when we started planning this energy and climate summit many months ago. we had no idea just how timely it would turn out to be in mid-march of 2022. >> we had no idea how timely this word turn out to be march 2022 we are seeing firsthand why energy independence is critical toer national security elon musk tweeted a few days ago we need to increase the oil and gas output immediately. across the nation occluding

here in northwest colorado we see critical decisions being made on sources. of energy. these decisions will determine whether the lights will come on when we flip a switch and if we do how much it will cost you to keep them on. there are many conferences across the globe that discuss climate change, global climatic words and global warming. none of these include a discussion of the impact on individual freedom, prosperity and standardd of living. we aim to change that with the program today. the goal is the better understanding of energy policy in climate science and this will lead to more realistic solutions addressing these issues without bankrupting families and lowering the standard of living.ue

we had an incredibly difficult time trying to find anyone willing to debate alex epstein. question was should america rapidly eliminate fossil fuel use to eliminate climate catastrophe? and especially notable response from a pulitzer prize-winning author declined our invitation is that there is no room for debate on these issues. we could not disagree more. real and robust debate is urgently needed to make sure the impact on freedom and prosperity are included in any discussion of energy policy and climate change. institute is proud to offer today's program as a substantial contribution to the national discourse on these critical issues. as a 501(c)3 nonprofit educational organization steam

institute relies on the support of individuals and foundations to carry out our mission of promoting america's first critical fire in activity and involvement in the defense of liberty. i would like to thank our many sponsors including our titleen sponsor liberty energy. [applause] like to recognize and think our major foundation sponsor, charitable yn foundation and their executive director traveling only from southern californiaio.pr we have many other generous sponsors and a encourage you to take a moment to read their names for the generous funding of the programs. finally think it institute and

board of directors and energy climate summit planning committee to plan today's program which was invaluable. you can find all of the names in the program and i like to ask all the board members and the planning committee to please stand so we can thank you. and now it's an honor to introduce our first speaker to kick off our program a national respected leader of science policy, served as undersecretary for science and the us department of energyy under president obama where he was the lead author of the strategic plan with more than 200 peer-reviewed papers energy technology and policy and climate science a professor of theoretical

physics at caltech and also served as the vice president and provost for almost a decade currently a professorvi at new york university and in review of the book unsettled, professor of global energy at the harvard school is essential reading and fresh air for climate policy. the science of climate is neither settled nor sufficient to dictate policy. rather than an existentialal crisis we face the record one —- a wicked problem with cost and benefits following his remarks with radio and podcast coast on the jackie daily show they will select your questions so be sure to submit your questions using the qr

code is give a warm welcome. [applause] ♪♪ ♪♪ what a great choice of music. [laughter] it's great to speak the truth of climate over the last couple of years the children from my title and settling climate. it is the triple entendre.ou and that you will feel as i

did that is contrary to what you hear in the popular and political dialogue and finally i would say that what we do about the situation remains quite unsettled than the subject of great debate. climate and energy are at the forefront of the discussion today with changes in the globe's average surface temperature and you can see it starting about 1900 going one.1 degrees celsius. at the same time on and see the climate growing largely through the accumulation of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.

it started now it is currently 420 parts per million we know the increase is due to largely ofe. burning of fossil fuels producing energy the world needs be could also see the relationship is not so simpleua because from 1940 to 1970 the temperature went down at andry human influences grew so it's a little more complex but we would like to know is how changes in the climate in the future influence the ecosystem and humane society and of course the g bottom line is what are we going to do about it? answering that last question means we have to strike a balance on the one side we have the science of the uncertainty and the hazards

and the risk as the climate changes and on the other side we have a growing demand for energy reliable and affordable with greenhouse gas emissions and then in the middle we have a set of considerations of values and priorities society's tolerance for risk and equity and if we think about the difference in the demand on the right side over the next 30 minutes in so you

got a sense of how the political sphere or what the nonexperts think about the science to sign an executive order to follow the and then to be in anybody's mind the science is absolutely certaingh then i would like to those who use the phrase existential threat in climate crisis and climate emergency to carry the ascenders major figure in international finance and bill gates but the last two should

