i used to write some of my electors but her latest book is left on the edge the activist who saved nature from the conservation and intriguing title i hope she will explain. it received a an award at the 2010 colorado book award. second, next to me i would like to introduce chris, he is a political journalist, blonder and scientists in the art of communication. i hope will learn some lessons from him. i read his book in the huffingtonpost.com the latest is whether universities create liberals or liberals create universities. his books include storm world about hurricanes and global warming and the best-selling republican war on science. he has a new book coming out in a few weeks with title the republican brain why they deny science and reality. [laughter] finally come at the end of the table i would like to introduce william, i'm going to say it wrong, debuys. he's a writer and conservationist. his books and computer pulitzer finalist, the walk and soft breeze. he's helped to protect more than 150,000 acres of wild life directing the bank and chairing these are innovative partnerships for public land management in mexico. his latest book is climate change and the american midwest. >> let's start with dyana. tell us about rosalie edge. >> it's good that chris is here because he educates us about how to talk to the public and what he probably doesn't know and probably most of you don't know is that may be the inventor of that in the environmental movement was a boreman named rosalie edge. if you are not at my talk yesterday, you probably have not heard rosalie edge. okay. i don't see a huge swell of recognition. rosalie edge was born in 1877, she was a new york socialite, she was a child of the gilded age, very prominent family. her family hobnob with the vanderbilts and carnegie and had a very finite life and certainly none of these prepared her to be the godmother of the environmental movement which she did become leader in her life. nothing prepared her. she was a complete dilettante, amateur in dilettante and had a very cushing safe life until certain things happened to her that changed everything. you probably heard of racial carson, you've probably heard of david brower and the wilderness society. you are perhaps members of the conservancy and a number of organizations, and number of which she influenced. she had an influence, direct influence many times on the founders and was a reformer of the association of the society's which changed its name after her war against them so she was a woman that had two parts in her life, she had this very protected world, she and several awakenings as she described them, and she became the godmother of the environmental movement only to be eclipsed in 1962 by the publication of silent spring. interestingly she died 50 years ago just a week after silent spring was published. rachel carson went to her organization which still exists in pennsylvania and was the first century to protect birds of prey in the world and the data of silent spring that rachel carson got for silent springs came from the moral duty to a sanctuary because of rosalie edge's concern about the destruction of birds of prey which in those days not even the bird protection organization really did much about. birds of prey had no value. the conservation of the era were about conserving resources that have a value and birds of prey really didn't, so they were destroyed and slaughtered by the thousands and they were put on their heads on their bloody heads and the destruction went on and on and on. for reasons of her own she decided it had to stop. i came to her from writing the book i'm happy to hear dyana use in her course. the research in the book someone mentions that a woman named rosalie edge deserve to be recognized and that is a statement that makes you sit up and pay attention, particularly if he read a lot about history and the environmental movement, so i paid attention but did nothing with it for five or six years until my editor said remember that woman named rosalie edge who you are thinking deserved more attention? he said her conservation papers are of the denver public library. by the way i do live part of the time in denver and was busy writing my kids to car pools and would spend time at the library during the initial research into the papers which were all the interesting and wonderful but they were not enough for someone like myself, a journalist who cares about the human interest side of the story and what we relate to in a person rather than their knowledge of the subject area. it wasn't enough until i met her son and her son was very kind, and we had a great relationship the late peter edge by the way his granddaughter goes to this school, rosalie edge's great granddaughter goes to the school, and he gave me a suitcase because i was curious what made his mother do what he did, and bill and i have worked this out, so no one will get injured. people are always worried when i bring up the suitcase that i'm going to be speaking for more than ten minutes. [laughter] he gave me this suitcase and he sent it over with a wage and he said maybe you'll find something in their and it contained about 300 letters and family documents dating to the 1850's before she was born. she died in 62 so the letters broke about 1870 to 1962 and there were letters telling her what a wonderful child she was and how she could no longer and the prepared her for her life as an agitator activist militant whatever you want to call what to read actually what she was called in the new york republic magazine and 40 it was the honest whole pack in the history of conservation. so all of that was in the letters how she prepared herself for that. some things happen in her life which are shocking and allow us to look to the human side of how some relates to nature and this is a book about what you think and what she saved was very important to what she became, and i also should mention the title, the activist who saved nature from the conservationist really he alludes to her prior life as a suffragist. she was an officer in the new york suffrage party under carry chapman who taught her how to say things