c-span.org/podcast or search "after words" on your podcast app and watch this and all previous interviews on booktv.org. click the button at the top of the page. welcome to the latest in the series of the institute's training events. today i've got the pleasure of

hosting the event with steve, an eminent scientist and famous scientist for some infamous professor at new york university and the head of the department of energy's research portfolio under thee secretary of energy. he was a chief scientist for those of you that you may remember that used to mean british petroleum, then it meant to beyond petroleum and then it was back to bp. we will be talking about that. part of that was the professor and the provost caltech which is i will confess i'm jealous. i went to college and like to think of it as a good physics school.

in short, steve is a scientist. he's not a dilettante. we are going to talk about his book. if you are joining us you know why we are talking about the book. it's unsettled what climate science c tells us, why it matters. he was on the circuit and i know what that's like. it can be fun and annoying. we will talk about the science of this debate and issue of talking about science and the public space and the idea of changing civilizations energy for how we get energy. we need energy for life. and the full disclosure i

reviewed. i reviewed the book for "the wall street journal" very favorably. you can go to the website to see the cancellation. it helps people focus on why the book was written and is the fellow citizen i should point out some history. humanity has known scientists figured this out a while ago, carbon dioxide was discovered about 250 years ago. i think a scottish campus discovered it. i'm not a scottish, british, but they did a lot and 200 years ago almost exactly, a couple of years for the anniversary the idea of the greenhouse effect and of the words created and

identified by aby mathematician, which is kind of fun. transforms anybody that's been in math or science he was a mathematician to napoleon and figured out that the earth was getting warmer than it otherwise would be, but if it didn't, the atmosphere functioned like a greenhouse and if it didn't there would be no life on earth. so humans have been interested in climate science and interested in the weather which is related to a different phenomena for even longer because we care about the weather and it affects our lives. for most of forever. understanding the climate and it matters because it's consequential and because it's interesting so that's my bias and why i'm interested in books like stephen has written.

let's start out with this title because when you are on the circuit, typically you will find people have nothing better to ask you why did you title the book you titled. enough about me. why t the title and why did you write the book? >> it's a pleasure to be talking with you this afternoon. i think we will have a great conversation. it refers to the science itself and there are still important things about the influences on it that we don't understand. but it also refers to my state of mind when i found out the science wasn't as solid as i had previously believed.

>> this gets to a point that you talk about in your book. you write when that happened and it's important for people to understand it wasn't as subtle as you thought and occurred because you were looking into the science, not because somebody, i mean, somebody paid you to do that. the secretary of energy but nobody paid you in the kind of ad hominem world we live now nobody paid you to disassemble the narrative that we have a solid view of. about 2005 when i joined up until that time i left the government in 2012, i was working to develop and demonstrate technologies of various kinds we can talk about.

but01 in 2013 i was asked by the american physical society, which is the professional society that represents 50,000 physicists to do a refresh of their statement on climate change. in 2007 they issued a statement to great controversy among the membership because it uses the word incontrovertible and if you are a physicist you know that is a red flag. so in 2013, to look at the statement i thought i had been like many professional societies who issue climate statements rubberstamping. i thought we are physicists. we should have a deeper look at the issue so i convened a workshop. my panel who were not climate experts sat and listened to three consensus scientists. some of them credentialed

skeptical scientists were presentations that would talk for a day or so and i came away again with the sense there's a lot here we don't understand and some of it is very important to know that we didn't know. i was also surprised by how i had not heard about those shortfalls in the time that i had been studying the matter so it was both about the substance of the science and also how poorly it had been communicated to the literate public. your epiphany was similar to mineed some years earlier. i have and to have spent a week at the accident at 3-mile island when i first came to the united states as a documented immigrant from canada. i'm an american citizen now, proud to be.

despite the trials and tribulations, still proud to be here. although it's challenging these days. enough about canada. i was thrown into the debate around nuclear energy in 1979 because of the accident. i spent the accident at 3-mile island and was an artist and the commission hearings which looked at nonproliferation issues primarily, and then the safety issues. he did a spectacular job doing what you just described. the accusation was to safe to operate. we should abandon it. governments set up the commission to examine the science and engineering around what we know or don't know is uncertain. how dangerous can they be. great experience about what i learned is, to your point, this

profound difference between what people thought they knew in the public space and scientists thought they knew and what they debated about. to come and join me in the debate we were being told of the world would end. we had prominent scientists to name names in other places like that. the day we almost losta pennsylvania because of 3-mile island. all these things are going to happen. scientists didn't want to join me. they didn't want to join in the debate for a variety of reasons. then on that subject i would say now it's on steroids so you

