>> welcome to the latest in a series of streaming events and today i had the pleasure of hosting the event with steven koonin. steven is a scientist and now a famous scientist and an infamous scientist a professor of new york university and why you formerly the head of the department of energy research portfolio undersecretary of

entered

. it was good i guess you could

say publicity helps people focus on why the book was written. humanity has known that there's been an atmosphere and scientists figured this out carbon dioxide was discovered 250 years ago and the scots invented everything i think. i'm not scottish, british, but they did a lot and 200 years ago almost exactly, a couple years for the anniversary, the idea of the greenhouse effect identified by a mathematician which is kind of fun. transforming anybody in the science or math he was a mathematician and he figured out the earth was getting warmer than it otherwise would be.

if it didn't, there would be no life on earth so humans are interested in the climate science and also interested in the weather. this will talk about different phenomenon even longer because we care about the weather and it affects our lives and nature has been trying to kill humans with whether for most of forever. understanding the climate and the weather matters because it is consequential and interesting so that's my bias and why i'm interested in books like what stephen has written so let's start out with this title because when you're on when you are on the circuit, typically you will find out the blood nothing better to ask you then why you entitled it in either specific or reason. why the title and what we are

going to talk about why did you write the book? >> first of all it's a pleasure to be talking with you this afternoon. the title refers to the science itself and the important things about climate and human influence on it that we don't understand but it also refers to my state of mind when i found out that the science was not as solid as i had previously believed. >> what awe listen this gets to an interesting point in their two things things that struck me in your book. you write when that happened and how it happened and i think that's important for people to understand. the science wasn't as subtle as you thought occurred because you were looking at the science and

not because somebody paid you to do that as you were dander secretary of energy that nobody paid you in the ad hominem world we live in now when it comes to climate issue nobody paid you to disassemble the narrative of the solid view of climate science. so from 2005 up until the time of 2012 i was working to demonstrate technologies of various kinds. in 2013 i was asked by the american professional society that represents 50,000 physicists to do a refresh of the statement on climate change. they issued a statement of great controversy among the membership

because it was incontrovertible and you know that's a red flag. and in 2013 it was time to look again at the statement and i thought rather than like many professional societies to issue climates dates meant on during what the ipcc says i said we should have a deeper look at the issue so i convened a workshop in my panel was five physicists who were not climate experts listen to three consensus scientists and one of them were ipcc authors and three skeptical scientists. and i came away again with a sense of gosh there's a lot here we don't understand in and some of it is very important to know. i was also surprised how by i

had not heard about the shortfalls in the time i'd i've been studying it in atlanta so we spoke about the substance ofb the science but also how poorly it had been communicated to even the public. >> your epiphany was similar to mine some years earlier in a different subject about nuclear energy which we welcome back to. i spent the week at three mile island when i came to the united states and i'm an american citizen now two and proud to be. despite the trials and tribulations i'm still glad to be here.ho even though was challenging. anyway enough about that. i was thrown in to the debate about nuclear energy in 1979 and

was immersed in what was called -- which looked at non-proliferate -- nam proliferation and the commission was that mathematician again he did a spectacular job of doing just what he described and the accusation of nuclear power should cease to operate and we should abandon it and set up the kennedy commission to examine the science and engineering about s what we know. a great experience but what i learned from your point was this profound difference between what people thought they knew in a public space and then outside of what they debate about and the people across the chasm were a minority. a lot of scientists i can tell you i tried to get into your

community to join me in the debate about the state of nuclear energy and we have prominent scientists. the day we almost lost pennsylvania in three mile-m island and all these things were going to happen. scientists did not want to join me. i felt very fortunate they didn't want to join the public debate on that subject and that i would say it's a lot like we are now but now it's on steroids. there is a bit of blowback on the debate when you read the "wall street journal" five years ago? >> 2013. >> seven years ago. so were you surprised? i guess i wasn't surprised the