know better but the most recent un report was released in august despite the fact you can only find the words climate crisis but it is ath description and then the current secretary of defens' with the existential threat it was almost one year ago now has been - - a bit of a sense but the existential threat is. where does the science comesc from? it gets assessed by the un in a series of reports roughly

once every seven years the last 12 and 2013 and they just issued the next such report on the science and on the impact. it was issued august 9 and the other was issued a month ago so then you have the us government issuing reports once every four years the last one came out in 2017 and 2018. these reports are meant to survey andsc assess and summarize the science as it appears in the literature for nine exports and decision-makers placed an important and surprising things when you read them, as i have however most of the people have not read those

reports. i guarantee you that otherwise they would not say the things that they are saying. at least if they are honest. i am often reminded of the scene from the princess bride and he keeps using the word inconceivable even at some point he gets so annoyed with them and says i do not think it means what you think it means and that is on the basis of the report that the climate is not broken and that if we do not face certain disaster unless we take rapid and sweeping action. very little justification for that and in the end it is a

balancing act and then the science which is good legitimate science as any other is turned into the certain science and it is a long game of telephone from the observational data and the primary research literature goes into the assessment reports and un and us government and for policymakers of those assessment reports which are often not in agreement with what is actually in the report itself because they are not written by scientists. and it goes on to the media then out to the public and the decision-makers. people confuse with climate and then they term implausible

scenarios for future emissions and then when i started to watch this closely i decided to write a book, unsettled which tries to get around and give people a sense of what the reports actually say. and with one of the best introductions i've had over the last year i did not know who william tyndale was i am not a historian but i discovered he was a guy in the early 16th century who was the first to translate the bible from the original greek and hebrew into english and was the forerunner of the king james version. needless to say he annoyed a lot of people and he did that.

he was burned at the stake for that among other things. i have been called a denier which is not quite as bad but we will see what happens. [laughter] let me show you that there's very little happening with hurricanes almost the pastr century. this is a graph of the number of hurricanes and tropical storms since 1970, 50 years and you can see it goes up and down but it is certainly not increasing. another measure of hurricane activity which counts the stronger storms more heavily and you can see there are ups and downs in the northern hemisphere but again no long-term framing over 50 years and the fact the literature says that even in

the assessment report say that the us government report in 2018 says the confidence of any reported trend is robust there is a landmark paper that gave their individual opinions anonymously and in 2019 what they said is most has confidence and that is what could be detected for human influence. and in the most recent report to say there is no confidence and it is a little that of a footnote in there.t

and with strengthening of storms of the major storms has increased a bit but it's pretty controversial and i can elaborate on that if anybody has a question.ut and then rising to 20000 years this is a record of sealevel rise and it has gone up by about 400 feet in 20000 years. and it has slowed down but it is still rising but whether or not the sea level is rising but has accelerated since and

the discussion hinges on the one tenth of a millimeter difference per year of how fast it is raising.ga and we have really good data at the southern tip ofe. manhattan which is called the battery countries to be the artillery battery there. as observed 1923 last month namely how fast did the sea go up each year? and average it's looking about 3 millimeters per year. that is 1 foot per century but

it does go up and down and you can see in some years it was less than 2 millimeters but it has to do with long-term currents noaa a couple weeks ago issued a report to say that sealevel rise for the next 30 years was locked in at 1 foot over the next 30 years. it would take the graph up to where the star is in 30 years. who am i to dispute them?

if it does we should be thinking differently than we are now. on the other hand here's a statement from a paper published from collaborators at columbia university certainly within the mainstream that says the use of the models to meet these projections is unwarranted. climate models cannot reproduce future conditions with any nerve accuracy to make it useful. nevertheless, nasa put out these projections with great confidence. we will turn to weather extremes. historic heat waves and the

european floods involve the latest sign of global warming and the private connection behind the downpours around the world, fires and floods and dead fish and extreme weather it may be the best one from the boston globe welcome to the apocalypse it will get worse. so to talk about extremes and a reminder that the climate plays out over decades. to do that i need to talk about denial. not climate denial but the nile river. [laughter] here is a map of cairo at the southern tip of the island the medieval egypt since built a structure with a measure the height of the nile river aftere

the building looks like today i was fortunate and if you go inside the building is the big political chamber with three outlets to the river and the teller in the middle and we can change the qubits into meters and those over the seat one —- the century have compiled a record of the readings at the height of the nileha and it shows the annual minimum the nile reached in any year. this is a pretty good measure of client over africa which is an area about one third of the