learned there's something to debate. there was a bit of a blowback on that when you wrote a piece in the journal five years ago now. >> seven years ago. were you surprised? i guess i wasn't surprised at the blowback i felt because i had been in the middle of an event that caused hyperbolic media, blowing up a billion-dollar reactor, melting down a billion-dollar reactor and blowing up thelo investment was a consequential event that was a trigger so you saw a lot of emotion. this was no different. >> i would say the discussion now compared to nuclear energy and full disclosure i may nuclear physicist by training. i think the difference with the climate is two things. 1 is that we have now and

allegedly authoritative set of documents that are in fact the un reports were the u.s. government reports, and they allegedly define 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 the governments proposing actions that will in fact affect people's lives more directly in terms of reliability of energy, costth of energy and even the behavioral patterns. so i think there's a much greater desire to be looking at allegedly authoritative science then it was say five years ago or thereabouts. >> i do want to get to one thing you wrote in your book that i thought you handled extremely

well. it is the language of the debate when people have decided to call up those that argue about the science and deniers. this construct that was created and i was offended when it happened. you wrote eloquently, briefly but right up front but i think it's important that and you've been asked this by others, but it's important that every venue to take on this issue of being labeled a denier when you tried try totalk about the science of climate. >> first of all, let me say were i into micro aggressions, i would be really offended. pretty recently in the sum r of the media, 200 of my extended family died in the camps in world war ii from the nazis. so i would get really mad. but i'm not. this is about science.

we should try to take the emotion out of it. when i wrote the book, i was very careful to quote almost entirely from the official assessment reports of the un and the u.s. government. if somebody takes issue with what is in the book we can have a conversation about who is denying what because some of the people who were criticizing me actually wrote the reports themselves. >> i have to say -- [laughter] like you, what i write in the public space, and this is just the nature of the subject on energy and climate science one tends to use research others have done, because you go to the primary sources then you look at what they said and do your best to accurately reflect what they said and write your own synthesis. that's what research is like.

at this particular debate, the science debate around climate, this is what struck me early on, 20 years ago when i started looking into it is that if you read the literature including the reports, you find as a friend of mine that you know, and i'm paraphrasing it is sayingto the public space to colleagues who follow the camp of debating the science don't keep saying that the science is bunk. the science and scientists are very good. the vast majority of the research is honest, solid, important. to thehe extent he can get angr, he gets borderline angry when people labeled scientists but it's the translation of what's there into public discussion.

some by scientists, not all, and where we get those sources. but there is no answer to the question. but i want to phrase it this way. in the science into publicpo policy, you can't avoid it because it supports science, so it's not like it's bad. it's a difficult. but the process of science and reaching, quote, a consensus is important to understand the difference between the continuum from let's say knowing the earth is round to knowing the temperature of the planet are different parts of the continuum. you undertook this examination based on that simplistic premise. how do you bridge that divide

that you are cherry picking. the consensus is we've got a problem.m. >> you have to distinguish between what the science says. i try to be very careful about that. we can discuss what we might do that let's talk about the science. there is this long game of telephone that starts with the research papers and goes into the assessment reports that are heavily influenced by government and then you get to the media and the politicians. as i wrote the book i tried harder to stick to some of the statements in the report and so circumvent that whole chain of distortion and give the public

some insight into what the science actually says. from the movie the princess bride where he says you keep using that word. i don't think the science says what you think it says. ait lot of people were surprised when i said no human influence is detected in hurricanes or the economic impact of minimal et cetera et cetera. so there are some surprises that the process has buried. if somebody thinks i'm cherry picking, show me the other part of the tree. >> you date yourself like me by joining one of the great movies of all time and the great line when he tells him i don't think that word means what you think it means.