blowback i felt because there is a trigger event that caused hyperbolic media coverage. the melting down of the billion dollar reactor was a consequential events that would trigger emotion. this was a little different. >> i would say that climate discussion now -- i think the difference with climate are two things. one is we have now an authoritative set of documents that are in fact the world reports of the u.s. government reports and day originally defined the science. the second thing we have is that

this has been building for quite a while but i think it's getting more serious now as you see governments proposing actions that really will impact people's lives when it comes to reliability and even behavioral patterns. i think there's a much greater desire now to be looking at here tort -- authoritative science than five years ago or thereabouts. >> i do want to get to the one thing you wrote in your book that you handled extremely well. it's the language of the debate where o people have decided to call those who argue about the science cole deniers come of this construct which i was offended with when it happened. you wrote eloquently briefly but

upfront and i think it's important that's important in every venue to take head on this issue of being labeled a denier when you talk about the science of climate. >> first of all let me say where i use microaggressions i was really offended. i recall he article recently 200 my extended family died in -- so when they talk about that i get really mad. this is about science and we should take that out of this. when i wrote the book it was dear -- very careful to quote almost entirely from the initial assessment reports from the us government so someone takes issue with what's in the book we can and have a about who is

denying what because the people who were criticizing me actually wrote the reports themselves. >> i have to say -- like you what i write in a public space and it's just the nature of the space we are in whatever the subject no individual can do all the research so you look at the sources and you look at what they said and you do your best to accurately reflect whatn they said and then you write your own -- and this particular debate the science debate around climate this is what struck me early on. i would say 20 years ago is that if you read the literature including the ipcc reports you'll find is a friend of mine

who you know said and i'm paraphrased -- paraphrasing this in the public space debating the science not skeptics. he's very adamant about the scientist in the science is very good. the vast majority of the research of the ipcc is honest solid. to the extent he can get angry he gets borderline angry. it's a translation of what's there and to public discussion. some by scientists and not all by scientists. there is no answer to the question but i want to phrase it this way. science in the public emergency can avoid it. it's not like it's a bad fusion

but a difficult one. the process of science and reaching a consensus is an important one to to understand and understanding the difference on the continuum of the consensus from knowing the earth is round to knowing the temperature of the planet will be on a very different continuum. you undertook this examination based on that simplistic premise. how do you and not one but how do you bridge that divide when people say to you it's the consensus and different than you saying, you are cherry-picking. you are cherry-picking. the consensus is we have got a problem. what do you say? >> you have to distinguish between what the science says from what you are anybody thinks we should do about it. we can discuss what we might do

but let's talk about the science. there is this game of telephone that starts with research papers and goes into the assessment reports and the summaries in and the policymakers and assessments which are heavily in -- heavily influenced by government and there are so many opportunities to distort the message. as i wrote the book i tried very hard to stick with summary statementsst in the report so tt whole chain of distortion that give readers some insight into what the science actually says. i look at the movie princess bride where -- just you keep using that word. a lot of people are surprised

when i say -- is detected and hurricanes. there are some real surprises there but the process has buried. if somebody thinks i'm cherry-picking show me the part of the tree. >> you are dating yourself like me by enjoying where the great movies of all-time princess bride and the great -- but when la jolla told him i don't think that board means what you think it means. >> we have been go back and look it up. anyway, so look you put your finger on something that's really important especially in the public policy space. you went through great pains in

your book to use primary sources so that you reach a different conclusion of people use the same primary sources and deliberation. >> actually i don't reach a different conclusion. ipcc conclusions or u.s. government conclusions have the proper context to that conclusion and they don't give a sense of scale and so on. >> you are right. again it's the perception of wine which which is difficult in sound bytes on tv as you know. if you are lucky you get three or four minutes of airtime and usually the host wants to make an impact like it's a hoax or biden did this are trumpeted that. and you get havoc for that.