that were unpleasant to men and did that in the conservation movement where there was a way of doing things in her way of doing things was not the way that she had identified with these beleaguered slaughtered birds of prey for reasons i sound in the suitcase and she took them on and saved them and we have them today. so there were letters from her husband to her, letters to her mother from china where she was living with her husband and letters from her mother to her father from her father to her mother, beautiful letters written in longhand, beautiful envelopes that are probably worth more than our house and they are not in the suitcase right now. but what is in the suitcase is something that was quite touching. not in the conservation movement which is why people are stunned when they read the subtitles but she learned it from being a separatist. she wore these banners while you see the pictures of women marching down the streets and it was your bloody affair getting the right to vote and these are the bonds that tie to of the great social progressive movements of the 20th century, the women's rights movement and the movement to save all sorts of wild life because rosalie edge believed in the time no one publicly scientists would not do this would say we need to save it all. she believed in saving everything and that was her reason i say she's the godmother of the environmental movement which was that different from the conservation. hell am i doing on time? i'm done. thank you very much. [applause] tell us about republican brains and what they have to say about the environment and maybe women, too. [laughter] i think i will take on the environment. [laughter] even though they are related. steven colbert once said -- [laughter] and i didn't even say it yet. he said reality has a well-known liberal bias. [laughter] my book contends this is scientifically true and i'm going to explain that with respect to the global warming issue in particular, but in the book i go much further to explain to a large number of issues. let's think about why it is we have this incredible concerted denial on the political right in the science underpinning the number one reason to be concerned how we are affecting the plan at. by the way, the science underpinning the human cause of global warming is incredibly strong and solid. it is over 100-years-old. people don't know that john, the irish scientist in 1859 was doing experiments on the properties of carbon dioxide and figuring out how it works atmosphere. this is 1859. what i find significant is it is the same year darwin published the origin of species so we knew the greenhouse effect is that long ago. once you know what that affect is and what carbon dioxide those in the atmosphere all else being equal you put it up there and you are going to have a warm planet. you can't escape the civics. it's not about computer malls. they are useful but this is physics. you also can deny if you keep putting it up there and don't do anything about it the planet gets warmer and stuff happens and if you keep going and keep going what happens? we don't know when or how soon but eventually you melt land base ice like greenland and west and work to come. if you like it or not what happens if you start losing parts of florida? and again, this is physics, so why would anybody denies this and particularly why would republicans? if you are a little and your answer to the question is along the lines of its because they are stupid, then you are wrong. that is a liberal delusion and one that should be gotten past so we could understand the opposition. exactly the opposite. the evidence says smarter or better educated republicans deny the science more than the less educated ones. this is what i like to call this march immediate effect and i want to tell you how i stumbled upon it because it is what set the book in motion. the moment came when i was a typical revelation based on data so i was going through a report on why we are so politically divided on global warming in 2008 and even more divided now and then we were then but what you found is a little figure about the relationship between political party affiliation, level of education and belief that global warming is caused by humans and what it shows is if you are republican and the higher your level of education the less likely you are to accept scientific reality it goes under a plea of the opposite direction. this is a finding in the social science literature on the denial of global warming and also pops up if you look at conservatives who care the healthcare bill had panels and if you look at conservatives that think obama is a muslim samore education equals less reality. so what is going on here? kind of frustrating. how do you explain this? i think in order to explain it, and the book goes into a lot more detail and i just talking about the global warming and now we because to really read your head around the global warming the number one stress they cause to the plan that led me give you three points and then i william aubrey on each of them, conservatism is psychologically editions of ideology and appeals to people who want certainty and resist change. number two, conservative morality and i put in quotes because it's not my morality the youth should think of it as morality. it in pends indefensible and values. and tree, fox news, she is the key mechanism to take a phrase from climate science. it's the feedback whereby people who were already inclined to believe false things and the affirmation than needed to believe things and they get a lot of claims. conservatism is a defense of ideology in the fewest people who want certainty and people who resist change collis we have a staggering amount of research now on the psychological and in some cases the physiological underpinnings of the political ideology and so we know the kind of traits of people would opt for going right and left. it isn't perfect explanation of why people do this with correlations are there and repeated in studies. who are the people that ought to write among other things they are more wedded to certainty. they want to have fixed beliefs and be sure