continental us think of mississippi scale measure of the claimant you can see the record stops year-by-year the annual minimum. it's really interesting because first of all you canig see there are a lot of ups and downs some years they can be o higher five and half meters in any year or two leader on —- later down to meters and in the second year if you take y the average you get the curve and what is remarkable about that is there is a lot of variation in what you can imagine there is a medieval the egyptian panel and with the new normal for new sacrifices instead of just waiting a couple of decades it would've come back up and

we're still doing this today and it's controlled by level of water and make victoria nassar publishes that says last year there was a press release. >> and just to show you an agreement has been losing i.c.e. faster and faster due to the last 30 years and there is an article from the guardian in december 2019 a wonderful picture of somewhere in the arctic and it has risen0s

from 33 billion tons per year to 254 billion tons per year in the past decade it's pretty scary it's going up possible to publish in "the wall street journal" one month ago the complete wrath of how much i.c.e. greenland uses every year. you can see it's gone up a lot since 1990 but also whatever it is. 1920 or 40 by the same amount and human influences were less than one fifth and then it goes down and it has hardly anything to do with the influences it is just a cyclesat in the atlantic and nevertheless the guardian emphasizes us i got a lot of

grief from "the wall street journal" but it's very disturbing. em>> and record high temperatures that there was a tremendous heat wave this shows the number of record highs in a a number of stations inas the us over the last 100 years both from the 2016 nations in the pacific northwest he saw the same thing happen five years out of the next ten then you can start to talk about it but we are not period want to do one more impact and then get onto

solutions talk about the economic impact and in some ways this is with us government report the best advice when the scientist in the country in the absence of climate change with substantial damages on the us economy that can be hundreds of billions of dollars by the end of the century. and to back that up giving us a wonderfully excellent chart how much damages would we see under high emissions scenario under various sectors of the economy in 2090 essentially versus if we could reduce emissions how much would be safe? this is remarkable for several reasons. one is the numbers are given

it is 155,000,000,070 years from now 155. second is the way we go all the way down to 300 million how can you say that?n and finally they don't give you any baseline so can be five or six or $7 trillion at least and 155,000,000,070 years that is small potatoes nevermind the uncertainty. nevertheless they came out all over themselves climate report of grand economic consequences and with damaged environment and the shrinking economy.

peter with the reported sounds bad this is the last grant r ensure that temperature rises of up to 9 degrees. —- fahrenheit we have about 4 percent damages in 2090. there is a similar graph we put together but if you percent for a few degrees. e-itc c knew that was the case in most economic sectors the impact of climate change will be small relative to the impacts of other drivers in

the demographics and governance and trade et cetera et cetera. this is what site if you get the us economy growing at 2 percent we start here today if there is a 4 percent climate impact namely things get delayed by a couple of years i would love to share a stage with bill gates is thismp what you mean by the climate crisis? the most recent human report coming out a month ago backedt off a little that when we said the aggregate of the impact could be higher than what we said in a previous report but we have full confidence and again we can go into the details but let me talk about

our response. what do we do? there are global greenhouse gas emissions going at a few percent per year. and if we are going to try to stabilize human emissions at a level that some people deemed to be prudent we have to go to zero emissions go down by 2050 and they say this will avoid the worst effects of climate change which is a meaningless statement and then to map out the various pathways of what it would take to do that versus the trajectory we are currently on the us has

convened a series of conferences in the most recent happened in nebraska in my take away from that is that the fundamentals of thes situation which have long been evident for anyone who has bothered to study it, maybe 15 years ago it becomes apparent to everybody in the way i would summarize the situation there is widely coyote and so what is interesting is the look in his eyes. he suddenly realized there are fundamentals in the situation that will show a really bad outcome and that is what is

happening here and i will tell you about these fundamentals. starting with the demographics. it is destiny, right with the historic and projected populations of the globe starting 1950 through 2050 and currently 8 billion people putting those projections at 9 billion people by the middle of the century. and as you can see most of that growth has happened in asia but that's what really opens up in the rest of the world is pretty static so those are demographics in the second is development this is a complicated chart that shows the energy use per capita against gdp per capita for a

number of different countries year-by-year through 2017 and there was a lot to learn by studying the chart in detail one is that rich people use more energy and then europe over here and it is relatively constant and only one.5 billion people over here. and the 6 billion people down here whose energy use is going to increase as they improve their lot. we can put these things together population and

development and also realize that fossil fuels have remained through the world's energy about 80 percent from coal and oil anddo gas, wind and solar fossil fuels are the most reliable way to get energy and you put that together with the world'she energy consumption will grow by t 15 percent. will grow by 1. 'r policies. the great . . . . the basic outlines of the situation arewh pretty self-evident. let's look at they developed a world where we are all living.