you need to come back with answer. you can't equivocate. you have to reach a conclusion and in three minutes it's hard. >> with science in particular it's so complicated and nuanced. >> you and i talked about this after i published my review. if i look at your book and apps which are very helpful. again i would tell those who are listening if you have a read that you should order it and read it. i would characterize it as a distillation of the lecture and critic form where you carefully explained what happened and where we are and what the data means. sea level accelerated and dee

celebrated and what you don't see is a signal saying there's a clear trend over the lastre few centuries. >> you don't have -- you have this oscillation. to your point this is chris vision. there's a clear trend for sea level rise and a last 10,000 years? >> 10,000 years. >> we know about sea level rise because people have measured carefully. it's one of those measurements that's pretty solid. a lot of other start measurements and it's a sloppy measurement because we didn't have thermometers of value. anyway he looks at that and he says howdy do still that? you distillate in the sound bite

if you don't see any signal or a noisy phenomena which simplistically for those who say well this sea level is t accelerating, the sealed bubble rises and accelerates in the last couple few decades. and before that it be celery did. what does that tell you? maybe we don't know that much about what these factors are. >> i have to answer that for people it's human influences were a quarter of what they are today and maybe even less than that. so the ups and downs makes it hard to understand. >> in fact the challenge you have let's look at the iconic one which is temperature. we used to call it global

warming and climate change and we won't speculate on why. what to say it seems like a better description and now it's reported carefully. it's called the climate crisis so we have this nomenclature problem which is pushing us towards the catastrophe lies in what's going on and attaching and we should get to this because it's in your book, attaching weather short-term events that are geographically located to the climate terry map. they are related but they are different. we have experts in the audience but it's important to explain why they are related to my there

different. >> what they are it happens every day climate is known as a long-term -- of weather and sometimes people talk about 20 years so things have been unusually dry if it's a dry for decades and that we can start talking about climate. it's not my data but it's the height of the nile river over 800 years as measured and what you see the egyptians were very good. it's got long-term trend superimposed on the ups and downs every year. egyptians got really worried when they were entering the

drought but then it turned around again of course that had nothing to do with human reasons because it was long before the large-scale use of fossil fuels. >> i'm sure you have had experience with graphs and books in the public space. editors tell you to get the graphs out of your book because it -- when i i see at the graph it's a real graph and not an atlas duration. the picture is's worth a thousand words and it's true. it's very dramatic and provocative. that graph speaks volumes to that specific phenomena. >> it's interesting you mentioni graphs. i put this book together and we had a big debate the editor and

i in the publisher said should we put the graphs and are not and we ended up with something like 17 graphs which is rather unusual. graphs are way we talk about data and data is they language of science. you can't go about it any other way although i have had some read the book and say you can -- without looking at the graphs. >> look the graphs are a little more complicated. >> i agree. a friend of mine in college said it's like every other skill. people who are good at reading balance sheets can look at it -- i was amazed when i was working

and helping on investment part of it. i'd watch some of the guys i worked with that would just look att the financial pages and just smell the numbers predicted just tell. i felt the same way but you are igright. you don't have to understand them. you can read a book. enough about climate as they say but for those who think that we shouldn't be in a hurry. at least the western world is trying hard to change the system. i've written about it and you've written about it. the world gets 3% of its energy from -- and roughly 10% from other sources.

otherwise 80 plus%. a it was 84% two years ago but here we are spending hundreds of millions of dollars and be plus two decades between one and $2 trillion in europe and the united states on non-carbon sources which utterly dominate. you worked for bp in the petroleum days. forward ever reason they had on the public relations side signal that there was a long transition to a post-petroleum world again. .. it's 2035 and we are forecasting based on what you know about the physics of energy.