they're also more sensitive to fear and threat. at the extreme of the streets to find a character called the authoritarian, and the authoritarian is characterized by rigid be seeing this in black-and-white, viewing the world in man in group out group sort of way. another trade you find here is the need for closure. the need for closure is the need to have a belief about something so you don't have to worry about it anymore, so you've got the dealt with. if you have the need for closure would you do is seizing and freezing. we take the information. it's contingent what particular believe stacy's upon. will happen differently in different cultures but say that's when they seize upon which in the u.s. is the case, then more knowledge about that or more education about it isn't going to like change their mind. more knowledge to more education, more information as they are going to argue in favor of what they already think. we see this in the tea party. what are they the strongest deniers but stronger than traditional republicans. but if you poll them they also confidently say they know a lot about the issue and they don't need information. the morality. they will probably change their minds. right? so there are some things you might actually be a will to sway them. why global warming? here we have to look at the deep seated moral intuitions that differ from left to right, and i say intuition because reality is something felch. its emotional and visits to down a course of reasoning. it's not necessarily over your control but it has the revulsion of someone who disagrees of you are a situation. by individualism what i mean is the private the system the government leaves you alone. it's the opposite of communitarian as some of which the government takes care of the people. they also tend towards a hierarchical morality meaning that its various types of inequality are okay. they are threatened by global warming because it means markets have failed and governments, global governments in some cases have to step in and fix things and they might have to interfere and this threatens the way the world to work deeply and some of them will go in for conspiracy theories and say that scientists were the world of collaborating with the u.n. to hoax us and believe this false thing. why would they require. these people can't agree on anything but it's because they embrace that belief in this deeply held individual system. if you have this system will does it do to your belief about science? there is a great study at yale and his colleagues in what they did is looked at individual hyrax and showed them a six scientist who did or did not accept the consensus which is that humans cause global warming and if you are a hard with this scientist who says it is by human them only 23% of those conservatives agree that's a choice for the knowledgeable expert whereas if you look at the other side did say there is a trust for the expert. in another study what is interesting is he found it to sink the standard of conservatives and a friend differently. because it is caused by humans we need to advance nuclear power which is an individual solution than they are more likely to believe. but if you say global warming is happening. rain is use the to step in and regulate, they will not believe. so the morality is what is driving this, combined with to the conservatives are and then talks news. fox news is the feedback mechanism and gives them license to believe things and it reaffirms false beliefs. but it took about so far, the steep leverage and things on how conservatives view the world and there's a comegys you might call these nature. what say where they may ultimately come from, but they predisposed towards this kind of denial but they are also clearly environmental factors and other words things that have come to exist in the world that did not exist before and that interact with the way conservatives are. fox news is one of those environmental factors. it is at the top of the wistful of the factors in reality. there are now seven studies showing fox news viewers are more informed than other stations about a huge array of topics. to our global warming studies. interestingly there was another stila tick-tocks news viewers and they were wrong about a large number of issues were prominent in the 2010 election and it's interesting to know how they responded to the study affiliated with the university of maryland is the counter argument from fox news was essentially well, that is a party school. [laughter] so, in other words a wasn't dealing with the fact of the study of if you have fox news in place you have a place to reaffirm what you already think and a service for certainty and security and the belief affirmations of the opt in and get the misinformation there's no doubt the use the snowstorms the beliefs are reaffirmed and then they are ready to argue with you. are doing is an emotional process and connect claims and beliefs to who you are, your identity and morality so the more you do with the more you become sure of yourself so that is one slice of how the republican brain works on a particular environmental issue and we need is a major merger or combine psychological account of the global warming or the conservative reality and only then will we understand why they have to be the source of interest to the plan at. thanks. [applause] so, william, tell us about what is being denied about what is happening to the southwest. >> i'd be happy to. it's so nice to be here. thank you all for coming and thank you, diana and my panelists for what has been so for a great set of presentations. i don't want to let you down. i want to tell you that climate change in the southwest is a little bit of the good news and bad news situation. the good news is if you like to watch landscapes' change in human relations shift, then congratulations, you've been born and possibly the best time in the history of civilization to observe such things. as the 21st century advances, these opportunities will only get better, believe me. as a, live a long time and you get to see a lot of stuff. the bad news is things are pretty well destined to change in