as i said one half million peoplend energy is crucial and t is ubiquitous. it is everywhere it is what makes society go. it is also provided by complex assistance whether it is the grid, or the fuel supply chain for oil. these systems have to be highly reliable. they are made highly reliable by having proven hardware and proven operating procedures. in factys energy systems change slowly for exactly that reason for this shows u.s. energy supply you can see cole got added to by oil, got added to buy gas. wood is a little down at the bottom. recently you've seen an uptick in renewables. the reason energy systems change slowly is again it's big capitol

expense, long lifetime things have to workth together. you cannot change because unless you also change the fuel in the way in which you deliver the fuel. lots of pieces have to change. people say what about efficiency? there is a phenomenon called rebound which is if i make something more efficient people will use more of it. there is some debate about how important that is. but it does in fact weaken the impact of efficiency. finally, it changes going to be disruptive. want to see changes in economics, employment, geopolitics and large and rapid changes will be very disruptive. i would like to say you need to change energy systems by orthodontic not tooth extraction. we all study change. the biden administration plans and goals to reduce emissionsal

real quick by 2030 so it seven years -- eight years from now by 50% relative to 2005 and to go net zero by 2050. to see out emissions from the power sector 13 years from now. they have been coming down largely because gas has been substitutingng for coal there'sa rise in wind and less extent solar. we are going to eliminate gasoline and diesel from the light-duty vehicle fleets. you won't be able to buy if the policies come to pass, and gasoline or diesel while by 2035. i was at a conference ending yesterday i saw the ceo of ford say we are not going to stop

producing them necessarily the gasoline engines, we established a separate division to do those as opposed to electrification. there into this big time. there are restrictions on new oil and gas production despite what the secretary has said recently. many people in the room probably know how difficult it is to get a permit and get production underway. or to secure financing. the most dangerous think they have been doing is to drive climate risk into all aspects of the financial situation. but there's 1800 fossil fuel if you want to make them all disappear by 2035 you need to make 11 of them per month disappear slits watch that does it really comes to pass. 280 million gasoline and diesel

powered vehicles in the country. they all have to go away. so concerns, assets, unreliability of the grid and we are going to become less energy secure because we are discouraging domestic oil and sdgas production. so the secretary of energy was talking on wednesday i heard her speak. and forr the first time she recaps the oil and gas companies and said we need you to get to produce more. that message is not gotten through to other parts of the government. there is constant jawboning of oil and gas and coal production. the administration's got to decide what it really wants and it's having a hard time doing that. cooks so, i think there's going

to be a backlash as they start to bite on ordinary consumers. and particularly as people realize the u.s. is only 13% global admissions they're going to be asking, tell me again why we are doing all of this? if the u.s. wants to go to zero omissions tomorrow, it will be wiped out by decades worth of growth in the developing world. it's not a solution to the problem. a not talk about this i think robert will probably talk about this. we do not have a way today to produce a grid that is simultaneously clean and low emissions affordable and not much more extreme effectively and morea reliable. a lot of wind and solar that's cheap generating capacity. it's highly unreliable. if you want to make the grid

reliable, the most expensive thing you are paying for his reliability. you want it to beat 90% reliable. at 99% reliable. 99.9% reliable. each extra bit of reliability cost more and more. by the way we are about at 99.9% today. okay, talk about the developing world a little bit and then we will wrap up. i showed you with emissions from the rest of the world are growing fossil fuels are the most convenient and reliable. not necessarily the cheapest. but in fact are the most convenient and reliable way for people to meet that demand. countries like china and india have a compelling near-term self interest in getting the energy they need. they are dealing with the wolf at the door as opposed to having to worry about their cholesterol and something that might happen several decades from now.

