we want we have this compelling debate on should america rapidly eliminate fossil fuel use to prevent climate catast >> we have a compelling debate if america should rapidly eliminate fossil fuel use to eliminate catastrophe. at the university of miami and florida than those two debates it was alec epstein debating

general wesley clark you can find those on steam build institute youtube channel. so now let me introduce them and they will come up to the stage after i introduce them. we are very pleased to have professor tessler from atmospheric science at a&m. a climate scientist to studies but in 2022 named director of texas a&m texas center for climate studies. and then serving during the clinton administration as a senior policy analyst and white house office science and technology policy. his latest book one the 2014

american meteorological society. we also pleased to have alex epstein president and founder center for industrial progress he is in philosopher that argues and is the author and he is known for his willingness to debate anyone or any time and then looking at sierra club and greenpeace with the morality of fossil fuel use. so then this morning debate is the editorial page editor. and a longtime journalist and more than 25 year veteran for the colorado political scene a

senior legislative staffer in the political consultant please welcome them to the stage. [applause] let's get down to business that you have had introductions. that everybody can see me but you can hearat my voice.

and that proposition it for today shed america rapidly eliminate fossil fuel use through climate catastrophe? he will have andrew go first and then he can have a chance to read that anything he feels that he needs to address. is the most important thing so what is the best way to generate energy so

talk about the disadvantages of fossil fuels so explain why i am personally concerned about climate change go back to the last ice age basically what north america look like there were different ecosystems see levels 300 feet lower now it's about 10 degrees fahrenheit colder with the global average to carve out and ice age unit we're on track so half of an ice age unit that has the possibility of completely remaking the surface ofhi the earth know we can try to adapt that's possible or possible if

we do that our descendents are significantly impoverished by this moving on fossil fuels place in the year everyonebv around the world due to air pollution and in addition there is aha national security risk that texas gas prices could reach four dollars per gallon so let me give you a headline that will never be written the energy response to russia attentions going against the biden plan to gouw against online we will never invade kuwait in order to rescue wind and sun so the

price variations gases five dollars a gallon this is causing incredible pain i felt that my tank for ten dollars last month it will be ten dollars next month so this is extremely damaging so what will the price of gas be in one year?ic nobody knows how do you make plans when you can't predict the price of energy? so let's be clear we need energy and fossil fuels are the only way to go but we have an alternative it is wind and solar those are the cheapest power sources now when i show people this and pointed out they are often stunned. they get angry at me because they don't realize are in the middle of an energy revolution

their knowledge of energy prices areo a few years old that the people in texas who build energy know this and then to publish statistics on what people are connecting to the grid is 90 percent solarwinds and batteries. and then i put it question mark there because people say what the cities? -th - subsidies so that shows that the trend will not stop

it will continue to go. you can argue what is the cheapest now but they are the cheapest energy of the future there is no debate about that. people will tell you wind and solar are intermittent so then the question becomes can you build a grid that is reliable and cheap cracks i will give you a hunch i will not just give you my opinion but a bunch of that research has gone on this and where these people went wrong feelings don't matter. it is math and' physics and engineering problem so talk about how you build a gridou that is still reliable so

there are two classes of energy wind and solar and intermittent power and turn off any time you want and that could be nuclear power or geothermal and then to use as much renewables as you can you might reasonably ask but this could be a lot more extensive if you want to pay the least amount of money this is the grid you d want to look at on average very different groups a very different numbers so allow that.

so let me wrap up. it is the cheapest energy source of the future we can build a grid and it will avoid the social cost of climatess change that fossil fuel poisons the air thank you and you came in with 45 seconds to spare. >> i cannot believe i didn't use those. >> iff this is respecting a climate scientist and those

over climate science and for the most part that's not true but the key difference between the whole not zero movement is methodology. and i have a very particular methodology thinking of this issue and nobody has everer disagreed with this methodology have never met one opponent so there are four key factors we have to consider when thinking about fossil fuels and climate the rising harm of co2 and the benefits of raising co2 and the ability to master and then to talk

about raising co2 harm. and then it isn't discussed at all. and then showing the professor is doing this. so then i generally find it reasonable he's one of the more honest commentators butal it's with the sea level rise you talking 3 feet by the year 3100 and then to say explicitly we have no idea what that will do and i think it could be bad.

