketplace that the playing field is a is a level. there's legislation in congress being considered to remedy that which a lot of the independent, not the booksellers. lots and lots of retail businesses across the country are very much in line with. so these are all things that concern us greatly about the way that they go about their pricing, the fact that they don't collect sales tax and

contribute back to communities that they are in, and the fact that we believe there'll be much less competition and could be much worse for consumers in the end if that does turn out a certain point. >> one last question here in the front row. >> i just have a general question. in the motion picture, there is a rating system. y. and book publishing there is a rating so we can tell is the book is proper rate for certain age is? >> i think there is a significant evaluation system, which is one of the great things of social media. don't you think that the book websites provide for reader comments a great deal of assessment that would be usable to readers? >> but when you go into a bookstore and you open a book, you have no idea. the book has certain content that is not appropriate for certain ages.

>> that's why you have mark right behind you here who can help you. >> that's part of the wonderful thing about a bookstore. you may not be going for a specific book. you can find something in that you had no idea was out there. >> as mentioned before, there are millions of books being published each year. so i mean, compared to motion pictures where there's a few hundred, you know, it's almost impossible to do what you suggested but again, that's why bookstores are important. they do carry eight -- what's available out there. i've been told by gene, we have one more. >> steady trend as to the quality of authorship or writing that comes primarily from print books or e-books, and is that becoming obvious?

>> well, computers have led to a lot more people writing but i don't know if it's producing more writers. we routinely receive -- [inaudible] that are upwards of 250,000 words, or 300,000 words. probably there's a skinny book and are trying to. it's our job to figure it out. we routinely have authors under contract for a book of 85-95,000 words. u-turn in manuscripts of 125,000. and that's a tough decision to make. publishing is very capital intensive, labor-intensive, no margin enterprise. >> have you seen any change? >> well, i could take both sides it because, i make him a kiss to

the question of what makes for the most sales of the book, and it often is the reputation or the well-known elements of the author more than the writing capability, but that's true, always been true. but i am a firm believer that quality does breakthrough, absolutely. >> i guess that's a good note to end it on. thanks a lot. [applause] >> michael mann, lead author of the paper that introduce the hockey stick graph to the global warming debate talks about his experiences being the subject of attacks by those who disagree with his conclusions. the hockey stick graph was featured in a 2001 june report on climate change. this is about 50 minutes. >> thanks for the very kind introduction. it's really nice to be able to talk about the book with friends from my hometown here at penn state university.ñ

what i'm going to do is start out with an excerpt from the book, from the prologue of the book that i worry i will talk a little more about the book, the history can have found myself at the center of one of the fiercest debates in society today, the debate over climate change and what to do about it. and sort of what i learned for what i like to think i learned that lesson i can share from the experience that i've had at the center of this debate. so, the excerpt that i will read is my attempt to sort of take to readers at the very beginning back to a particularly memorable, not in a good way morning in my life, and to use that to provide you some sort of a window into what it's like to be at the center of a fairly heated attacks by those who find

inconvenient in some way the scientific findings that climate change is real. so on the morning of november 17, 2009, i awoke to learn that my private e-mail correspondence with fellow scientists have been hacked from a climate research center at the university of east anglia in the united kingdom and selectively post on the internet for all to see. words and phrases have been cherry-picked from the thousands of e-mail messages, remove from their original context, and strung together in ways designed to malign me, my colleagues, and climate research itself. soundbites intended to imply impropriety on our part but quickly disseminated over the internet. through a coordinated public relations campaign, groups affiliated with the fossil fuel industry and other climate change critics helped catapult the soundbites onto the pages of leading newspapers and onto television screens around the world.