and who can blame them? to deny countries the energy they need or not pay them to reduce their emissions using a more advanced forms of energy that will cost more. i think it be very interesting there will be a debate after i leave the podium. it will be very interesting to explore the morality of how you simultaneously satisfy energy demand and reduce emissions? when i look at all this adaptation is going to be the dominant response. doesn't matter if the climate is changing for human or natural reasons. it is proportional. you do more if the climate change as more and you do less if the climate changes less. it is a local we would build seawalls should we say or shifts the kind of crops that we are

growing. and so it is politically palatable as opposed to spending something half a world away and maybe a generation away. and did not receive global consensus. it is a thomas, it happens own parts with the defining characteristics is its adaptability and its effective. consider the globe warmed by 1.. and during that time we have seen the greatest improvement in human welfare ever. we went from 2 billion people in 1900, to just about eight now, four times. and at the same time see enormous improvements in the quality of life, nutrition, health, education and so on. to believe another 1.1, 1.4 degrees through the end of the century on average is going to significantly derail that.

and adaptation is much easier if you are rich or it also helps if you know what you are going to adapt too. and beyond general phrases like the globe is going to warm it's going to warm a little bit more in the arctic or sea level is going to rise it is kind of big as i showed you. let me wrap up with bite next to last slide. we must not group arise what do i mean? jonathan gruber who is still a professor at mit, an economist's of the principal architects of the affordable care act, obamacare. and whatever you might think about obamacare, here's something he said after the act was passed and he is out of the government. the lack of transparency is a huge political advantage. it was really, really critical

to getting the affordable care act passed. at least one key provision was a basic exploitation the lack of economic understanding of the american voter. for an educator and an expert to say that, it is so wrong.va if we misrepresent these science or potential of various energy technologies, we do great damage will be try to persuade people rather than inform them. we take away their right to make informed decision. this is a values discussion in the end. it distracts from more urgent needst and certainly the last couple of years we've seen a couple more urgent needs than something that is going to happen 30 or 50 years from now. we tarnish the reputation of science as it makes input into other matters, like pandemics.

and maybe most depressingly we have depressed young people, we scared the bgc's out of them. that is just so wrong. that is one of the reasons i wrote the book. write last slide what i think we should do going forward? we should cancel the crisis there's no justification for saying we have a crisis. but up the same time we should acknowledge the task and the challenge of trying to reduce human influences. we need to better represent the science andy energy. are so important and so deficient among the general public.ed i would also advocate as i have in the past a review of the reports to make sure they don't have the errors and misleading sections that are in the current reports. i we've got to keep watching the climate if nothing else this is a data driven science pretty

really need to know what it's doing what we need to do it continuously and with hype precision. i put a focus on adaptation we don't have a good framework for a good estimate or cost. on the developing countries who need to promote their development and resilience. he need to execute nationalo strategies. you need to be able to be wealthy enough to do the adaptation. i am all in favor of developing emissions like technologies my favorites a small modularity reactors. large-scale storage, batteries, noncarbon chemical fuels but none of them are really ready for prime time. particularly if your criteria as it should not cost much more than the current way we have of doing business. then i think maybe most importantly i would formulate a graceful decarbonization pathway.

has taught me this optimal pace for decarbonization that bounces disruption against doing it too rapidly against the growing risk of something bad happening. we need to find out what that is and put together a plan that incorporates technology, business, economics, regulation, behavior. and then implement as necessary but we see the climate doing. i will close with the thought that precipitous climate action is a far greater danger to the nations and then globes well-being than anything in climate change. thanks for your attention on i'll be happy to questions or comments. [applause] [applause]

>> welcome to this stage jackie is host of the podcast the jackie daily show pretty to listen to this produce all things energy find it wherever you find podcast. welcome jackie. submit your questions using the code that was text to you. and here in colorado. i have a lot of questions. we will take them one by one. so the first, how did you land a job in the obama administration given your independent views on climate change? >> to one's views evolve as one learns more for the science and the technology evolves. i joined bp in 2004 to help them figure out what the petroleum was. they did not need me too help fund oil and gas they were already good at doing it.

