underlines democracy. opinion editor arguing journalism on the blue-collar industry has become a profession for elites out of touch with mainstream america. 10:00 p.m. eastern "afterwards", the book american-made, what happened to people when work disappears. companies moving overseas for working-class americans interviewed by executive editor of the economic hardship projects. watch book tv every sunday on c-span2. find a full schedule on your program guide or watch online anytime booktv.org. ♪♪ ♪♪ >> c-span on the go, watch the days biggest political event live or on-demand anytime anywhere on our new mobile video app c-span now. access top highlights, listen to

c-span radio and discover new podcasts offer free. c-span now today. ♪♪ >> welcome to the latest in the manhattan institutions streaming events. today i got the pleasure of hosting the event with steve kunin. stephen is a scientist, a famous scientist, for some infamous scientist. formerly head of the research portfolio secretary of energy, under president obama, prior to that a chief scientist and for those of you who may remember, that used to mean there's petroleum, and found petroleum and then it went back to bp. we'll be talking about that and prior to that, heio was a professor at caltech, i'll

confess i'm jealous because that's my first choice where wanted to go to school, i went to queens in canada, some of you know, i like to think of it as a good school but caltech is the mothership so in short, steve was a scientist, we're going to talk about his book. if you are joining us, you know why where talking about this, what climate scientists tell us, why it matters. steve was on the circuit, i know what that's like, it can be fun, it can be annoying but it's a lot of work. you help people will read it. we want to talk about the book, besides of the planet's climate, we are going to talk about them nature of debate, not just this debate but this issue of science

in the public space and about the idea of changing civilizations energy and how we get energy, we need energy to survive, no energy, no life. full disclosure, i reviewedwe facebook, i've gotten to know him, i like him. i reviewed the book for the "wall street journal" favorably, it caused a bit of a flap which if you haven't followed, you can go to the website and see the cancellation which was good, i guess you could say publicity helps people focus on why the book was written and as a preamble, i should say some history, humanity has known the atmosphere for about 400 years, so scientists figure this out a while ago, co2 and carbon

dioxide was discovered about 250 years ago, i think the scott sympathetic, they invented everything. electricity, you name it. they did a lot. almost exactly, the idea of greenhouse, the very words were created, i'd by mathematician which is kind of fun. he transforms, he's been in math ordy science, is a mathematician and he figured out the earth is warmer than otherwise would be but if it didn't function like a greenhouse, if it didn't, there would be no life on earth so humans have been interested in climate science for a long time they've also been interested in the letter, a related, we will talk about a different for manama, we care about the weather, the effects are wise, nature has been trying to cure humans with the weather forever.

so understanding climate and weather matters because it's consequential, it matters because it's interesting so my bias, i'm interested in books like steve has written so let's start with the title, if you're on the circuit, typically you will find people have nothing better to ask you why you title the book you title bit. i have a specific reason, enough about me, why the title and why did you write the book? >> it's a pleasure to be talking with you, it's a great conversation. it refers to the science itself, important things about human

influences but we don't understand, it refers to the state of mind when i find out it's not as solid as i previously believed. he wrote about two things that struck me, you write when that happened and how it happened, that's important to understand, the epiphany that it wasn't as settled as you thought occurred because you are looking into the science, not because somebody -- mean somebody paid you to do that, you are the secretary of energy but you are in the world we live in when it comes to climate issues, they didn't paid you to disassemble the narrative we have now --

>> i have a storyry about that. about 2005 up until i left the government in 2012, i was working to develop and demonstrate emissions like technologies of various kinds, we can talk about. in. [two bells tolling] , american physical society, the professional society that represents 50000 physicists to do a refresh on the statement on climate change. in 2007, i issued a statement to great controversy among the membershipo because incontrovertible and you are a physicist, you know that's a red flag so in 2015, i took a look again at the statement and i thought many professional societies, climate statements, i