a cartoon figure ridiculing me and falsely accusing me of hiding the decline in global temperature was released on youtube and advertise to a sponsored link edited with any google search of mining. the video eventually made its way onto the cbs nightly news. pundits got the wider issue of the hacked e-mails "climategate," and numerous investigations were launched. through our work was subsequently vindicated time and again, the whole episode was emulating one, unlike anything i'd ever imagined happening. i had no that climate change critics are willing to do just about anything to try and discredit climate scientist like myself. but i was horrified by what they have now stooped to. my thoughts turn to an event from a decade earlier. in august 1990 i attended a meeting in tanzania as a lead author for an upcoming report on the intergovernmental panel on climate change. from my hotel room i could see one of the world great wonders,

mount kilimanjaro, with its magnificent icecap like just the greece from the equator. the ice cap by the end of 20 century had always shrunk to just one-third of its a. a third of the etiquette cover in ipv6 with ernest hemingway wrote the snows of kilimanjaro, but it was majestic all the same. after the meeting i joined a daylong expedition to see one of the world's greatest displays of nature, serengeti national park. animals wander among some of the world's most dangerous predators, lions, leopards and she does. among the most striking entries it seems i saw that day were groups of cpars standing back-to-back, form a continuous wall of vertical stripes. why do they do this, i than one colleague asked the tour guide. to confuse the lines can explain. predators and what i call the serengeti strategy look for the most vulnerable animals at the

edge of the herd. but the difficulty picking out individual zebra to attack when it is seamlessly incorporated into a larger group. lost in this case in a continuous wall of stripes. only later when i understand the profound lesson is seen from nature had to offer me and my fellow climate scientists in the years to come. so let me step back a little bit now and talk about my background. i have loved science from the earliest days i can remember as a young boy but i was always fascinated by anything vaguely scientific. i used to pester the adults with questions about the speed of light and tornadoes and hurricanes, and just about anything that in some way related to the natural world. and i loved science. in high school i was one of those science geeks, science

nerds. and it isn't literally true that my idea and of a good time on a saturday night was hanging out with my other computer geek friends at school in the computer room working on interesting problems trying to solve problems or a clever programming technique and having pizza. that was my typical fun saturday night. interestingly enough, there is a story that i recount in the book. back in 1984 after seeing the movie wargames, i suspect many of you have seen the movie, i became fascinated with this problem. so in the movie they are trying to teach this computer who has taken control of nuclear warheads, trying to teach at the futility of war so it won't launch these warheads. and to do that they need to teach it's about futility.

so they decide they need to get it playing itself and take that tone and learning from its mistakes so it will understand that you can't win a game of tick tack toe. the analogy being you can't win a global thermonuclear war. and has profound implications for society and policy. nothing to do with why i was interested it was a really cool programming problem to how you teach a tic-tac-toe game to learn from its mistakes but it involves artificial intelligence. i set out to do this, and spent a couple months, actually that summer trying to solve this problem. and i use a track, a term we use in science and math do you know sort of a clever approach to solving vexing problems to get the computer to learn how, you know, to learn from its mistakes. because it turns out that there's so many different moods that if you record every bad move, every time the computer

loses, you tell it not to make its way to the same position that it was in when it lost that game. and that process it will eventually learn to become undefeatable. but it turns out that there's so many different moods that if you restore every configuration, at least with the computers went back in the 1980s, the program gets so slow it's just not solvable. so the trick that are useful to recognize the symmetry of the problem, a tic-tac-toe board looks the same would be rotated 90 degrees, 180 degrees, 270 or three for 60 degrees, why do you flip it vertically or horizontally, and so it turns out if you take into account that symmetry, there are many fewer moves that you have to store for configurations that you have to store, the term track have been used later, after these e-mails were hacked. one of the e-mails that was cherry picked and taken out of

context we for two my nature trick, and what it was describing was a way of comparing two different aspects of the completely overlap. you can understand one in the context of the other. yet that word was used by our detractors to suggest that somehow climate scientist were trying to trick the public. about the problem of climate change. and so that's the nature of the attacks with increasingly be subjected to because of or find. sony get back to my story. i went off to college. uc berkeley, major in physics and applied math. started doing research in theoretical physics. it was called and instant matter of physics, understanding the behavior of fluids, of liquids and solids. and went on to graduate school at yale university to study theoretical physics. this was the late 1980s and it