i educated myself about energy and energy technologies with the goal of helping to develop low emission technology. i was not very focused on the at the time. i did more or less the same thing but in 2013 early 2014 at a hard look at the science at the behest of the society. this is not as solid as people think it is. the political dialogue becomes more and more hyperbolic. after 2014 got to speak out in a more significant way than writing op-ed columns. >> this is a question i am giving to you, not mine. you come from the political left

which is the catastrophic narrative. on the right many still believe it's a chinese hoax. youli see any prospects of the realistic viewpoint gaining traction in the political realm? >> first about respect to my own political affiliations, i have never registered as a member of any party. i have always been independent. i did of course serve in the obama administration. my view of what scientists should be doing in the political realm is provide advice, analysis options but not make the decisions. and i've tried to do that when i was in the i private sector andn the government. i think it's best if we try to stay apolitical as does the military and the judiciary. many of my colleagues don't subscribe to that unfortunately.

when you get politician industry leaders very different kind of conversation that's all i'll say. >> he mentioned how soon do you see that coming on? >> the whole climate agenda has now taken a backseat given what has happened in ukraine. what has happened with the energy system. in the energy supply is think were going to start to see it already in the midtermt

elections. certainly the 2024 elections. >> okay. what do most climate models assume about feedback? how likely if those are w assumptions are correct of what does it mean for forecasting if they are wrong? can you first define it? >> okay. cloud feedback happens in different ways. it is the way in which clouds change in response to a warming globe which then affects the warming itself.oe let me give you a simple example. if the temperature of the atmosphere goes up it can hold a little more water. you would think that might make for more clouds. clouds help reflect sunlight that would be in negative feedback in the sense the increase clouds would make it a little bit cooler than it would have been otherwise. the have an opposite effect if the balance it's complicated. but the problem with clouds and

the models is the following print the climate models cut the earth, the atmosphere and ocean into boxes. the boxes are typically 60 miles on a side. you only have one number to describe the conditions in each of those millions of boxes. the one number might be the temperature but not the variation of course the box.uc and unfortunately clouds occur on much smaller spatial scales. clouds can be a couple miles across where the box is 60 miles across. so you have to make assumptions about what clouds are doing, the altitude type, amount, depending on the average box people tried to doo the best that they can they use observations these physical principles, but in the end the so-called sub- grid of clouds are one of the biggest uncertainties in the model. different people make different assumptions and because of her

look in such small changes you can get almost any answer you want. but thinker is general knowledge the lack of doing good cloud is one of the big problems in the modelsec. >> why do you recommend carbonization when there's nooga detectable signal and the climate and we know from the available data increasing co2 in the a atmosphere and warmer weather at high latitude will save lives increase in biodiversity and increase well-being. >> those are two different questions. let mest talk about the signal. there are signals may be not the gross climate when the detailsat of the radiation flow the temperature in the upper atmosphere and so on. these are with good physical reason changed by growing amounts ofha co2. that is certainly going too have some effect on the climate.

these are physically small effects. they amount today to about 2 watts per squareve later. the overall flows in the energy system are two or 300 watts per square meter. the human influence today are about a 1% effect. you can say why do i care about 1%?? the problem is the climate is also sensitive to a rise of two or 3 degrees and the surface a temperature is a 1% rise in the temperature. and so it is insensitive. the effects are small and there are many other phenomena that could influence the climate at that level. natural variability in children several cases is one of them. so untangling all of that is a difficult business but yet i think most people would say some fraction of the warming of the last decade. whether it is one 100% as the you and says are closer to 50% is i believe we can again go into some of the details.

it is still up for grabs for the second question is whether the warming is for the bad but depends on where you sit. there's a lovely quote from a guy name anthony downs he was a political scientist a social scientist working in the 1970s. he worked up bookings he was on the left of her he wrote a wonderful paper called up and down with ecology working mostly are talking mostly about local pollution from smog he was worried about the growing number of vehicles and i so on i thinke was in los angeles at the time he wrote it. and here's this great quote the least environmental deterioration is often the common man's improving his standard. and so he was worried about the proliferation to everybody we've got the sameon situation now wih the developing countries. at i don't know whether it is