we can go back and look it up. when they were following them, anyway. so you put your finger on something that's important in the public policy space. you went to great pains in your book to use primary sources so you reach a different conclusion of the same primary sources, perfectly reasonable form of deliberation. a. >> i would say i don't reach a different conclusion. i tried to again, these conclusions sometimes don't put the proper context and that conclusion. they don't give a sense of scale and so on and so on. >> correct me on that because the precision of language, which is difficult in some, if you are

lucky and you get three or four minutes of airtime and usually the host wants an impact thing like it's a hoax or biden did this or trumpeted that. you get hammered with that and need to come back with an answer. you can't equivocate. you have tosw reach a conclusion and in three minutes, it's hard. >> science in particular is so complicated and nuanced that it doesn't adapt well at all to soundbites. >> you and i have talked about this after which i can show the audience. if i look at the book that is helpful, again, i will tell those who are listening if you haven't read it, you should

order. it is i would characterize it as a lecturer in the present form where you are carefully explaining what's happened, where we are, what the data means and where they come from. i look at the sea level rise and de- accelerate it. you see this graph and what you don't see is a signal saying there is a trend over the last two centuries. you don't have a straight line this or that. to your point this is the precision. there is a clear trend towards the sea level rising for the last 10,000 years now, 20 almost. we know a lot about the sea level rise because human beings have docs at the sea and measure

it carefully. >> it's one of those measurements that's pretty solid. a lot of other historic measurements are not because you've got to havel thermometer. you look at that and how do you distill that, in the soundbite that you don't see an exploration or signal because it is a noisy phenomenon, which simplistically is for those who say with sea levels accelerating, for how long. it was the last couple few decades. >> it tells us maybe we don't know that much about what these factors are. that would be the conclusion. >> you have to answer that for people in up to date that human influences weresu a quarter of what they are today if you go back to 1950 and maybe even

worse than that so it was pretty much on its own and that makes it hard to understand the recent. the iconic one which is temperature we use to call it global warming. the no nomenclature changed and seemed like a better description that talked about warming only and now they would like to have this quality climate crisis rather thanha climate change so there's a nomenclature problem which is pushing it towards catastrophize thing what's going on and we should get to this because it's in your book.

attaching whether short-term events that are geographically located toy atmospheric planetay events along cycle. they are related but different and it's important for you to explain. we may have experts in the audience but it's important to explain how they are related and how they are different. >> it happens every day. the second thing, it is defined as the long-term average of weather. particularly 30 years or sometimes people talk about 20ag years. if you tell me the last three or four years have been unusually dry that is still pretty much whether. if you tell me the last three decades, then we can start talking about climate. i've got a wonderful graph in the book, not my data, but it's the height of the nile river over about 1,800 years as

measured in cairo. the egyptians were very good at measuring these things for a long time. it's got trends superimposed on the ups and downs and you can be sure that there were some who got really worried that they were not doing the drop when it was going down for a couple of decades but thenn it turns aroud again and that hadun nothing too with human influences because it was gone before the long scale use of fossil fuels. >> that's one of the most delicious graphs in your book because i'm sure you have this experience with graphs and books in the public space. generally speaking they tell you to get it out of your book because it scares them away. why, it is a graph i don't mean an illustration. it yells at you the information a picture is worth a thousand words. it's all true. it's very dramatic and

provocative and that graph speaks volumes to that specific. >> long-term trends. it's interesting you mentioned the graphs and as i started to put the book together, we had a big debate, the editor and i and the publisher and agent and it wound up something like 70 which is quite unusual. as you say they are the way in which we talk about data and you can't talk about it any other way though there was a trend to read the book and say you can perfectly read it without. >> i like how you qualify. it's probably because the arithmetic. i'm just joking.

people that look at stocks. >> i made friends with mine and colleagues in the debate. it's like every other skill. people are good at reading balance sheets to look at and smell a copy. i was amazed when i was working in helping an investment fund and i watched some of the guys they worked with, they would look at the financial pages and they could just tell. i feel the same way. but you are right. you don't have to understand them. you can read the narrative. let's go to climate as they say. let'sar just stipulate those tht think we shouldn't be in a hurry to change any system for the time being because the world at least the western world is

trying hard to change the system. it hasn't changed. you know that i've written about it, you've written, the audience surely knows this it gets about 3% from wind and solar and another roughly 10% from other non-combustion sources and otherwise it's 80 plus%. 84%, 20 years ago. so, here we are spending hundreds of billions of dollars and we've already spent in the last two decades somewhere between one and $2 trillion in europe and the united states on the energy sources where hydrocarbon is still utterly dominant. so you work for bp in the height of the petroleum for whatever reason they have in the public relations side to signal there is a s transition to a post-petroleum world.