was a pretty bad time to be getting into physics because they had just cut the funding, congress had just cut funding to the supercollider. so suddenly there wasn't a massive investment in physics that we are all expecting. you could no longer just work on any problem that you wanted, and you could necessary work on the big picture problem. the sort of problems that it got me excited and that getting into physics and the first place. we were sort of being funneled towards increasingly more applied areas of research. and so i sort of decide to take a step back to see if there was somewhere else where i could apply my math and physics background to working on a big picture problem that really mattered. and i saw that they were assigned to fix downhill from the physics department in the department of geology and geophysics, who were using math and physics to work on this amazing problem of understanding outward climate works. and so i went down the hill, talked to the individual had

become my advisor, barry saltzman, and did my research on climate. not climate change. i was actually interested in natural climate and natural oscillation, the system that might impact trends that we see. i wasn't actually is working on the problems of climate change, but in looking at natural climate changes, we only have about 100 years of instrumental records. so if you really want to investigate longer-term behavior you have to turn to proxy data, and so my foray into using these proxy data to understand how the climate had changed in the distant past was driven by my interest in natural climate stability. and yet we would eventually, once we figured out what these data were telling us, we were

led to the inescapable conclusion. what we found was that the recent warming, the warming of the past century did appear to be unprecedented in the context, at least the past 1000 years based on information in these proxy data we analyzed that ultimate let us to publish a curve that has come to be known as -- let's see, the penn state site is facing a combat the penn state bookstore was kind enough to lend it to me for debate purposes. it was known as the hockey stick. it was far more, it's got erratic variations, a relatively warm period about a thousand years ago during medieval times. descending into the cold centuries of the little ice age, and then, of course, the blade of the hockey stick is the recent warming. what we found in our study was the recent warming did a kid to

be unprecedented as far back as we could go, a thousand years. well, this hockey stick in fact once it was given a name, the hockey stick my colleague of mine, and once it was featured in the all important summary for policymakers and the ipcc report in 2001, the one part of the ipcc report which is really read by policymakers and really does enter into the policy discourse on climate change, well, when it was featured in that report, it became an icon to the climate change debate. i and my co-authors found ourselves with essentially accidental and quite reluctant public figures in this larger debate over human caused climate change. so it was why did this become a lightning rod among those seeking to question the reality of climate change? i think because he was tall with a relatively simple picture, you

know, a story that there is something unusual taking place today. and by inference, perhaps it has to do with what we are doing, burning of fossil fuel elevating, elevating our greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. and you didn't need to understand the mathematics of how a theoretical climate model works to understand that picture, to understand what it was telling us. so i think it became a threat to those again who have sought to discredit the science of climate change because its implications, because they don't like the implications for our need to perhaps shift our behavior in terms of how we drive our energy over time. so it would become passionate in the debate over human climate change by those who deny the

importance for the existence of climate change. and climate change deniers went on to wage a very public and at times after personal attack against us, against me. i was the lead author on the study. also my co-authors. and goes all in a cynical hopes that, you know, this idea among those looking to discredit the case of climate change that it is somehow a house of cards. our understanding of this problem is a house of cards that all rest on a single hockey stick. a 10 year old study by me. went back it's much more like a puzzle. we have been filling in the pieces for nearly two centuries, and sure there are still some uncertainties about certain aspects of the climate change problems but there's missing pieces in the puzzle. but it's filled in enough that we can see the picture clearly. and the picture is that we are warming the planet and changing the climate to increasing

greenhouse gas concentrations, primarily co2 in atmosphere, primarily through fossil fuel burning and other human activities. and there are literally dozens and dozens and dozens of independent lines of evidence for the conclusion but it doesn't hinge on anyone study, on anyone line of evidence such as patio climate reconstruction, the sort that we have performed. let alone a single study. but it is this sort of cynical tactic. and we have seen it in public relation campaigns, campaigns that were deployed by the tobacco industry to discredit the case of smoking cigarettes and adverse health effects. with senate with acid rain and ozone depletion. this effort to make it seem like it is all based on just one suspects that he and one person. and if you can discredit the person, then the entire case for