so when you talk five or 10 degrees i don't like that. 5 degrees really means 3 degrees from now. so even if you think the harms are big the benefits are demonstrably huge far more people die of cold and those that have been vetted many times but also global greening in terms of cross benefit this is very significant. so the fact this is not mentioned or as significant it shows the bias that we will see much more apparently here's what you get into problems with that view but it is a fact that climate related

disaster are 90 percent over the last century and those that we use to master climate for example that makes us far safer. that cycle low high tide see levels so so here is what i find totally objectionable looking at thousands of pages that does not mention this. this is like discussing the effects of polio we are masters of climate with the climate mastery denial parent

simple. and then to be trusted and so then the final factor and then to deny the benefits of fossilrc fuels they are scalable and in versus all types of machines and electricity's only 20 percent of global energy use that those in china and to month lowest cost energy and if you look at the actual performance around the world it's only used in places that

have large subsidies and they add cost if you see more solar and wind biases? look at this and see that sometimes solar and wind can goku it zero what does that mean cracks you need 100 percent backup you have to pay for the cost of the 100 percent reliable grid and the unreliable infrastructure and those what happened in texas like one third of the world using the unique cost-effective so how do they claims this using the either what he is unaware of these are called partial accounting and relying on near-term possibilities.k

otherwise they are ignorant or defrauding i mean this literally it does not take into account your liabilities so it only looks at the cost but not the transmission line or the backup only $18 an hour so $20 an hour and have to pay for 100 percent reliable staffhe but look at the partial cost accounting and with those near-term perfect possibilities also talked about hydro and geothermal. and it did work steadily and

professor gensler also said i agree hydro is not something to expand and geothermal is high location and not gnpractical. we are dealing with arg tremendous amount of ignorance and then engaging and if somebody is destroying the present theys, cannot be trusted to predict the future that doctor gensler has a lot to answer for. >> [applause] as agreed we will give andrew a chance to briefly review the points he feels need addressing you can have a minute and a half. >> first of all a wide of the

advantages mr. epstein talked d about their actually the advantages of power if you get the power frome renewable or fossil fuel it's an important power source that you can solve for the debt so the show germany in california? come on. at x accesses the price for the renewable energy that they have is not more expensive. that's false. as far as nuclear to say i did talk about adaptation but he talks about climate mastery but i did mention it but it's

the cost if you build better see ball that's tens of billions of dollars for houston who pays for that? we are. if you go to california they are not her road leave building a pipeline and building the trees out of theo ground the co2 fertilization is too expensive to master the climate when you have cheap renewable energy available now certainly there are costs associated and if you look at the studies of net zero they include the cost of transmission lines. again look at the peer-reviewed literature now we do need to electrify things we use allied of fossil fuels

but 95 percent of energy is hard like international flights can be difficult. >> thank you.i i hate to cut you off. but you both have written plenty on it and i might add that's the late-term and i can see that from the questions that are comingf in. so i will try to balance that with a little more technical questions that may be over my head. but let me start off with those.