we talk about energy and nukes but let me ask you this question and i get it all the time. so you are a scientist, an expert. you've got to put a marker down. it is based on what you know about the physics of that energy and economics and the inertia systems, advise everything. 2035 is the world still using a lot of oil i don't mean a sippy cup worth but is it still the dominant source? >> energy systems are recalcitrant. they change slowly and there are very good reasons why they change. 2 of the most important are they need to be reliable and you don't make changes that's going to deliver electricity with that reliability or fuel supply that needs t to be there every day. second is that there are large

capital investments and involved. you put down a power plant or gas plant and expect it to last many decades and so it's still there and running so it takes a long time. what's being proposed now is to force the system to do something unnatural. i like to say we change the system by orthodontia, not tooth extraction. to make the kind of radical changes that are being composed, i think we could be heading for trouble both domestically and the economy but also in our geopolitical posture. >> i couldn't agree more. for me, i've taken position publicly. it's not a tough one to take. we are going to build more that's locked into the system. a lot of that is good and normal

because they are better than they ever were. we need lots of wind energy but it doesn't creategh new physics were machines easily. the geopolitical heart when you were in the department of energy i learned this when i was much younger. i must have been in diapers when i was in the administration. the geopolitics of energy mattered enormously because the war has been fought for millennium over energy. for the hydrocarbon cousin given who produces the oil and you sat in meetings i'm sure.

they are two big players the number two and three players back to number one and two if we shrink. the rest of theye world imports oil if we are exporting primarily russia and saudi arabia it's a formula for serious challenges the administration seems to be headed for the domestic oil and gas industry and i would remind people that has 10.5 million and accounts for 8% of the gdp and produces about 12% of the world's oil or something like that. but if we shut that down we will still need oil and other countries are going to need oil and we will be seeing the geopolitical leverage to the

countries that you talked about. russia and the middle east. that seems to be a pretty silly thing to do. again, for what. we amount to 15% and that is declining as the rest of the world uses more and more energy to develop so it is that negligible influence on the climate and i think we would be putting the economy and great turbulence if we don't do this in the book. >> i will add the obvious we are self-sufficient not domestically producing it but reporting it with alternative machines we not only damage 8% but we acquire the importation of a percentage of the gdp at least so it is a 16% it which is astronomically

big to the economy. >> there's another aspect. i don't want to dump too much on the administration because i think they are doing a number of good things. but this notion thatt you are going to create jobs and boost the economy by moving to clean energy remind people that it's a different from where i it gets manufactured and it's different yet in where it gets deployed and 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 isn't obvious that we will leave the benefit. a. >> equipped quintessential example. they were developed here, first deployed here. we import 90% of the solar panels. they are manufactured largely in china. i like to say because as

brilliant as the invention was and it's an incredible, they are not complicated things. the hydraulic fracturing, making a rock yield hydrocarbon, that's hard work and the chinese are net importers in fact i don't think it's an accident they are the biggest exporters of easy to make stuff. >> there's geology and geography working against them also. the geology of fact they haven't built a system also says they are not going to produce gas. >> i was a physicist for a while. i could graduate school as my colleagues know because not because it was too hard. it was hard but because i wanted to work in microprocessors and in those days you didn't get to

build anything in the universities. >> one of my elders once said on a wonderful scientist he said a degree in physics is a license seto poke your nose into anybods business. my family will attest to. before we go to the q-and-a, the nuclear phenomena i like to call on because i then get to include solar energy because the new history of humanity other than the electron layers and then ritinkering with the nucleus so the nuclear fission and nuclear fusion. as i said earlier, i was branded

in the intellectual sense defending nuclear energy for years. i think there is no phenomena as remarkablebl and challenging as making nuclear energy viable. by viable, i mean, low cost and easy to deploy. bi'm encouraged by this new cls of small reactors. i just wonder if you are as encouraged by how interesting the designs are. they seem genuine breakthrough. a. >> when i was in the department of energy i helped to promote getting some loans out to get the modular reactors designed, and now we see at least one of them moving in. they are not a new idea. we have dozens of them out floating around the world and they run just fine. it's not quite the same degree as it is to put one on land but

many of the same principles and when you look at the designs we hope to be able to build them in a factory and they will be much safer. they will be modular so you can use the task flow to build a second one. licensing should be a lot easier so i'm grateful for that. and if the nation really wants to d carbonized its system and run its transportation on electricity as well, it's going to have to have this as an important part. >> to me what is interesting is not that there's no question. it's not like the energy density, the quantity materials you need are essentially irrelevant it's just they disappear with the noise of the material perspective. but to get to the next stage more quickly, so for those who want to have a transition have been faster, there's nothing that would be as effective as