concern collapses like a sitcom like a house of cards but i think it's not coincidental that the forces of anti-science and industry funded efforts to discredit environmental science. they're still going after rachel carson. they won't let her live peacefully in her grave because they believed if they can take down rachel carson, the entire environmental movement collapses again like a house of cards. so we found ourselves at the center of this raging debate. we were subject to politically motivated attacks. james inhofe of, the senator from oklahoma, attacks our work back in 2003 on the senate floor during the very important debate over energy policy, climate policy. joe barton, the summer of kerry to start your, the summer of 2005, i was contending with a congressional subpoena from joe

barton, now more famous for his apology to bp over the gulf oil spill. but back then his claim to fame was that he was the republican chair of the house energy and commerce committee. and he had decided to use a criticism that appeared on the op-ed pages of "the wall street journal" of our work as a basis for a congressional investigation into our work demanding every document, every enough, everything from entire careers, which in the case of my to more senior colleagues, literally dated back half a century. and there was more recently there was an effort, some of you may have heard, about the attorney general of virginia, kim kirchen nelly, basically took a page from barton's playbook. abuse many would say his authority of the attorney

general to try to subject the university of virginia to a congressional subpoena of sorts at the state level forcing them to turn over all the e-mails from the time i was a faculty member at the university of virginia to e-mails with 39 different scientific it was pretty clear that the motive was to try to find even more material that they get taken out of context, they could use to try to embarrass us, to try to clinton that discredited the case for human caused climate change. and fortunately, politicians of great courage and influence have stepped up to defend us at critical times and some of you might be so prized to learn, given that the most high profile attack, kim kirchen nelly, but joe barton, james inhofe all came from one side of theñññ political spectrum from one party of the republican party. might be surprising that some of the greatest heroes in our story or republicans as well. when we were attacked by joe

barton, his fellow republican chair of a different committee, sherwood, came out and criticized his own fellow republican joe barton in the harshest of terms in the public domain, and came out stopping just short of calling out barton for modern-day mccarthyism. and another figure in the republican party, you may remember, john mccain also came out and defend us against these attacks, writing an editorial in chronicle of higher education, co-authored with the president of the university of arizona, blasting joe barton for this attempt to intimidate scientists whose finding might be inconvenient to special interests that he represents. it just so happens by the way that james inhofe was or has

been, still is, the single largest recipient in the u.s. senate of fossil fuel funding. and joe barton, the single largest recipient in the house of congress, house of representatives of fossil fuel funding. but some of this, the real heroes in our store is also republicans but it was not that long ago when this wasn't a politically partisan issue. i think unfortunately those who have been looking too much and the sciences, discredit the signs, prevent us from having to good-faith debate that we could be having about what to do another problem is preempting that by trying to keep us stuck in this bad faith debate about whether the problem even exists. it's unfortunate that it does appear now to be a litmus test for one of the two parties, denial of climate change. and we're seeing it play out on the campaign trail. one of our own former senators from the state has declared that

climate change is an elaborate hoax, and is a candidate that you on the fourth nomination of his party. for president. so, it shouldn't be a political partisan issue. i have good friends who are republicans as well as democrats, and i fully believe that they care every bit as much, my republican friends care every much about their children and grandchildren as my democratic friends. and what this really is ultimately is an issue of intergenerational ethics. we often frame the problem of climate change as a science problem, or a political policy problem, or an economics problem, a cost-benefit analysis would have to work out the cost benefits. but to me it's much more than that. it is fundamentally a problem of ethics. iv six-year old daughter and the decision we are making now, the decisions were making today

about our energy policy and the emissions we are producing today have implications that affect centuries down the road. we have to decide what sort of like a seed we want to leave behind for our children and grandchildren. do we want to leave them as my colleague james hansen has called on a different planet works if we continue on the course we're on, our fossil fuel burning behavior, we will essentially be leading a different planet, a planet that is fundamentally different than the one we grew up on. a degraded planet for our children and grandchildren. for me that is a problem of ethics. and so i think that's where i believe it, and i'm happy to open it up for questions now. thanks.