it was written on energy talking point website making the earth unlovable for billions but andrew wrote this month and rolling stone the amount the warming on world to transform the planet and unimaginable ways somebody like me is not an energy expert what if they are both right? rather than the attempt to curb climate change should be try and can we? >> we have to adapt the people have to realize adaptation is not magic people will say we will use fossil fuels to master the climate.ou i will give you one example houston almost got wiped out by hurricane ike so they have

been proposing to build a dike that $30 billion but they just can't get the money so it is extremely expensive to adapt but we cann avoid that low cost a lot of the warming then you should do that. >> so putting myself in his position of somebody pointed out i'm fraudulent statistics and those that defined the physical reality like hydro or nuclear or geothermal that would giveju me pause instead of

saying there'se. academic studies so i just want to reiterate the conclusion that fossil fuels are necessary that the professor continues not to do if you look at the benefits of fossil fuels to provide low-cost reliable energy b for billions of people to be productive and prosperous including from climate that is amazing and i needs to be stressed and with 2 degrees fahrenheit of c warming they are flat and actually acclimate renaissance. these are just anecdotes the big picture is clear and that

is premature death. >> so if indeed there is an increase from one to 5 degrees by the end of the century that would make more sense nonetheless to spend much more than trying to go to net zero on carbon emissions. >> net zero is mass murder and should not even be on the table whatrg policy should you have? the key thing is to engage in any liberation of low carbon alternatives and we are very fortunate and have a low carbon alternatives which is nuclear and was criminalized by the green movement to the

point it's almost ten times more today adjusted for inflation than in the seventies. think everyone should be in favor to the criminalized nuclear the way they work to reduce co2 emissions but they also make energy more people available. looking at the professor's track record everything he says on twitter and then he calls it expensive. it's only expensive because of the green movement he is a part of and supporter of. at 8 billion people have b energy. >> environmental justice for

the poor and middle-class and the only solution to reducingak fossil fuel use making american families by tesla? >> i hate to do this to you but in france they run nuclear power most electricity is nuclear our reason is regulatory. to say we can do it is absolutely wrong but the statement that we do need to switch to get to a world that does not have air pollutionso but millions are killed by fossil fuel if you want to get away from that if they want to buy tesla people would havect laughed if you would've told

them the penetration electric cars would have today. and renewable energy price driving down and then to say something that was wrong but you can complain about thempr what about texas producers they are building wind and solar. and that would be electric car ten or 20 years. >> or the flatscreen tv. and in 1988 talk about my ibm

selector. >> and here's another reference is a larger 2019 study include the full cost including thend backup required. >> and that is a fundamental mistake that people think about with renewable energy needs backup. so think of it as energy versus energy source think of it from the grid standpoint. you want as much power from the fuel savers as you can. but it's including the cost of that. is just the wrong way to think about it. is just t the amount of energy.

>> i started pointed to this earlier but so if you take something like we went all of the solar grid my coworker who is willing to work cheaper. and then to mention transmission cost but what that really means is a system cost necessary to take the intermittent to turn that into a controllable reliable output and then you have to look at the full cost. but the real thing to look at if you add solar and wind. so there is a lot more distortion. that's a huge distortion to

put the same price on something that is unreliable? one executive said in from a car that works all the timeam they are totally different and the reason solar and wind have increased penetration with an unfair grid that pays the same for reliable and unreliableer than subsidizes unreliable on top of that. based on the worship of sun and went. versus actually getting somethinges done. that's what they have done. they have done that. but.

>> any projection and i have a rule any projection about the future that does not acknowledge the president is invalid. every single one i have looked at are in total denial aca solar and wind have made things cheaper. but they are denying it. but it is what is actually happening ten years ago europe was saying the same things now they are in a predicament where they are dependent on russia because they believe the fantasies instead of looking at reality if they are so great implement them in one place around the world to be successful. that is in. >> this is true. >> just we don't shoot the piano player.