this region. there's interesting reasons for that. the fact is i reach in this limits of its water supply and many of the systems in the region have rather low thresholds for shifting and slipping. so things here are going to change a lot. the southwest is going to become an ever more difficult place to live, hotter and drier to be sure, subject to more and more of the devastating forest fires we've seen in recent years. insect dhaka office with an ecological systems because hotter climate is a great boom to the small little exoskeletons. we think our world is going to change because of the dramatic things, floods and earthquakes and hurricanes and so forth. we don't necessarily think that in vertebrates are going to shift the way the world works, but they will. and just the heat itself that you know for instance last year in the big drop in texas this is apart from the fire that made the headlines in newspapers on tv news to 10% of all the trees in texas light of last year. when anybody says anything in texas that as a whole lot to read all the beer in texas and the cheerleaders and texas, i don't care what it is. it has a lot of them and it has a lot of trees and two to 10% by the last year and if the drought continues, that percentage is going to accelerate in its client and will be an even greater percentage the next year because of the cumulative impact of drought on that vegetation. the water shortage is going to be with us and be with us. the screws of drought are going to tighten down. the climatologists say the climatology of the southwest will be like what was experienced in the drought of the 1950's or during the dust bowl years. drought is exceptional, not normative. we don't see that the sahara is a drought. it's dry by nature. the southwest, the enormous downshifting to words what was known as the drought in the past, towards the conditions of the 1950's, or the crushing drought of 1998 to 2003. we are moving towards the norm where that is going to be with us. so life is going to get more difficult year and i have to say i didn't set out writing this book to be a bloom caster. i didn't want to be a jeremiah p. triet i started out. as i have written environmental histories of regions within the southwest i did a book called enchantment and exploitation in northern new mexico. i did salt and trains were the land of the colorado river comes to an end so, with this effort on wanted to do an environmental history of the broad scope of taking in the whole region. but the more i got into it climate change would be interesting view to prole of that in, and then digging deeper i realized climate change is more than a lens, climate changes the new reality. it was going to a trump, it is going to. the things i would be exploring in a history. in the region if climate change is going to destroy much of the forests. so i realized climate change was then new and i result in the book to follow reaction feeds. and i realized i had a terrific problem ahead of me and that was how do you keep the readers turning the page when you've got and the only answer i could come up with and that is to be troubled characters whomever you are interesting people, and to create a narrative momentum. in this case the stories that i sought. the land managers and the water managers and the land planners and the native leaders in the most we conceivable and whose personal journey to understanding with the challenge was was a kind of eureka story, and with all the pessimism surrounding the essentials information, any story of discovery is optimistic because that is what we can do when we are not exercising our republican brain is learning to understand our world and respond to it. and so i have an absolute last doing the research. i got to get on the road and travel this most beautiful region and go to some of the most inspiring interesting of its places and talking. with the most fun a lot of it was right here in the tucson and a round because of the resources in this magnificent tree and he hits the laboratory research and jeff demons one of the true deans of the practice at the chronology of the lab, and i talked to peter, a wonderful scientist who did so much to try to protect not gramm which is kind of a crucible of climate change atop the mountain and one other side to the university of arizona a representative of the university of arizona notwithstanding the permits we had to go into the top of mount crème said he was going to throw us off the mountain and would summon the police said the university of arizona has a slightly complicated records revealed in my book but there were so many other people. dave is hear the university and kathy jacobson who used to head the arizona water institute before the legislature destroyed and stopped it from being which is one of the reasons arizona might see a water crisis in the future. and i spent time with a wonderful activist down on the border and with edward and frederick esen down in the plains of the grassland that are now reserved, and i also spent time with one of the most amusing when the men west, the nevada water, the head of the water authority, and i will never forget my lunch with her, she was wearing a beautiful cream pant suit in the belly flats and notwithstanding her feminine at higher, when she had spoken to me i had the feeling i had in high school when i was a rustler and someone with a head lock on me. patricia is one of the most dynamic and powerful women in the united states today. so i want to say just another word about this business of optimism and pessimism because climate change truly is a tragedy unfolding in the region and the world, a true tragedy and it has the classical tragedy. i compare it to a ball hit the protagonist that is our society who is listening to the wrong sources of information and those who will work for fox news and dress in suits and swarm over capitol hill when the least suggestion of legislation to deal of climate change a rises and at stake is the feminine, is mother earth and things are not looking very good for her because they are paying attention to the wrong things but i made a discovery about myself in the course