thought we are physicists, we should have a deeper look at this so my panel which was five physicists who were not climate experts sat and sent to three consensus scientists all of them might be authors and three credentials skeptical scientists, we would talk for a day or so. i came away with a sense gosh, we don't understand, some of it very important things we didn't know. i was also t surprised how i had not heard about those from the time i had been studying the matter. it's revelation about the substance but also how clearly it had been communicated to the public. >> it's funny, your epiphany was similar to mine some years

earlier on a w different subject with nuclear energy which we will come back to, i haven't just spent the week of the accident when i first came to the united states, i documented immigrant from canada and i am american citizen now, i am proud to be. despite the trip relations, i am so proud to be here. [laughter] although challenging these days. but anyway, i was in the debate around nuclear energy around 79 because of the accident and there is commission hearings that looked at issues for nuclear energy and the safety issues, the commission was a mathematician again, he did a spectacular job at what you described, the accusation, we

should abandon it, government set up the commission toom exame science and engineering around what we know, what's uncertain, how dangerous they can be end anyway. great experience but what i learned is this profound difference between what people thought they knew in the public space and policymakers outside what they thought they knew and what they debated, a big chasm. the people across the chasme are minorities, then i can tell you, i tried to get the scientists in your community because i wasn't in it then, to join me in the debate about the safety of nuclear energy, we have scientists to name names and other places like that, they must last pennsylvania and all of these things are going to happen.

scientists didn't want to join me, i was very fortunate, they don't want to join in for a variety of reasons and then on that subject, now it's on steroids so you learned there's something to debate, there is a bit of a blowback, i think five years ago now, 2014. >> seven years ago. [laughter] >> so were you surprised? i guess i wasn't surprised the blowback i felt because i'dec bn in the middle of an accident but there's a trigger event t that caused hyperbolic media coverage, a billion-dollar elreactor, melting down a billion-dollar reactor and the investment the consequential event that triggers, you saw out of emotion, this was a little

different. >> i would say compared to nuclear energy and a nuclear physicist, i think the difference is two things. one is that we have authoritative set of documents that are the u.s. government reports and they eventually sign it. the second thing we have is has been building for quite a while but i think it's getting more serious as you see governments proposal actions that affect people's lives more directly in terms of reliability, quests of energy andos even behavioral patterns so i think there is a

much greater desire now to be looking at allegedly authoritative sites than say five years ago. >> i do want to get to the one thing you wrote in the book that i thought you handled extremely well, the language of the debate when people have called those who argue about the science, deniers, this construct created which i was offended when it happened, it was created, you wrote out briefly i think it's important you've been asked by others but it's important 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 micro aggressions, i would be

really offended, i've been called a denier pretty recently in media, my extended family died from the nazis so when i hear that i get really mad but is about science, we s should probably take the emotion out of it, when i wroten the book, i ws very careful almost entirely from the official assessment so if somebody takes issue with what's in theom book, we can thn have a conversation about who is looking at what. they actually wrote wrote the reports themselves. [laughter] >> i have to say -- right here, what i writeri in the publi space, this is just the nature of the space, the subject on

energy and climate science, the research others have done, you go to the primary sources and look at what they said and you do your best like what they said, you can't do it perfectly and you write your own and that's what it's like. this particular debate, this is what struck me early on, 20 years ago when i started, if you read the literature, a friend of mine who you knew, and i'm paraphrasing, frequently saying to colleagues who would debate the size, not skeptics, don't keep saying the science is, he's very adamant, for science and scientists are very good, the vast majority of research is

honest, solid, impressive, important. to get angry, he gets borderline angry. it's the translation of what's there into public discussion, some scientists, not all scientists in media but there's no answer to the question but i want to phrase it this way. in science and public policy emerge, you can't avoid it because public policy supports science so it's not like it's a bad fusion, it's a difficult one. the process of science reaching a consensus is important to understand, understand the difference on the continuum of consensus from knowing the earth is round to knowing the temperature of the planet willtu be are very different parts of the continuum. you undertook this examination