as the world still using a lot of oil, sup i do not mean sippy cups worth of oil,. >> energy systems have change slowly. there are very good reasons why they change slowly. two of the most important are they need to be reliable and you don't make changes in system with fuel supply that needs to be there every day, that is one. the second is that there are large capitol investments involved. he put in eight nuclear power plant or gas plant you expected to last many decades. it is still there, it is still running. it takes a long time and what is being proposed at least in the u.s. is to force the system to do something unnatural. i like to sayna change the

energy system by orthodontia not tooth extraction. to take the radical changes that are being proposed, a lot of detailed plans or how it's going to come about, i think we could be headed for trouble both domestically in the economy but is well as geopolitical posture. >> guest: i could not agree more. i have taken the position publicly, it's not a tough one to take. we are going to build more energy machines, that is locked into the system. a lot of that is good and normal because machines are better than they ever were. we need lots of energy. but accelerating enforcement through subsidy but takes a long time. the geopolitical part, when you are in the department of energy one things i know you

learned and i learned it when i was much younger, the young man in the reagan white house. you are at least with the obama administration on most of it in diapers in the reagan administration but just saying i was very young. wars have been fought for millennial over energy. to distilled the challenge were going to have today comes the world's going to use oil in the future, hydrocarbon cousin, given who produces the oil and you sat in meetings i am sure. there are two big players, their number two and three players will go back to number one and two and we shrink. the rest of the world imports oil. primarily are us, russia, and saudi arabia.

it's not just frightening it is a formula for serious. >> it's the administration seems to be headed for slowlyy strangling domestic oil and gas industry here. i'm placed in a half-million people 80% of the gdp. produces about 12% of the world's oil or something like that. if we shut that down other countries are going to need oil. i will be seeing the geopolitical leverage to russia and the middle east. that seems to be a pretty silly thing. and for what? that fraction is declining as

the rest of the world uses more and more energy to develop. it's a negligible influence on the climate. we would be putting our economy if we don't do this in a thoughtful way pick. >> in fact i will add the obvious, by not domestically producing, we are net, net. not the best at producing a boat alternative machines. we require the importation of 8% of our gdp at least. it is eight net, net 16% hit was just astronomically big hit to our economy. >> i would agree. there is another aspect, i do not want to make the argument a number of good things. going to create jobs and boost the economy by moving to clean

energy, remind people where technology gets invented is different than where it gets manufactured. it is different yet and where it gets deployed. whether you use solar or wind as an example you can see that playing out in real time. even if we invent something here it's not the example is with electricity, they were invented here, developed here, first deployed here they are manufactured largely in china and asia. i like to say because it turns out as brilliant as the invention was, it's incredible, it is easy to make solar cells. making a rocket yield hydrocarbon is hard work.

the chinese are net importers the biggest importers of oil. i don't think it's an accident of the biggest exporters of the easy to make t stuff. >> may have geometry and geology working on some also. i've not built a gas transport system also says are not going to produceod gas. >> you are a real physicist. [laughter] i was a physicist for a a while. i quit graduate school as my colleagues know not because it was too hard, it was hard, but i wanted to work and microprocessors were i was building stuff. and most they shouldn't get to build a thing and universities. >> one of my elders once said something profound who was a wonderful scientist, he said a degree in physics as a license or poke your nose in anybody's business.

i have had great fun doing that brickwork so have i. it's what my family will attest too. so let's turn before go to q and a for the physicist favorite energy sources the nuclear phenomena. i get to include solar energy the historyth of humanity are the things that move and combust which are atomic. the electronic layers being excited by photons and tinkering with the nucleus, we have a new clear vision and a nuclear fusion. as i said earlier i was in brandon, seared in the intellectual sense defendant nuclear energy for years. i am a nuclear ball.nd i think there is no phenomenology as remarkable and challenging as making nuclear energy viable. by viable safe at low cost and

easy to deploy. i'm really encouraged by the new class of small reactors. i wondered if you are is encouraged how interesting the designs are? they seem genuinely breakthrough. >> when i was in the department of energy i promoted getting loans out to get the first slow modular reactors designed it. and now we see at least one of them moving into licensing. score reactors are not a new idea.t we have dozens of them out floating around the world and aircraft carriers. they run just fine. is not the same as putting one on a boat it's on the same land but there many of the same principles. we look at the designs we hope to build a benefactor. they will beat saver, they will be modular to build the second one, licensing should be a lot easier so i am a