>> anything. no holds barred. >> there are a lot of people who are detractors. does it seem like this research opens all source of opportunities for different kind of -- [inaudible] why has it been so difficult for people to see the opportunities because i don't know. it's frustrating because as we all know other countries are moving ahead of us. we are falling behind. china is investing or more in renewable energy technology, solar technology than we are, as were many other countries. europe, india. we are falling behind and the rest of the world realizes that the future is going to be in non-carbon-based sources of energy. and transitioning away from our current reliance on fossil fuels is a limited supply of fossil fuels. we know we are degrading the planet through our use of fossil

fuel to the rest of the world gets it, and i think many here in the u.s. get it, too, it's just that it hasn't quite come it hasn't sunk through to the highest level of some, of decision-making in our political process. you know, i think that there is this false choice that's presented to the public that, you know, either, you know, if we try to move away from fossil fuels, we're going to destroy the economy because our economy is built on fossil fuel. and it simply isn't true. the rest of the world realizes that the future of the economy is investing in new energy technologies. if you are the one who establishes and creates those technologies, they will have a huge marketplace in the rest of the world. moreover, what often is left out of the discussion, talk about

the cost of taking action, is the cost of inaction. by every assessment, every credible assessment that i've seen, far greater than the cost of action. and ultimate conservative economists have pointed out that uncertainty as you'll hear from the critics that as long as there's uncertainty in the science, we shouldn't act because we might risk hurting the economy and we don't know -- nothing else do we demand a level of certainty that the critics and even with the climate change threat argument from the climate scientist at we're about a certain of this has anything. and we know enough, certainly to act. and affect the uncertainty as the economist will point out to you is likely not to wait in our favor but against us. in the same way that we invest in fire insurance for our homes, not because we think our homes are going to burn down, nobody here believes the house is going to burn down, but we have to

hedge against a catastrophic low probability outcome. we know because of the uncertainty, the impacts would be far greater than what we currently project with our model. and it's that extreme high cost, if relatively low probability scenario that these economist to say that uncertainty is a reason for acting more quickly so when you think about this in terms of the full cost accounting, not just the cost of action by the cost of inaction and the growth opportunities if we move in the direction of the rest of the world is moving and directing new technology it seems like a no-brainer. and, unfortunately, you know, there has been quite a bit of influence in the american political process by interests you quite understand we don't want to see us shift in our behavior because they are profiting quite handsomely from

our current, some of the our addiction to fossil fuels. and there are people frankly do, you know, understandably feel threatened when someone sends appearances went to move away from fossil fuels. if you're a coal miner, if you're like it was built an industry. it can be threatening to hear that no, we have to move away from this. and it's important to realize that i don't think anybody here is talking about going cold turkey. what we are talking about is shifting in our behavior come introducing an incentive structure that incentivizes these new sources of resources that are degrading the planet, and some of brings into the problem that caused, the degradation to our environment. we need to internalize the cost into the economic decision process so that it is, there is built into the cost-benefit

analysis, the fact that there is cost, every time we emit a ton of carbon into the atmosphere we are degrading our environment and it is a cause. we need to represent that and we need to introduce the incentive structure. it doesn't incentivize fossil fuels and the incentivize other technologies as they're currently doing. it is upside down. our incentive structure is upside down. we just need to change that incentive structure in productive way, but we can't just take away people's jobs today. we are currently rely on fossil fuels and we will be to some extent for sometime to come. we have to start moving away from. thanks. [inaudible] >> it's a great question. you know, when you talk about what, when we think about what's necessary to stabilize

greenhouse gas concentration, at levels where we don't sort of breach the dangers level of interference with the climate, we are not that far away. scientists have looked at the problem say if we go above about 450 parts per million of co2 in the atmosphere we may commit ourselves to do dangerous impacts on our climate. right now we are at about 390. we are increasing by two to three every year. so if you do the math, we reached 450 pretty quickly if we stay on that trajectory. what that means is we have to make some pretty dramatic changes to avoid that. essentially, over the past few years i've been giving lectures on climate change and talk about how we have to bring in nations to peak within the next two years. we keep on saying that. what's actually a few years later now. so we have to bring in missions to a peak now, and we need to