[laughter] >> can any good come from higher average temperatures down the road but then there will be higher global w.temperatures. >> is there any good that can come from that? >> but i know that the professor knows but it's not publicized but that it tends to take place in colder places during colder seasons and that colderwa times.

and even if they are significant negatives they are huge positives people like warmth it is crucial to life people who are far fewer than cold related deaths so i want to point out philosophy the reason why people don't care they have the perfect planet that what we inherited was perfect and any impact is immoral and self-destructive that is a primitive religious dogma and most climate science excepts and that's why they are so h concerned with all the negatives and they don't seem to appreciate how amazingly safe we have made the earth if you look from a pro human perspective it's not a climate crisis. >> the temperature we have now you look around the world around this temperature so

they assume the permafrost will never melt people build cities right on the sea but then we have trillions of these tiny adaptations so when you build a bridge if it's outside the temperature range you have to repair the bridge so it would be extremely expensive for us now would there be some positives? no doubt some people somewhere we are warming more than the equator i really don't care what happens in canada i am inst texas i care san antonio and

austin and houston it's a lot of work and it will be askedve expensive that's why the air-conditioners go it will be expensive to adapt. >> can mean talk about the co2 parts per million how introduction fossil fuels save the planet? >> is it faulty reasoning? >> i don't think the planet to die that's preindustrial. >> that is about generating more co2? >> definitely we've increased output by 40 percent so absolutely that's the only thing that's happening so if you have a greenhouse then

people do thatt' but of course that's not what is happening but then other things are happening and i would also point out so definitely that just to factor in the two biggest period balls that are the enormous benefit of fossil fuels fossil fuels provide the energy that is growing especially that the world is drastically short of energy in a world that desperately needs more energy andnd it is crucial

to people being able to use machines to make themselves productive and prosperous and those which are subsidized but they are 3 percent of the world's energy that are totally dependent unreliable sources of energy and then there is a claim we can rapidly ban the leading source of energy and replace itd that's why i call it mass murder ending billions of lives prematurely. anything within the realm of sopossibility is masterful nothing compared to the benefits if we follow the professor's policy. how much can be mitigated man china is the world's largest economy which is soon to be the most popular to produce a

much of b the worlds carbon emission than ever follow-up question. >> so obviously it's the global problem he was cannot solve the problem by themselves but that is a political issue i am not an expert on international negotiations but the point isno we can do this physically with have to convince the country most of the other countries in the world with a few exceptions are already looking for us leadership so with those capabilities if we lead other countries will follow they recognize these problems. >> they are using vastly more

fossil fuels having 200 plus coal plants in the pipeline also by far is the most cost-effective energy going forward that's why people use so many now if you care about admission the onlys way to deal with it let's in terms of co2 emissions with lower-cost sources ofnc carbon energy and then it's contrary to that it reinforces the criminalization of nuclear and that is over your over nuclear so you need to recognize that has amazing potential liberate natural gas it would be good for the world them over in mission's long-term. this is a win-win policy. you lower emissions over time

in a totally humane way but as long as we on the solar and wind dogma then we will and billions of lives prematurelyha if we just focus in america we will become worse than germany as with russia right now. >> going any even further into morality is going green a lecture he of the lipostindustrial economy and is eat the unrealistic burden to heap on economies that are still developing? >> philosophically is the idea to minimizing human impact this is based on primitive religion or primitiveeh philosophy that our impact is somehow immoral and inevitably self-destructive that it's

wrong and also go to hell there is no possibility like three more degrees fahrenheit that people have a religiousri view that we are really going to hell so yes it's not one that is in nature so then you understand you have to master nature only being so elevated by other people's mastery you take for granted the world that you listen and think of that is natural do you support and adopt the screen policies? and we have a nongreen society but then me and pose antihuman green policies on the rest of the world under sustainable development telling them not to build coal plants are gas but then use it to power a flashlight were charge a cell phone so this is fundamentally immoral. >> is that implicit going

green in the green movement? >> the people that work on this, i'm amazed by the discussion because people who work on this and do peer-reviewed research have identified literally making stuff up when he says it's more expensive show me a study that shows that. but with these debates we cannot check each other on the fly but show me study and i will read and then we can argue but it is the cheapest energy. people in africa or those places cannot afford renewable energy or fossil fuels especially all the cost to master the climate it is incredibly expensive building seawalls is expensive and flood control infrastructure is expensive and will