of doing this book and i suspect what i discovered and what my book is also true of many of you and that is why a lion in intellectual pessimist, i am a neurochemical optimist, and it may just be the serotonin talking but also the future of look is grim, the son rise is beautiful and the sun rise is always beautiful and this or circling a star of just the right intensity is an extraordinarily beautiful place and indeed the duty of the earth and its creatures and its creatures include human beings and people like you. it is under nobly beautiful, and as long as there is a duty to protect and defend, there is good work to be done in the good work is the greatest of all and it's the root of all optimism. thank you. [applause] >> we have about 20 minutes for discussion and i'm going to begin by asking some questions because i read their books and it's not just some of those cases i'm just doing it because i met here. if you would like to ask a question if you could come to one of the microphones and hopefully make it brief and address it to just one of the panel members so people can take turns. i think you all have seen a lot of connections between the panelists but i'm going to start with a question for dyana because she will be rushing back off to denver and i want to thank you for introducing me to rosalie edge. i am embarrassed i hardly know anything about her and so something about her in pennsylvania but now she joins my group of environmental heroines' and demand a lot to me to read my dog is named after rachel characins to my next meet to be rosalie edge or something and i'm going to be talking to her -- about her in my electors. but perhaps you could tell us more about the subtitle about who she took on because that is what surprised me is the way she identified tremendous hypocrisy in the conservation movement so i wonder if you could tell us about that but my question was if she was still alive and fighting today which part of the movement might she be taking on and why? >> one she could help me with. >> i will start with an easier question. i feel and not to be identified as rosalie edge so i will not say that i know what she would do but judging from a lot of study of her material and her original material in her life i have a sense of who she was and she wouldn't like any of us so we were not borne high enough on the food chain to be her friend that the activists that save nature from the conservationists , the conservationists and i am referring to at that time were the innocuous government, the service that of course was founded in 1906 to save america's national forests. she was taking on the park service which was saving duty that bill was talking about and personally the association of the audit in society which today we know is the of the society which was the oldest continuous national nonscientific based -- regular people joined the audit in society, and the ottoman society started around 1905 by taking on the trade and putting an end quite successfully to the destruction of egrets and other birds used in fashion. interestingly enough maybe it was locked but no species in the united states that i know of became extinct on the account of the women's fashion. the list of species that became extinct because of over hunting is rather impressive including the pension we can go way back but the passenger pigeon which left killed off its perch in the zoo in 1914 which was also the year that john dot i's of the conservation had enacted this. we have john who sort of in bodies that with the use and the national park and the seating of the big redwood and all that. the ottoman society was very active but then it went into a local. the victories had been one much as the women's suffrage movement also went into a satloff as my editor would have called it, and it became corrupted by the special interests. it did not see a species that did not have the market value so again birds that had no market value, the california condor had no market value, no predator had a market value, and rosalie edge comes along and she is furious and she's not a scientists but she says you save everything. you don't know what it's connected to and that is the idea that she introduced to the conservation movement, to the audit in society and other societies, other movements grew as a result of her demonstration of that fact. >> i was thinking perhaps she listed on the way the conservation groups have the market environmentalism as a solution to saving the planet. >> there were some things she probably -- i wouldn't say she would have joined earth first. i don't know why i think that. i guess it wasn't lady like for her and she was always a lady but she would have been antimarket and she might have been wrong about that, but she would have been on the radical side she probably would not have condoned the corporate decision of the environmental movement. she did believe it was each person's duty and you don't need an organization to tell you how to do that. she believed very much in the individual initiative, and that's who she was so she would have stayed her course and it would have been contrary. >> thank you petraeus, chris, que introduced me to the republican brand, and i think's your writing has been most helpful to me as someone who came to another country where climate change was actually completed a bipartisan until recently not politicized in the same way but also helped me explain to the rest of the world what's going on here with the sort of partisanship current science and some of the scientists here in fact the ones that william interviewed had been targets of hate mail and even now i feel -- i was sitting here realizing i was intimidated sitting next to you talking about china so because of the way that the politics and the heat that's all there. i haven't had a chance to read but whether you will help me communicate with those that denied the science, and also wondered if you could talk a bit -- refocused mostly what's happening at the federal level in your book that was also issued at the state level of round the treatment of signs that may be even more serious than what is going on at the