accelerating nuclear energy. so, given the nature of their environment we have you know it full well if and administration were really serious about the energy transition, wouldn't that be the first thing we tackle? >> it should be so but this administration has been a bit shy about talking about nuclear. again it's not telling the whole truth about these things. remember the private sector is involved here as well and the companies who are doing this, if they can to get an initial deployment in the u.s. then they will try to go elsewhere. i'm sure there are many that would be interested in hosting a demonstration. >> if you think about the cycles and of the reactors to your point about the navy reactors, they think they are up to three years or five years between the

feelings -- fueling next to a town and run for five years with no fuel showing up and every five years the trucks show up and go away. what an unimaginable thing. >> as you know between the nava. reactors and civilian have a highly enriched uranium which you do not want floating around in unprotected spaces but yes you don't refuel them very often and that makes them wonderful. >> people worry about the waste. we have ways of handling the waste safely and economically. it's not a technical problem. it's a political perception problem.

>> it's so small and volume and trivial easy to monitor, so we can track single atoms. there's nothing else like it so if you want to track something as you know that's hard to find, you can get something radioactive. >> but we don't do that because of safety issues. radiation stands up and wants to be counted is the way i say it. >> one place we do, very small trivial amounts. >> i have a good friend who's a physicist and he was asked by his advisor, this would be probably 75, how many fusion reactors he thought would be in the world in 20 years or 30

years say by the year 2000 and his answer was a couple. his answer was we still don't have a couple. i think it is fascinating physics. where is your head on visibility to i guess what you would call the shipping port reactor, the clause i commercial reactors. >> let's step back and ask them what's going on actually. so, the world is focused on the south of france. i think they expect to see the first fusing plasma and about 15 years if i'm not mistaken. from there you've got to do a demonstration plant and then it starts to get more commercial. i'm an interesting observer and

a fan about the new commercial efforts and full disclosure, i sit on the science board of a small commercial firm in a different way and i've been watching them for more than a decade as an advisor. they are making good progress if things turn out for both of them, we could see within six or seven years something that's got a positive greater than one which means you get more energy out than you put in and from there it's probably not so difficult. so i think for 15 years at the earliest on some scale, probably more realistically 20 to 25 years. but i keep asking why do we need this. it's got to not just work but work better than the alternatives. better than the fusion wind and solar, storage and so on.

i think it's fine we try to develop it and it's wonderful the commercialization is going to be an issue. >> if i were given the time you described in say 12 to 15 years, you add after that to get to the commercial then you start scaling another ten to 20 years so half a century before you begin to start scaling which is typical of the big systems. the first question is coming from the audience. we've touched on some of them but it's a very specific question about what could specifically be done to accelerate the next generation of reactors? what things, pretend this administration asks you that question and they get to that, what could they do different?

>> i think there are some lessons to be learned from the commercialization of the first administration of reactors where the government first of all had the military needed to build reactors from nuclear weapons and compelling submarines and then in some ways the commercial effort e was an option of that t promoted the technology and released liability from the reactor operators and in general it stimulated regulation and financial to get the industry off the ground. >> whether you could do that today i think that it would be difficult to do that in the present political climate. it's always been a big debate about the proper relationship between the private sector and

the government deploying the new technologies. there's this wonderful wine and one of the federalist papers i think it was madison who wrote it and asked the question what businessman would stake his business on the regulation because it is fickle and can change every four years. so it's got to get down to the tax i think using the regulation, the nrc is currently in a hurdle to get over but we can make that lower by educating better and learning some financial land confessions in order to get the next couple.

for towns, cities, military bases, the potential buyer that can stimulate a market is that it stops the defense department by cutting hundreds and running the way they run contests for new aircraft. the two or three. >> i met with a wonderful guy who said i want to make a brooklyn the clean energy capital of the u.s. and i suggested how aboutbo we put the modular reactor and things got very quiet after.

>> new york city is a classic example of the kind of geography that where that makes sense because we will call it the profile both from nature and bad actors getting energy to a city like new york means that geography is not your friend. but here's the question we are getting close to wrapping up. i have a question that brings us back to where we started and i will tell you you can choose how to answer and i have opinions. to say i was trained in physics and not a psychology but a you get asked this question all the time.. when you hear what you said and read your book, it begs the

question of is it because the other analysis are subpar, they are not genuinely good analysis, does it stipulate that they are concerned or are there some personal agendas animating the system. i'm sure you get asked that all the time my first answer of course is the one you gave. i'm not trying to get inside people's heads but you can see that there's a confluence of interest among the various players. for thehe scientists they genuinely do feel that the earth is in peril and they want to

help but they are academic prestige and so on and he's got a line i quote in the book and don't get it exactly right but it's the purpose of practical politics to keep the public alarmed by the mostly so they will be led to safety. it's anyone of a number of other things and that's also something that's motivating people.e >> efficiencies and what we will call the pipeline of bringing scientists into the work and the public public debate.