impoverish us. it will not and human society but it is possible i would even say plausible that we spend all of our time maybe people in this room spending all their money just trying to stay alive and master the climate. it is not cheap. look at the seawalls. look at the seawalls. 't so what we . . . . it has not been a cost, its drastically reduce the rate of climate related. mastery is something we do anyway to deal withan the danges of nature. if you look at the kinds of change we are talking about, they are extremely slow. they are involved in a

civilization that's always rebuilding itself anyway. these are very slow master both changes. keeping up billions of people in poverty is not a slope masterful change. every world world example around the worldre you try to use unreliable solar and wind is increasing these cost. by a selected group or crux of methe charlatans who not an economist to most environmentalists who decide to make up economicen scenarios. they deny the presence of most real energy economist no fossil fuels are crucial to the future including the economist in china and india are a r actually makig real decisions. as massive energy denial to justify this inhuman policy. again because it's so great fing a place to make it work.op in practice it is just killing people making people insecure like europe right now. >> when they add renewable that is wrong. the problem with these debates i can't look to the eia website and show he's wrong but i'll do

it after this request that's great. you like g conflict. i wish someone could get a fill of me doing this. let me do a check here. we do a time check with jennifer. we want to reserve a minute or so for each off our speakers but they have come here to say in what they have to say in the debate. at the same timeat tremendous amount of questions that show how learned you all are only scratch the surface. i would like to see more if there's time for that. if not. >> i'm not sure how you wanted to do that. twelve minutes that sounds good. some of them overlap or that's when trying to pick and choose. some also been addressed in various ways. a number of them touch on the cost of renewables. the real world cost. and a number of these are pointedly addressed to andrew.

by the way you referred to as desolate and dressler. and a number in that regards let's use this when you but you osaid electric car cost you $10 to fill up and will continue to do so for the future because renewables are the cheapest form of energy. why do you think california and europe have such high electricity prices when they have built the most amount of renewable energy infrastructure? >> that is a good g question. i think you have to look at the time of when people built out their infrastructure. if you look at the lazard plot to shed it shows that ten years ago solar was the most expensive power. and today it the least expensive power. germany built a lot of power windmills and is expensive it's going to drive up the cost rate we should thank germany they are spending a lot of money on it helped drive the price don't

notes the cheapest power. you can see it texas energy producers are doing pretty they are building solar 100 gigawatts of solar in the next few years. it's cheap i g know people do nd like to hear that. i was on a very popular podcast recently you cannot imagine howa many people e-mail me about that. we're going through an energy revolution. you all have to know that. you cannot have a reasonable debate about that you do not know the revolution we are going through right now. >> i'm going to try to say something noncompetitive. it is true as i mentioned solar and wind are not replacements for fossil fuel. they are cost adding supplements. again they dependent one had a present reliable infrastructure. so it is true as some of the prices go down we will add less cost. but they still do add cost

everywhere they are used. i forgot there was one other point i wanted to make. i guess i will try to remember it. >> you wanted to ask about the university of chicago ethics o studyy was that mentioned already? >> note neither of us is mention that pickwick you are familiar with it on an audience member asked her point out study shows renewable are more expensive is the 2019 university of chicago ethics study. are you familiar with the study? this was directed bucca to andrew and then. >> i have to be honest i'm not familiar with that said if it. >> am familiar with the study. these studies tend to be way too conservative. we have to keep looking at things. one thing is the ability solar and wind are unreliable or place in the first 10% as cheaper than replacing the second 10% of the third 10% per you have fed more and moree, of the unreliable infrastructure to get a larger and larger percentage. but you the whole unreliable info structure as well.

look at a place like texas they spent $70 billion to get to 21% solar and wind. due to the 75% number you are three and half times that. you have to spend all this new w money on infrastructure. a really important point is this drives up costs. what happens is you defend reliable power plant to defend resiliency. keep stock but the free market is doing this. again it's subsidies, mandates, the texas grid pays december unreliable electricity as reliable electricity. not one person in this room would pay the same amount for a reliable employee and an unreliable employee. this is a total corruption and were not even talk but the 80% of energy that's not electricity burnout time but the billions of people latch to the idea that solar and wind can justify rapidly banning fossil fuels with no cost. it is a murderous farce.