based on this premise, how do you bridge that divide? if they decide to say different than you are saying, you are cherry picking, the consensus is we've got a problem, what you say? >> we have to distinguish between what the sign says from what you or anybody thinks we should do about it. i tried to be very careful about that. a we can discuss what we might do but let's just talk about site. there is this game of telephone like to say that starts with research papers goes through assessment reports policymakers in the reports heavily influenced by government and

the media ando politicians, similar opportunities to distort the message. i tried very hard to stick with similar statements in the reports and circumvent the chain of distortion and give the public insight into what the science actually says.s. two quote from the princess bride where she says i don't think the science says what you think it says. a lot of people are surprised when i say detected in economic impact and etc. so the process has, if somebody thinks i am cherry picking, show me. >> you date yourself by enjoying

one of the great movies of all time with a great line the great line when latoya tells them i don't think that word means what you think it means. [laughter] >> well, i can look it up. >> will have to go back and look at the clip.p. [laughter] anyway. you put your finger on something that's important, and the public policy space, you went through great pains in your book to use primary sources to reach a different conclusion in the same primary sources. personally perfectly reasonable -- >> actually, i don't reach a conclusion, the conclusions but sometimes the

context, they don't give a sense of scale and so on. >> you are right, the precisionn and language which is difficult on tv -- >> you get three to four minutes of airtime if you're lucky and the impacts, it's a hoax or obama was wrong or biden did this or trumpeted that, you know that. we need to come back with an answer, you can't equivocate, you have to reach a conclusion and in three minutes, it's hard. >> i would say this in particular was so complicated and nuanced that it does not adopt well at all to soundbites.

>> you and i have talked about this hour i've published my review that i can share with the audience, is a look at your book, i will tell those who are listening if you haven't read it,g you should order and rea it. ... you have this oscillation, you don't have a straight line here or there. and there's actually two-point

again this is the precision, there is a clear trend for the horizon for the last, 10000 years now, almost 20000 years. docs at the sea and measured it carefully. actually one of those measurements that are present on one of the others measurements is not enough interpreters, they didn't have thermometers but anyway, you look at that and he said how do you explain that, but you don't see an acceleration or signal, this amazing phenomenon. and simplistically, for those of said the sea levels accelerating but for how long and arises for the last t couple of you decade is.

and decelerating so, what is a tell you maybe we don't know that much about what these bofactors are. >> and the people who have the debate, for a quarter and dating back to 1950 and maybe even less than that of the sea level isnd heading absent towns pretty much all exponent, and you don't understand of the recent fact. >> the challenge that we have is the iconic one, than to return these to call it global warming and now the climate change is the name now and i won't speculate and why they just say, that it seemed like a better description and then we now, with a bit of luck, which imported that carefully that this what we would like to have

is: a climate crisis or other than climate changes so we have this culture problem which is pushing it towards catastrophize and what is going on. and it's in your book and this is really an important point, attaching the weather, to do in a geographically located to planetary an event whicher alone entered a long cycle and related but they are different and he is important.nt to explain how the >> but as a long term efforts have the weather and typically there are sometimes people that talk about 20 or so if you talk about these few years, they have been unusually .

[inaudible]. but they've last four decades and in the book, there is a graph and the data is the height of the river over about a thousand or 800 years, and is measured in cairo what you see is the egyptians are very carefully measuring these are long time it. all of the ups and downs and you can be sure that there are some who really got during this drought when it was down for a couple of decades that interns around again and has nothing to do with human influences because this was long before then. >> so in your book, for me, i am sure you have this experience with glass and books in the public space and the editors

will tell you to take it out of the book. it is a real graph, i don't mean illustration, information and and pictures are worth a thousand words. so is very dramatic and program in front provocative and it speaks volumes to that specific and again, these long term trends. >> is a started to put the book together, the editor and i am the publisher and the agent, she would put them in or not and i think there were 70 graphs in the book which is usual for that accurate of a book so the graphs are the way in which you talk about the data and data are the language and we can talk about it and when i had was trends,