let's say characteristics of the system that lead to the debate where it's become often hated, emotional ad hominem's. not that its new human history but it seems to really ignite that. the question is is that a deficiency i would ask for is that the nature of the system or is it now compared to what it used to be say when your son went to school? >> people in physics have a different degree of curiosity and skepticism than a people that go into some other field. but i've not interacted with students k-12 level, but i do teach a graduate class in energy and a graduate class and climate to mostly engineers and mbas ultimately.

it's such a joy for me. we are doing business and i'm'm going to show you the science and the reports and the department of energy and to see the eyes open up for these students most of whom have had no exposure at all to the claimant or the energy system. so, part of our book is to just kind of educate t and inform people not to persuade them, but these are the facts and they are what you find in the government. >> i've had the same experience. what you get as you know is one of two reactions. 1 is often just amazement. to read the source most people

can do that so he ends up their lives are busy were they are doing something else. so it's a certain amount of faith which is the nature of all teaching but i will tell you i get this question a lot and i have are particularly seven years as you wrote "the wall street journal" piece. if what you say is true and i accept what you are saying is probablyru true if seems reasonable. what's going on. that's the whiskey tango foxtrot, the trillion dollars that at one point maybe this administration is proposing to spend to address climate change although a lot of it we know is in the typical pork but this is just ignore that.

again it gets back to the political flexibility question but you y can't dodge if you wok in public policy like you did so you're in the public policy sphere and people say why. what gives? >> i shouldn't try to account for the public policy points people make. i've got this somewhat attitude about advising meaning i'm going to inform the decisions that get made involve a host of other factors in which i'm not particularly expert of intergenerational equity development versus environment and so on. i don't know about that, and that's the political debate we should be having. if the country decides to go one way or the world decides to go oneo way or the other, so be it

but at least they made it with a full understanding of what we know and what we don't know about the changing climate and right now they are not getting back the complete story and the book is an attempt to do that. >> you put your finger on the right answer when it comes to the science advise affect having worked in the office of the science advisory years ago but it's clear to me the politics matter. what has one's political policy opinions, but you want the decisions to be made the best they can upon the best information you have. so, let's come back to this question because it's a big question now. it's been elevated by the debates around this as one of my grandsons call it. >> it doesn't matter whether it's the climate or covid-19.

you remember the earliest nuclear weapon debate. we don't have an office of technology [inaudible] it's important in my opinion but that's a political office. to your point, they take place in congress. that's where they belong. congress it doesn't have an advisory body anymore. there are reasons they suffered but without going into that, i'm curious about your view of resurrecting something like an ota or in the few minutes we have left, this debate certainly touches on the importance of it.

how do you do that? ii would say there's another set of players in the advising world that can do something like the ota and that's the national academies research council that these days we just talked about and they've run a host of studies for government agencies and by and large i think they to be very good job. i was part of the organization as you may know. i've shared a couple of studies on fusion. i think on climate we need a refresh of the players in the academy. it's the same gang so you kind of get locked in and fresh eyes would be wonderful on the climate side. then there are the think tanks mostly for the defense department and the institute for the defense analyses which i

have some association with ran a cna and so on. these are sources of real analytical advice, and we do provide input through the legislature but ota would be good to have an organic set of analysts in the congress that could be turned to for short turnaround advice. ..

. >> and then actually the way you describe. >> so that is pretty slow.

>> there trying to get better. and then turns around to study in about a year. and then the policy was provided technical to the decision i into being significant and pretty quickly done with that piece of work. >> but that has a caused by inflation standards.

i am getting a wrap up signal you have been very generous with your time. i know you are crazy busy on the book circuit. you are kind to do this. and as an excellent writer and clear explanations i cannot more highly recommend it. >> that would be my pleasure. and then to pay homage to my masters. for those of you don't know muchbo about it go to the website lots of reports and great scholars in many other areas it is nonprofit it is a think tank for supporters if

you are potential supporter take a look i'm sure they could use your help i would appreciate it because they support me. thank you all for watching and listening and thank you to may friend the brave scientist, steve. manage cyberprivacy and privacy reforms. here i