great fan of that. if the nation really wants to d carbon eyes the system and its transportation on electricity as well, it is going to have to have fission as an important part there is no about that. >> to meet what is interesting is not that there is no question. it is nothing like the energy density of nuclear fission. it's irrelevant. and disappears the noise with the fuel perspective. but to get to the next stage more quickly, for those who want to have a transition happen faster there's nothing that would be as effective as accelerated nuclear energy. given the nature of the regulatory environment we have in you know full well, if it administration were really serious about energy transition, wouldn't that be the first thing we tackle? i would think so.

this administration has been a little bit shy about talking about nuclear. let's not tell the whole truth about these things. remember the part of the sector there many interested in hosting a demonstration. >> every think about the cycles and neighbor reactors to your point about small reactors, they think they are up to three years or maybe five years between feelings. small buried and run a town for five years. the koran and go away.

>> you have to be careful there's not an allergy as you well know between the naval reactors in the civilians and unprotected spaces. but yes you do not refuel them very often. that makes them wonderful. people worry about the wasted. we have ways of handling the a waste safely and economically. it is not a technical problem, it is a political perception problem. >> physical waste is solid, it is so small in volume and easy to monitor. i like to remind people it's easy to monitor. single atoms that they are radioactive. single atoms, there's nothing else like it. in fact if you want to track something as you know, that's hard to find yutaka something

radioactive. >> but we don't do that. [laughter] because of safety issues. but yes, radiation stands up and wants to be counted as i like to say it. >> the one way we do do it is you know. >> very small amounts very small amounts brickwork's trivial amounts? >> before we have the question, fusion. i have ad good friend who is a physicist. he finished up his phd in fusion, he was asked by his advisor, this would be probably 75, how many fusion reactors he thought, my friend, would be in the world in 20 or 30 years by the year 2000. his answer was a couple. [laughter] and he was overly optimistic because we so don't have a couple. i have my opinionsni on how fusion is, of the shipping

port reactor, is it fusion reactor for. >> let's step back and ask what is going on, the world is focused on in a being built in the south of france. i think they expect to see the first fusing pods and about 15 years if i am not mistaken. from there you got to do demonstration and from there it starts to get more commercial. i am an interested observer and something about a fan of the small commercial efforts and full disclosure i sit on the science boardn of a small commercial pursuing fusion in a different way. i have been watching them for more than a decade as an advisor. they are making good progress. if things turn out well for

them, we could see within six or seven years, something that has a positive queue greater than one. it means you get more energy out than you put in. i think 15 years at the earliest on some scale, maybe 12 if they are lucky. probably more realistically 20 -- 25 years. i keep asking why do we need this? it's gonna look better than the alternatives. looks better than wind and solar, storage and so on. it's perfectly fine we develop it but the commercialization is going to be an issue. >> if i was given the timelines you described is getting more out than in n12 -- 15 years, then he led ten -- 15 years after that to

get to will call commercial beta, that is 30 years from now. then you start scaling to note the design looks like as in the ten -- 20 years. your half a century out before you begin scaling prevents typical of big systems. >> the first question coming from the audience, we have touched on some of them. it was a very specific question about what could specifically be done to accelerate the next generation of reactors? what things, could this and missed ration asking that question, to get to that what would they propose to do? what would they do differently? >> i think there are some lessons to be learned from the commercialization of the first generation of reactors. the government first of all had the military need to build reactors for both making nuclear wealth weapons and propelling submarines.