read the book and say you can read it without looking at the graphs. >> i like how you compare that. [laughter] and you can do the arithmetic. >> the graphs are more complicated. >> this debate about the skill, people who are good reading balance sheets and just look at it and smell it in the book, and another, working in helping that part of it and watch some of the work with, they just look at the financial pages and they just smell it, the numbers they can just help and i felt that while i was trained, but you are right, you explain the graphs and you don't have to understand them, you can read the book as

well. but those who think that they should change every system in the world, that's being lost to debate because the world police the western world strong hard to change the system and has not changed and you know i have written about it and you have written about it and this audience knows this, about 3 percent of its energy from wind and solar another roughly 10 percent from other non- combustion sources and otherwise,e, is 85 percent ankle and gas in a 4820 years ago, so here we are we've already spent a lot of money in the last two decades some of these work unintentionally in europe and united states and-carbonate sources, theyy already dominate

.and whatever reason that they had the public relations society, to signal that there is a long transition of the petroleum andle again, let me ak you about the energy and effusions but let me ask you this question i get all of the time as well pretty soon you're in a scientist expert a new study this stuff predict a different case think to 2035, based on what you know about economics energy in the inertia systems and other things, but by 2035, and a note mean supertankers, is oil still the dominant source of transportation l, energy systems, they move slowly.

>> there very good reasons why the change, the two most supported are reliable and changing assistant this could deliver electricity and reliability or needs to be there everyday and the second is that there are large investments involved. that could last decade is so it ist still there and so it takesa long time. in the u.s., the first system and unnatural and i would like to say changing the system, moabite chief and extraction. [inaudible]. and make this radical changes that are being proposed, through these detailed things, we could be headed for trouble but also in the economy and also politically.

>> i've taken this position kepublicly in some tough want to take and i agree with you, and this non- hydrocarbon energy is locked into the system and a lot of that is normal because the machines are better than they were but accelerating it to the subsidies does not create machines easily. it takes a long time and the part of the energy, one of the things that i know you learned and i know i learned this when i was much younger, was a younger man in the white house i give myself in the obama administration it and in the reagan administration. [inaudible]. and in the politics, geopolitics of energy matters enormously because wars have been fought

over energy. and to this day on the challenges we have today, if the world will have oil let's stick with that not the hydro carbon cousin, given who produces the oil and we've sat in meetings i'm sure sony arabia and another brother were two or three players, and the rest of the three producing primarily russia and saudia arabia and i think that it is not just what i think it is a formula. >> the gas industry here and to a half million people and

accounts for 8 percent of the gdp and it's about 12 percent of the world's oil oret something like that and if we shut that down, will still need that in other countries are going to have the oil and we will will have the geopolitical leverage to the countries that you talked about, russia and the middle east. and there seems to be the thing to doo and i think that if this amounts to 15 percent of the greenhouse emissions. and it takes more and more energy to develop so the influence on the climate i think that given our economy the turbulence if we don't do this in a thoughtful way. >> into at the obvious, self-sufficient hydrocarbons and

so not domestically producing it but importing event, the alternatives machines and not only damage the gdp but they require importation of our gdp f that 15 percent hit which is now astronomically big hit to our economy. >> i would dump too much on the administration, because i think they're doing a number of goodng things that this nation of to creating the jobs and boost thee economy by moving to crude energy, in my benefit, the technologyeo, is been manufactud is different yet in and the way is deployed and if you're saying this as an example, you can see that play out in real time so even if we invent something here, economic benefit.

>> if potential example, electricity admitted here developed air ande supply here and we import 90 percent of the solarel panels made here there manufactured largely largely in china and asia and i would like to say because the invention was great and it's incredible technology, it is easy to make for ourselves is not complicated thanks,hy and it making iraq the hydrocarbons, the chinese are net importers, the biggest importers of oil annual think it's an accident there the biggest exporters of the easy to make stuff. >> geometry and geography are also working against them the geology and they haven't built a gas structure system that they're not going to discuss.