ramp it down substantially over the decades ahead if we're going to avoid crossing that potentially dangerous threshold. when you do the math, once again, if you try to figure out how do we get there, how do we meet not just our current but our growing global energy in countries like china and india and south american countries, and the rest of the world, sort of the developing world begins to develop their own infrastructure, their expanding energy needs, how do we meet those growing energy needs in a way that avoids reliance on fossil fuel energy. and it isn't easy to find a way to get there, and i have colleagues who i respect greatly who will tell you that, you know, there may be some difficult choices that we have to make.

there's some bitter pills we may have to swallow in terms of the bridge technology we rely on to get to the point. there are all sorts of technology that are emerging now, whether it's solar cell technology, or fuel-cell technology. even fusion. if you talk to the -- they will tell you we're pretty close to having a viable fusion energy we get more energy than you putting. that's the breakeven point. we conceive maybe 20 years, 25 years down the road team in a position where we can meet our energy needs from alternate technology but even wind, in a few decades, there was a study just a few months ago. i forget who published, what the journal was but it was a steady we suggest we could be 70% of our energy needs in the u.s. by wind alone in a few decades. what it takes time to build up the infrastructure, to move away

from the current infrastructure. and that does mean some difficult potential choices along the way as far as the bridge to where we need to be. so it is very long winded answer to your question. maybe nuclear has to be on the table. if we start taking these things off the table, it makes things increasingly difficult that we get there. how we meet these growing increasingly growing energy demands in a way that, you know, that where we don't continue without reliance and our increasing reliance on fossil fuels. >> there was a relatively flat it goes back a thousand years, is that correct? was that like a small sort of -- always you say to someone who says that's a relatively small -- [inaudible] how is that representative, maybe there's a larger trend?

>> a great question to it's something that we love to talk about these sort of things at a meeting a couple ago in hawaii. it was a bad place for a meeting. and we weren't debating, there were trend for -- paleoclimate, to what we call the 12,000 years since the end of the last ice age, do the longer hundreds of thousands of years where we've seen ice ages come and go, into some of the earlier geological periods, where we know that the co2 concentrations were almost certainly higher, substantial higher than they are today. even hired were we foresee them being for the century. and the globe is almost certainly warmer. we know there was no polar ice at that time.

so you might say well, it was very productive time, it was very warm. dinosaurs were roaming the polls. life was flourishing. and it's true. we can certainly find trends in the past with the globe was warmer, where co2 concentrations were higher. and is really a matter of the timescale that is involved. the timescale changes and how that timescale compared to the timescale on which living things have been called upon to adapt to the past but if you look, the early cretaceous, 100 million years ago, there's these natural changes in our environment that have to do with weather cycles that cry to change the concentration, and these processes act out in time scales of tens of millions of years but it's the natural process that took the co2 and gradually buried them in the ground over timeframe of 100 million years. what we are doing is unerring all of those fossil fuels on a

timescale that is literally a million times faster. and there is no evidence that life has ever had to adapt to the changes of that magnitude on that timescale. and so the worry is that it's the rate of change the fact we've attacked the particular climate quite well. the example i like you sometimes ñ if we are at the end of theñ last i.c.e. agent we were in the last i.c.e. agent we had engaged in the same history of alsoññ fuel-burning that we have forñ 200 year period, we would'veñ raised the co2 levels to theññ point where we would get ourñ preindustrial climate.ñ we would get greenhouse warming would have led to a climate that is like the climate that existed before we actually warmed the planet. you might say well, so we would've ended up, it's a great climate, that's where we want t be. but if with coastal