good or bad. probably okay to not do it if other things were equal. but the problem is other things are not equal. >> can you speak to the atlantic conveyor belt slowing? how much history do we have on it enough to draw conclusions? i would say could you please define atlantic conveyor belt? >> so, one of the major features of the climate system, an important one is the warming of waters in the northern tropical atlantic. the creation of the gulf stream which has a lot of heat from the equator to the polls. the sinking of that water as it becomes colder it goes down to the bottom, close it down under the atlantic in a slow current

centimeters per i can't remember it's a thousand year old for it to go the whole way around. it goes down past south america shows up in the indian ocean and so on this is a great conveyor belt the guy discovered in the 80s i think. and the concern is that well maybe it is going to slow down a little and hence not carry heat as rapidly, make for a colder northern hemisphere and so on. is it going to colder or warmer that is the first question for the second question is what do we know about it? it's kind of hard to measure. there've been papers measured over the last couple decades that say it is going down somewhat. remember the nile it goes up and down, up and down. i don't think we know. >> okay, the buildout ofen temperature measurement and --

at the spread of urban areas affecting temperature models purge youha think that's a real concern or not? >> i'm not so concerned about that.ea for people who are not so up on it when you measure the temperature in a city it is a few degrees warmer than the surrounding countryside. you see tha' on the weather report every day. and it is a real phenomenon. and some people got concerned the record of global temperature which i showed you at the beginning was being contaminated by the growth of urban regions, making mortal rapidly that it should be. i have got to say that people who have surface record from weather data i believe do a pretty careful job. there were four or five independent estimates of doing that. one of them the most recent one is led by my good friend rich

mueller i helped get that program started when i was in the department of t energy. i do not find much to criticize in the way that has been done. yes people look at isolated stations, anthony watson shows you pictures of a weather station set or in locations that would make your hair raise or they have been moved from a grass area onto a concrete and weso on. i think people try to take that into account. >> if time for one more. what about the rest of the world building for -- 500 company plants and coal mines? why should we spend money on the carbonized ink while they ramp up making our energy more extensive, shifting more jobs and economic activity to them what they enjoy the lower energy costs? >> i do not have an answer to that. he think that iss going outside of my as a scientist. i might have a personal opinionl

about that it is not worth much and probably worth less than the average. this is a values issue for society. it is the thing we should be debating and not whether the science is right or wrong. we did active representation of the science. that is a moral discussion. i hope that is the kind of discussion we should be having a political sphere not simply don't you care about your grandchildren? looks okay so we run on time here. i believe we are about at the 10:00 p.m. marker. >> thank you very much big round of applause. what a great way to start the morning. thank you dr. kagan thank you jackie. ♪ book at tv every sunday on cspan2 features leading authors

discussing their latest nonfiction books. at noon eastern on in-depth join our live conversation with journalist he will discuss immigration issues, america's drug epidemic and his latest book the least of us true tales of america and help in the time of functional and meth. at 10:00 p.m. eastern on after words creator and host of the rubin report, david rubin shares his thoughts on how to revive the american dream and call out woke culture with his book don't burn this country produce interviewed by cato director institute and vice president emily. watch book tv every sunday on cspan2 and find a full schedule on your program guide or watch online anytime at booktv.org. [background noises] [background noises] after months of closed-door investigations the house at

january 6 committee is set to go public. tune in as kim can be entranced committee members about what transpired and why it during the assault on the u.s. capitol. watch our live coverage beginning thursday at 8:00 p.m. eastern on c-span, c-span now our free mobile video app or any time online at c-span.org. c-span your unfiltered view of government. ♪ c-span now is a free mobile app featuring your unfiltered view of what is happening in washington live and on-demand spray keep up with the day's biggest events with live streams of floor proceedings of hearings from u.s. congress, white house events, the court, campaigns and more from the world of politics. all at your fingertips. also stay current with the latest episodes of "washington journal" and find scheduling information first c-span tv networks and c-span radio plus a variety of compelling podcast.

c-span now is available at the apple store and google play pre-downloaded for free today. c-span now your front row seat to washington anytime, anywhere. ♪ >> there are a lot of places get political information. but only at c-span do you get it straight from the source. no matter where you are from or where you stand on the issues, c-span is america's network. unfiltered, unbiased, word for word if it happens here, or here, or here, or anywhere that matters america is watching on c-span. powered by cable. >> are right we have a fantastic speaker this is a real treat to welcome doctor to the steamboat institute. doctor is the president and founder of the copenhagen