[inaudible]. >> you are a real physicist and i did go to graduate school is my colleagues and it now because it was too hard to come lives are but because i wanted to work in the processors where i was building seven in those days, we can get tot build anything at university. >> and a wonderful scientist, and he said to be in physics is a license to poke your nose and everybody's business night great fun doing that. >> i did that my whole life is my family will attest to. >> let's turn to the physicist favorite energy source, the phenomenology and i like to call it because i get to included solar energy.

and i would think that they would combust. [inaudible]. and they're excited by two protons and electricity and then tinkering it with a nucleus which is that nuclear energy so i think that the nuclear fusion because i said earlier, i was branded, the fear in the intellectual sense in defending nuclear energy for here's and i'm a nuclear boy i think that there is phenomenology is remarkable andno challenging it. and his low cost and easy to deploy but i'm really encouraged by this newew class of smaller actors, and really encouraged how interesting the designs are. >> when i was with the department of energy, may be getting some out to get the first modular reactors designed and moving them to washington.

and the idea, dozens have gone out of aircraft carriers and submarines and i was not quite the same but in about as a putting on landed but many of the same principles when you look at the news it at the designs, we have to be able to build them in factory and there will be much safer and marginal so we can build london permit to build the second one it. it will be easier and if the nation really wants to keep the carbon nice the system, and transportation it and electricity is welcoming and is going to have to have this in the mix no question about it. >> is not there's no question, there is nothing like the

decisions, the materials you need are irrelevant, is just the noise from the geo perspective but to get to the next stage quickly, and for those who want to have a transition move faster, there is nothing to do with the fact of the imagery. so given that ration of the regulatory environment that we have and you know this well, if an administration were really serious about energy transition, when debbie once we tackle. >> this administration is a little bit shy about talking about this and is not part of the whole truth. in the private sector to volunteer as well and the companies, they can't give an initial deployment then it they

will go elsewhere. and i'm sure there are many countries be interested in this administration. >> to think about the cycles, to your point about the small reactors three years or maybe five years and the idea that you could gather reactor be buried and be next to attend and run the counter five years with nothing showing up rated and what a magical thing, this would be the greatest thing we ever had. >> between the naval reactors on. [inaudible]. and unprotected spaces but yes,

that makes them wonderful. and we have ways of handling the waste safely and economically is not a technical problem is that political perception problem is you know, if the waste is solid, and smaller volumes, and typically easy to monitor. we can track single atoms, single atoms coming this is nothing else like this on the package want to attract something that is hard to find, you take it was something radioactive. >> we don't do that because of safety issues by yes, as i like to say it and we would do it if you know. [inaudible]. and very small amount.

>> okay, fusion and i am a good friend who is as his phd infusion and he was asked by an advisor to simply, he's probably 75, how many fusion that he thought my friend, will be in the world 20 years say by the year 2000 and his answer was a couple. [laughter] and he was overly optimistic because we still have a couple. i think it's fascinating physics i am my own opinion and you could use your headd on the visibility to what i'm guess you would call the reactor, cause a commercial reactor. >> sony step back and ask what is going on.

i think they expect to see the first fusion in about 15 years if i'm not mistaken and from there you have a demonstration of plan in their against more commercial i'm interested in this. [inaudible]. i sit on the science order for fusion in america. in a bid on it as an advisor for more than a decade and making progress. and we could seek within six or seven years, something that has got a positive rate and one is the advantage of the outcome and from there, probably also difficult. something from 15 years, the earliest is some skill maybe

progress probably maybe 20 - 25 years. and i keep asking why do we need this, remember it's got a look at better thann the alternative. and i think it's typically found although it is wonderful the commercial shipment commercialization is going to be aan issue. >> if i could get to do things, i think moreay than 15 years and yet to nash 15 years after that, and then you get to a commercial data that is 30 years from now then you start to scale with the time looks like in another ten or 20 years so i have a century out before you begin to start scaling and is typical. his first critical question coming from the audience, a very

specific question about what could specifics to accelerate the next generation of reactors and laughing getting this administration would actually answer you with this. >> i think there's lessons to be learned from the first generation of where the government actually had the military need to build the reactors for weapons and put on submarines and in some ways a commercial effort and that the government had the tent in the technology and reliability from the reactor operators and in general, it's sort of the regulation of financial path to get off the ground.