>> in the nation's second most populous state have a renewable energy standard and date like colorado, is a long time colorado and i think it's pretty aggressive but does it have one? it is that part of what's driving some of this questioned. >> note the way the texas grid works not all of texas, it is a free market energy system. they have an auction every day energy producers come inn and sy this is how much i will charge you for energy. that's okay we need to 60 gigawatts. they say were going to take this to cheapest 60 gigawatts of power. wind and solar because their marginal cost of power zero they have an advantage. why one 100% agree that texas market because of that entry for energy producers to continue building wind and solar essentially forever.

that is the cheapest energy source but i understand there's disagreement here.be all i can say you guys may not believe me now but you will believe me in a few years. fewer sheiks i don't member that guys name but he is right. you will understand i am right in a few years if not sooner. so in texas people building wind and solar have got the cheapest energy. cheap adding wind and so it will eventually create an unstable grid. as i talked about in the beginning there is zero incentive you to build nuclear in texas or to build other types of firm power. that's a problem with the market but it's not a problem with the energy. that is a big difference we have. wind and solar are not the problem. the problem is the market. you need to redesign the market to give some advantage to power. you have to have that on the grid. >> how you do that question requested the market. say for this extra part will give you extra i don't know very. >> who is the week?

>> it's the texas legislature. >> does require more regulation of the market customer. >> absolutely the government needs to come in and solve that problem. it requires rules. the way to think it's the proper policy that governments monopolizing it's called long term system cost analysis. look at the needs you look at what mixture will meet that in the long term being the mosthi effective the lowest price. many tend to do that you have baseload things like nuclear coal, to some extent natural gas. remember the point i missed before it's important the main distortion involved in andrew's claim of soul and when he's not look at the full cost.ta that is the main thing. it's important even w with the w material things like solar panels and wind turbines those w do not go down indefinitely. they are real physical materials. we think a lot of the materials are going up in particularne chinese solar panels are dominant because they involve a chinese coal china is not using solar panels they are using coal

to make solar panels why is anthat? if they're using coal that's an advantage they have over us. the other thing is are using low environmental standards. and that using slave labor. [applause] what somebody would be say that i guess. nursing south cotton is so cheap yes but they're using slaves that's kind of relevant to the situation. china's using slaves use solar panel is relevant as well. it's a humanitarian evil but it's one of the smaller distortions has either engaged ,in a repeating without knowlede grid is an important one. overall this picture of energy is a crazy distortion for. >> what you said right now at least one of the questions coming from our audience rely was like to give the audience credit for their both their knowledge. this one was directed to you and said can you explain mining and manufacturing comparator drilling rig in texas. theme.variation of a

what about that? you want to look at the drilling rig in texas what alex brought up now you're making these nifty solar panels cheap. but they are doing it with coal. at some point in the production chain. >> setting aside questions of ethics and morality is therert sort of a cart before the horse customer. >> a couple of spots. first off china probably five years ago it enter mongolia you drive down the road there's a coal fire power plant and few kilometers away could see wind turbines. i'm not an expert on the chinese grid it. my take on that is they recognize they need both dispatcher will and renewablers energy. they understand that everybody understands that requestsou for those people here. >> power you can turn on and offered could be nuclear it could be geothermal. i could be hydrogen it could be

hydroelectric. there are lots could be long-term storage, batteries. there's lots of things and they understand that. they are building fossil fuels the need to stabilize s the grid and they understand you got some firm dispatch will power by which they were building nuclear but they are not doing that.me as far as the other part of your question cap member what was. >> book supply chain issues. certainly there are supply chain issues records the irony it is that what is that due to climate action if in fact traditional fossilea fuel to create custome. >> i don't see a problem with that. right now once he solar panels are available you can shut off the fossil fuel. that is how you make advances pretty use the power you have to get to the o sauer's power systm you want to pray. >> let me ask each of you to do a summation about a minute. let's keep the order we started