the commercial effort is an offshoot of that. the real releasese reliability in general stimulated regulation and financial help to get the industry off the ground. however you could do that today for the emerging generation i think it would be much more difficult to do that in the present political climate. as you note this is always been a big debate in the u.s. about the proper relationship between theva private sector and the government. stimulating and deploying newnd technologies. there is a wonderful and the federalist papers i think it t was madison who wrote it, who asked the question, what businessman would stake his business on government regulations? because it is fickle and can

change every four years. >> or every two. [laughter] >> and just got to have intrinsic merit. i think easing thehe regulation of the nrc that is properly a hurdle to get over. but we can make that hurdle lower by educating better. in some financial land concessions in order to get the first couple running. >> 's not a new idem shreve heard it before, the small modular reactors are a natural size for town, cities, militaryry bases. the potential buyer that can stimulate a market it's the hundreds not one reactor.

the way that runs contest for new aircraft, to give them the contract and build a bunch. >> you can use them on military bases. my first got to new york from washington or back to new york it was a wonderful guy. and he said iys want to make brooklyn the clean energy capitol of the u.s. i suggested to him it is it exactly, new york city is a classic example of the kind of geography that makes sense. we will call the threat or the profile built from nature and bad actors of getting energy into the city like new york. instant geography is not your

friend. we at close up time i think. i'll tell you what the. question is. my question i will bias you in advance is usually say i was trained in physics night not hipsychology. purity said about climate science in the study of science if you read your book then it begs i a question of whe is it? is it because the other analyses are subpar, they are not genuinely good analyses? to stipulate they are concerned people or are there some other personal or

political agendas animating the system? i could ask that, i am sure you get asked that all of the time. what say you? >> cmy first answer is what you gave me. i'm not trying to get inside people's heads. you can see there was a confluence of interest inside the various players. the media if it bleeds it leads. for that is blaming it on climate. for the scientist i think some of the scientists genuinely really do feel the earth is in peril and want to help. there are the usual motivation through grant and prestige and so on. and then for the politicians the purpose of practical

politics to safety. whether it is the claimant, whether it is immigration or any number of other things we can cite that is also something that is motivating people here. >> a related question came through insufficiencies and what will call the educational system, the pipeline of bringing scientists into the work in the public policy debates. i will expand it and not ask about per se. but the characteristics of the system that lead to the debate where it has come often heated, emotional, not that that is new in n human history. they really ignite that. is that a deficiency?

or is that the nature of the system we have? or is it deficient now compared to where it used to be when you and i went to school? >> people who go into physics have a different degree of curiosity and skepticism than people who go with the other field. i've never interacted with students k-12 level. i do teach a graduate class the energy and then a class in climate to mostly engineers and mbas ultimately. it is such a joy for me too say we are not doing politics here we are doing technology, we are doing a regulation, we are doing business. i'm going to show you the science in the reports, theo department of energy, the cbi open up for these students who

most of them have had no exposure at all. except for what they read in the newspapers. part of the book is to kind of educate, inform people. not to persuade them but these are the facts. there what you find. >> i had the same experience, what you get, as you know is one of two reactions. it's what i encourage people to do. if you really are trusting the subject do not read what i wrote about. go read the source. most but cannot do that. they're capable, their busy their students and doing something else. they place a certain amount of faith and that you are being honest which is the nature of all teaching. i will tell you, i get this question a lot, you must have

for the last particularly seven years since you wrote the wall street journal piece, okay, if what you say is true, and i except what you are saying is probably true, it seems reasonable, what is going on? has had the whiskey tangled foxtrot. look at theio trillion dollars, maybe it's 1.7 trillion now this administration is proposing to spend to address climate change. although a lot of itou we knowf is in the conundrum of what's atypical. it gets back to the political question which you cannot dodge. it is hard to dodge it rather if you've worked in public policy like you did. you are in y the public policy sphere and people why? what gives here?