and whether you could do that today, for the next generation of reactors i think it will be much more difficult to in the present c political climate. and we had the proper relationship between the private sector and government, and still deploying new technologies. i think it was madison eroded who asked the question, what businessman would stick his business on government relation because it was fickle and can change every few years so it is going to have merit and to get that, i think the nfc is currently properly getting over but we can educate them better

and financial land or confessions where we get first couple of monies, that's not a new idea. >> i'm sure you heard this idea before that the small act of course are the natural towns and cities, the potential buyer that could stimulate the market as a buyer from the defense department buying hundreds, the reactors and the contest of the new aircraft. and they have the contract and then they built a bunch. when i first got to new york back to new york, i remember wonderful guy, and read in

office and he said that cool energy capitol of the u.s. and i suggested to them, have a natural reactor. things are very quiet after that but that's exactly what new york city is a classic example of the kind of geography we have access because will call it both nature and bad actors are getting energy to cities like new york meeting geography is not a friend. as a question it were getting close to wrapping up time i think but i have a question that goes back to where we started and something with the question is and you can choose how to answer it and i have opinions on this matter as well. in my answer, i stolen physics

when i answer this question, so when you hear what you said, about climate science and the study of science, read your book and people should we hope you do and you baseeo the question of t because the other analyses are supported just not genuinely good analyses, is because concernedto people or are there some other personal political agendas animating the systems. i did ask and ensure you get that got all the time and it does require a response. >> i'm not trying to get inside of people said so you can see that there is interest among the

various people and the new york, and so the literatures so the scientists i think some of the scientists generally do feel that the earth is - and they want to help. an academic procedure so on it and for the politicians, hunting quote a man who is a journalist in the early part of the 20th century, haney said is a the book, and writes the purpose of technical politics, is a public alarmed by the serious imaginary mostly imaginary things so they would do right for the safety and it is emigration or climate or any one of a number of other things as you can cite them i think that is also something that is never been equal. >> and another question, i think

the deficiencies in call it the educational system in the pipeline. as scientists into morgan public policy file expended by god asking about's efficiencies per se but the characteristics of the system and they too kind of the debate often heated emotion, not the best but the particular debate seems to ignite that the question is, deficiency, and ith would answer that the nature of the system that we have, deficient now compared to what it used toen be i would say, whn you went to school. >> people are going to physics have a different degree of curiosity. then people who don't or they go

to another area but i have not connected with the students on that level but i do teach a graduate class to mbas ultimately buried and is such a joy for me with the technologies and business history of the science and the department of energy and you can see the eyes open up through the students who have no exposure to either the comet with the energy system except they read in the newspapers. so part of a book is just to educate and inform people and show them the facts and - with the government equals pretty.

>> and i, one of two reactions, often in amazement because the research which away encourage people to do, if you're really interested in something, don't read what i wrote about it or what they said, go read the source of most people cannot do that so the end of having to come another not capable they realize that there is something aelse. so the duke placed a certain amount of faith in you which you are being honest which is the nature of all teaching it and i get this question a lot. and you probably have in the last seven years since you brought the last wall street journal page, so if you say is true and i except that, seems to me that what is going on, a foxtrot for the trillion dollars

that, 1.7 trillion now, that this administration is proposing to spendnd it, to address climae change and a lot of we know is a conundrum of what is well let's just ignore that and again he gets back to the political psychology process but you cannot dodge if you actually work in public so in the public policies sphere of people p say well, why, what gives here. >> i can attribute this policy that people make. i stopped at that about the science advising, i'm there to inform the decisions that gibson made involve a host of other factors in which i'm not particularly an expert of and then generational equity and

environment and so on and i dont know about that and it's a political debate that we should be having in the country decides to go one way or the world decides to go one way, okay so be it annalise they have a full understanding of what we know and what we do not know about the changing climate and right now, that complete in the book is an attempt to do that. >> you put your finger on the right answer when it comes to the signs effect is years ago, it would appear to me that the politics matter, one has once political opinions and policy opinions the decisions being made that they can on what the best information you have. so let's come back to this question, it is a big question