with. andrew you go first, alex you go second period. i don't really care for. >> your memories better than mine. that's exactly right..i' would you like to do that now customer. >> firstan sure. i want to reiterate what i said key methodology look at the full context you need to look precisely at the harms of co2 the benefits of co2 the effect of fossil fuel benefit. if you actually look at the reality today, you recognize how the world works in a situation fossil fuels have unique massive and near-term irreplaceable benefits both for dealing with people who have energy in the billions more who need it. the claims they are not necessary to based on a wild distortion precluding by the way the idea solar and wind are insecure even though the whole supply chain is controlled by china forgot to mention that distortion. there's about ten specific distortions do not mean to attack him personally but the whole net zero movement is based

on distortions denying fossil fuels benefits and denying claimant mastery. when you actually look objectively the hopeful contacts it's obvious the world needs vastly more energy, most of that needs to come from fossil fuel for the next several decades and neck net zero is a death sentence for billions of people and should be morally condemned as an evil idea based on falsehoods. that is what i've tried to explain today. >> thank you alex. >> as i said in the beginning of say it again. we need to power, no one doubts that. the question is what is the power source? that is the best power source for us to use. a lot of people indent analyses that have shown we can significantly eliminate our fossil fuel use. i don't think there's any analysis that says i says a lot of things which i think are simply not correct. a lot of facts are just wrong. i am happy to engage with anybody in the audience if you e-mail me i'd bee happy to look into these things.

but all of the evidence of all the people who are experts this suggest we can do this. wind and solar are the cheapest energy of i the future. look at what people areha installing now. the idea adding it increases the cost of energy is not correct to the grid. this is a problem-solving climate change it is a huge risk. fossil fuels poisoning the atmosphere we haven't talked about t t that.oo there's millions of deaths of security issue right now look at the price of gas at the pump. these are things that do not exist in a world of renewable energies. those are significant disadvantages for. >> thank you both. let me just point out 56 people have questions and obviously as i said were only of the scratch the surface. ebit goes to show how engaged yu all were with this debate and how engaging a debate like this is. thanks to both of them were in the spirit of steamboat institute coming together civilly, civilly and engaging like this for all of our

benefit. people of starkly different views. even by this so much as this forum is here to provide just such an exchange and food for thought. what's applied to both of them. [applause] x thanknk you gentlemen put taks a lot of courage to get on the stage. there are many people who refuse to do that so kudos. [applause] ♪ text the up-to-date and the latest in publishing with book tvs podcast about two books. with current nonfiction book releases plus bestseller list as both industry news and trends their insider interviews. you can find about books on c-span now our free mobile app

or wherever you get your podcast. ♪ every saturday in american history tv documents america's story. on sunday book tv brings you the latest in nonfiction books and authors. funding for cspan2 comes from these television companies and more. including media calm. >> the world changed in an instant. media calm was ready. internet traffic soared and we never slowed down. schools and businesses went virtual and we powered a new reality. because at media calm we are there to keep you ahead. >> media, along with these television companies support cspan2 as a public service. next live sunday on in depth. uc barkley governmental studies

scholar steven hayward will be our guest to talk about leadership, ronald reagan's political career in the american conservative movement. he is the author including two volumes in the age of reagan series brightness and patriotism is not enough about these scholars who change the course of conservative politics in america. join in the conversation with your phone call text and tweets. in depth with steven hayward live sunday at noon eastern on book tv on c-span2. ♪ on about books programs report on the latest publishing news in nonfiction books we spoke with richard rubino about his latest book on american political trivia. >> how did this project get started? >> it really got started when i was about nine years old. i actually started watching c-span. i'm a political junkie i don't know it some reason i had this gravitational pull to