infrastructure if our cities were located on for coastal at the time that they would haveñ engineered a more dramatic, sea level rise would've been an eve greater threat than it is today because there was so much ice around that even a modest amount of warming would have flooded the oceans and flood coastal regions by an even greaterññ amount.ñ so it isn't the climate that you'reñ headed towards.ñ it's the rate at which you're headedñ there. but the fallacy, the former nas administrator, griffin, under the previous administrationñ action heard them once in theñ are saying when we talk aboutñ climate change, how arrogant it is to be talking about. we don't know what climate isñ best for us why are weññññ complaining about climate change.ññ it's not the climate.ñ it's great a change of theññ climate and the adaptive capacity that we have to adaptñ to changes that are taking plac that quickly. so that's the key issue.

i suppose that the hockey stick at some level, you know, andñ there are now dozens of reconstruction, they are not identical to different groups, different methods, different data. but they all come to the sameñ conclusion that the blade takes us outside anything we havñeñ seen, and the handle of the pas 1000 or 2000 years. so was the unprecedented rate o change ñthat is embodied in the crib and we know is being displaced. that is a cause for concern. [inaudible] >> other things are not the lightning rod. [inaudible] >> you know, i would suspect that if you focus the source of resources that are available in

the campaigns to discredit climate science which is bankrolled by groups like coke industry, pouring literally hundreds of millions of dollars, americans for prosperity rails against policies aimed at curbing our fossil fuel industry. it's funded by the coke industries. so the vast array of front groups and even a media empire that they essentially have the forces of climate change denial as it were have available to them to try to discredit the science. you might ask how was it that it took decades when the tobacco industry in the 1950s knew the product was killing people go how was it that it took decades for them to act on that problem? it's amazing what a well-funded disinformation campaign can do to the public discourse. and i'm afraid that just what we

saw with tobacco, we seen that with ozone depletion, and chemical influence of pesticides on our environment, and i can go on down the list, pharmaceutical products, in all of these areas with the findings of science come into conflict with powerful vested interest, it's not going to be a fair fight. fortunately, science has truth on its side and i do believe that truth prevails. but sometimes it takes a few decades to get there. and the cost of waiting decades to act on the problem, whether it's al all of people who died m smoking tobacco over the past, you know, half century, or the people who are going to suffer from the climate changes that have already taken place and that were already committed to even if we stop the meeting today. it's just come it is something that is frustrating to me. and i think part of it today is

just the basic fact that it is so much easier to confuse and to confuse and to misinform. and so it's a real challenge when, as scientists, we are committed to honesty and openness your we don't state things in absolute. we state them with caveat because it's important to acknowledge where certainties to exist. in the case of climate change there are all sorts of uncertainties, although we know climate change is real and it's due to us, but precise what the impact of going to be as far as drought patterns and central pennsylvania decades from now, you know, there's still question science is trying to answer. the are real uncertainties but the other side is, to use the

tactics of character assassination against the scientists, it's been likened to times as a fight between a boy scout antiterrorist. and you know, we are the boy scouts. we have truth on our side but there are some pretty nasty tactics being used by the other side to discredit us. and it's unfortunate and i like to think we're going to turn the corner, and people, this spring, this winter and this spring i think people are starting to recognize they have a choice. they can believe that talk radio pursues duncan that climate change is an elaborate hoax, or they can trust what they're seeing with own eyes when you look out window, down in d.c. last week and the cherry blossoms, record early bloom of the cherry blossoms. it was in high '70s. before that i was up in toronto and they were wearing shorts and t-shirts in early march. and some of that is whether, but

not all of it. people ask me, this extreme weather we've seen, it's unusually warm year that we've seen in the u.s. is that whether or as a climate change? the answer is both but it's not just the random role of the dice which is weather. it's the fact that success are coming up more often now than one because we loaded those dice with climate change and we are seeing a player. people understand that. whether you're a gardener, whether you're a fisherman or a hunter. people, you know, are seeing climate change now unfold before their eyes. i think there is only so much longer that the movement to deny the reality will be viable. the worry of course is that we commit to a devastating change in the meantime if we don't act quick enough. >> if i could just