now, is been elevated by the debates around when my grandsons calls it the corona pirates and how to disrupt them. so get expert advice, doesn't matter whether it's about climate or covid-19 or environmental factors or about the oldest nuclear debate. so, we don't have a technology assessment a mark andnt the sigs advisories office an important one in my opinion, and that is a political office. but to your point, these policies debates take place in congress, that's where they belong. and congress does not have a advisory party anymore. and the reason they suffered is to say that is severed it without into that, i'm curious

about your view of resurrecting something, if you think that is a good idea and also in a few minutes we have left, because this debate certainly touches on the importance of it, honey you that. what is a framework of it. >> i would say a set that they can do something like that also national research council, which we just spoke about the national academies and there are a host of studies for the government agencies and by and large, i think they dory a very good jobs part of the organization. i chaired a couple of studies on fusion. anything on climate, they need a refresh and academy and it is

the same old thing and so you kind of get out there and have franchise would be wonderful in the climate set and then also the think tanks and mostly for the defense department and the 98 and defense analyses. and so on there are all sources of real advice and they do provide input to the legislature pretty. and it would be nice to have organic that can be turned to for short-term turnaround advice. >> you know that her than i do that the coree area of other kinds of institutions are designed to provide input are extremely important and they

could be raised up a notch with a velocity of the response required is a dimmer feature of policymaking as you know. and science does not like to be rushed but in life you have to rush some things and i like to think that we could call it is high science and technology assessment, that is a different thing and should be obvious but it apparently is not but anyway, that to education could have a budget that would create a new sort of what the pentagon has done where you have an orbit of pellets available when it's think tanks academia or private sector that can be turned on quickly, funded on a minimal basis and a surge capacity we will call it, that model strikes me as if it is packaged, it could be sellable because my

industry is not think it tank but in a practical matter, you can sum it up to actually - >> the academies to function without but they are pretty slow and i agree. [laughter] >> and it will get better but i do remember the group, they provide technical advice in contrast to some of these of the relations and equations and turns around the study in a matter of a year. in these policy ways provided technical input to decisions to abide by a comprehensive test in other languages and you know, very significant and printed and poorly done. >> i think that is a great

example, and i think the congress, that would be terrific and obviously the cost is pretty low cost. then we wrap up, i be getting a signal you been very generous with your time and i know you crazy busy on the big circuit and i really do again, everybody listening, you should read the book and stephen is an excellent writer and has clear explanations and can't more highly recommend it something you for joining me stephen i appreciate it continue. >> it would be my pleasure to continue and i got the call, and pay homage to my masters at the institute my commanders great institution for those of you who don't know much about it, if you

are watching by a copy of the book, go to the website i think all of the newsletters are all for you know they are and obviously the nonprofit to try andif you're a supporter, take a look. i would appreciate your help and thank you all for watching and listening and i think my new friend, the scientist steve kunin. >> it is 1787, from may through september james madison given 167 speeches and made 72 motions and served on four committees at the constitutional convention in philadelphia in the preface of his new biography, he writes,

most importantly medicine bothered the virginia plan in a bold call for a total redesign at the national government is that the agenda for the convention and established the foundation upon which the constitution would be built in the time james madison was six years old and jay said that madison was america's first politician. >> books and book notes plus is available on c-span now after wherever you get your podcast. >> connecting events, we believe providing equal opportunities >> students across the country will have a look at the work on their countries using the # student cam and you can enter

the c-span competition created five - six minute documentary c-span student cam in one federal government impact your life. >> express your views no matter how large or small you think the audience is and i know that in this greatest country in the history. >> remember the content is king and just remembered to be as neutral as possible in your portrayal of both sides on an issue. >> $1000 in total cash prizes and have a shot of the $5000 grand prize entries received before genuine 20th, 2022, competition rules tutorials, or how to get started, visit our website at student cam .g.