>> i cannot and't should not try to account for the policy choices people make. i have got this old-fashioned attitude about science advising. i am there to inform the decisions that get made involve a host of other factors which are not particularly expert, equity, development versus environment and sovi on. i don't know about that. that is the political debate should be having. and if the country decides to go one way or the world the size of a one way or the other, okay so be it. as with a full understanding of what we know and what we don't know about the claimingan while changing climate. right now they're not getting that complete in the book does not attempt to do that. >> you put your finger on the right answer.

having worked in the office of advisory years ago, it was clear to me is that politics matter. what has one policy opinion. you want decisions to be made as best they can with what the best information you have. let's come back to this question. it is a a big question now. it has been elevated by the debates around, evils one of my grandsons called the corona pirates. you get expert advice. it does not matter what climate or covid-19, or about environmental effect of something. you remember the odious nuclear winter debates. we will not digress. we do not have an office assessment anymore. the science advisory office is an important one inim my opinion i worked in it. that is a political office.

to your points, these policy debates take place in congress. that is where they belong. there are reasons ota suffered the fate it suffered. about resurrecting something like an ota, that you think is a good idea. i can probably guess your answer. b, in the few minutes we have left, this debate certainly touches on the importance of it. how do you do that? what is the framework? >> i would say there is another set of players in the advising world they can do something like ota does that is the national academies or the national research council that these days we just talk of the national academies.

those run a host of studies for government agencies and by and large they do a very good job. as part of the organization as you know for six years. i have chaired a couple of studies on fusion for them over the decades. i think on climate they need a refresh of the players in the academy of involvement is the same old gang and so you get locked in. fresh eyes would be wonderful. then there are the think tanks. mostly for the defense department, the institute analyses of which i have some association with. cna and so on. these are sources of real advice and they do provide input through the legislature. it would be very good to have an organic set of analysts and

the congress that could be turned to for short turnaround advice. you are correct, you will know better than i do, the whole organ of other institutions with science expertise designed to provide input are extremely important. they could be raised a notch but the velocity of response that is required is a different feature of policymaking as you know. science does not like, you've got to rush something. i think in my mind i like to believe if one were to create an ota which should be obvious but apparently it is not anyway. that entity could have a budget that would create and do sort of what the pentagon has done.

haven't orbit of talent that is available what's think tanks, academia, private sector that can be turned on quickly, funded on a minimal basis. search capacity you will collect. that model, if it is packaged correctly it might be politically sellable. but as a practical matter, maybe it is a way to actually achieve what you describe. does function a bit but pretty slow. [inaudible] >> they are trying to get better. >> i have been a member of the group for 30 some odd years which provides detailed technical advice and contrast of each other adjacent rights reports with equations in them and turns on the study inbo about a year.

he put the policy providing technicall input to clinton's decision to abide by a comprehensive test ban in the early 90s. it was very significant and pretty quickly done piece of work. >> that is a great example. we close on that note, a version of the jason's for congress will beat terrific. and it's pretty low costly by washington standards. were getting a wrap-up signal, you've been very generous of your time for you have been crazy, busy on the book circuits. it's kind of you to do this. i really do, again tell everyone who is listening is an excellent writer, a clear

explanations. this is been a great conversation. >> that will be my pleasure. i get to close by paying homage to my at the manhattan institute, my commanders. the great institute who don't know much about it, if you are watching i assume you do. if not go to the website, think they are all free. i know they are all free. of reports, great scholars, obviously the nonprofits to steve's point of think tanks it involve things for supporters of your potential support or take a look. i'm sure they can use your help. i would appreciate i guess because they support me and work like this. thank you all for watching and listening. i think my new friend the brave scientists steve.

>> cspanshop.org's c-span's online store but here's a collection of c-span products, browse to see what is new. your purchase will support our nonprofit operations and you still have time to order the congressional directory with contact information for members of congress and the biden administration. go to cspanshop.org. >> my name is kate i am an investment specialist focusing on the impact that environmental and social factors have on financial performance. but, before that i was an activist. i am an activist because of the author get to speak to today. i cannot even pretend to play it cool. bill is a big deal. hold your ears for this part, it probably makes him cringe but we've got to do it. bill's book, alter will be discussing this morning and you can purchase using by the book button