federal local soil wondered if you could comment. >> how do you communicate with someone that views the world radically differently than you do? >> one option as you don't which honestly might be the best choice if you want to be strategic about it. the middle is the place to go for most of your communication efforts not the people that were the hardest to convince and for whom convincing as the most unnatural because you are not one of them. i gave a database that published an example of using that training effect to open the mind of conservatives of their individual and they clearly are than they love private industry, if you from the science of the global warming in such a way to produce private industry and nuclear power seems to be one way of doing that, i can think of others, then a seems to be lined opening. however, notably that was the obama when green job strategy, so it appears a few years and messenger they view as the enemy, to frame it in this way, then the whole ayaan group and out group thing kicks in even though it is a pro industry message, so there's another dynamic of their where because there is so much many of you democrats as the enemy, something that democrats espouse even if it is framed to support the conservative values it becomes something they cannot accept. right. and so, i think you mean mean grassroots attacks on science at the low -- >> stake of legislatures. >> i haven't made a move on them but i'm sure they are doing all sorts of terrible things. [laughter] but there's also the grassroots attacks on teaching evolution the next thing they don't want our kids to fund properly because we have a fragmented educational system and activists have a weakness that a jury in different states so we have the national center for education tracking all the different bills that any country into evolution and pretty bundling global warming its antievolution felker screen didier rauf fight but basically it's appalling to be. evolution part i we had this thing called the amendment which was really awful and is this you can't establish a religion. as a public school can't teach religion. and so we always have the courts. is libertarianism a religion? is global warming a religion? i can see how you would make the argument that they are not going to buy it. you will not deal to win the first amendment. >> thank you to read just a quick question for disgust and then the person standing there so patiently. the things i thought was most important about your book is yours is one of the first books on climate change the regional koppel will. the things we need to do to adapt to climate change are things we should be doing any way because we are not always that well adapted to read the was music to my years because that is what we identified as the work going forward at the university of arizona patriots going forward my question is. i think it was just are we going to adapt. it is warmer in this region. estimate the short answer is. we are probably not going to have forests. the largest. they are already well on their way to being gone. the water stress in this region is going to be fierce. because of the continued overuse the city's probably shrink a good deal. some of us. in terms of adaptation cities like tucson and phoenix right now order at the edge they will ever have. the bust as a given pause to the phenomenal turning of the growth when the economic pressure for continued rapacious growth and moneymaking is at adel larocco this is the effort and the deferred tucson and triet to really think about their future. it's for a very different kind of future damage it's going on in the past. but as one real-estate said to me. and good sense can overcome 50 plus years of tradition? maybe not. so anyhow, this is the chance, these are going to change their ways. will happen now and if it doesn't the price to pay will be greater in the future and mean time that is on the adaptation side. there's also mitigation where climate change is concerned and the sooner we can take national action we need to have a carbon tax which is the most sensible way to begin the big economic shift we have to had. the sooner we can get that going, the best because there is so much inertia in the climate system that even if we stop all greenhouse gas emissions tomorrow, we would still be warming for another generation or a generation and a half on the planet. >> okay to read we are moving towards the last few minutes so i would love to give you the opportunity to ask your questions. >> i have to of them for chris mooney and they have to do with about your hemolysis. the first one is. i don't mention the financial contributions made by serious fossil fuel related industries for example the republicans get to both parties to it how much of their goals that play when you see site for six years ago president bush was saying global reality was the. republicans who are running for office or avoiding that almost entirely in the second, i think this is a broad question, is back 30 years ago, environment in general was more of a bipartisan issue. they were in their mental, they were republicans to pass environmental bills, republicans interviewed in my job in favor of the environmental legislation and now it's almost 100% in this state and other states polarized partisan. is what we are seeing on the climate change just a part of the bigger picture. i think that at the beginning of the climate issued a fossil fuel industry was a life behind the tacking kyoto. and they funded the think tanks. but we have seen that the point. that is not the trend anymore. most folks will see companies and accept the signs of global warming and what has the exposed which i think is actually more powerful and more emotional than these affiliations with industries. we have a lot of the fossil fuel industry behind cap-and-trade and that wasn't enough. so then why did the republican party turned this way. that is your -- requires the nature and nurture and the shift as always going to be the first. as the reagan democrats were in the party. they moved all to the right and made the party more of a haven for these kinds of psychologies. does anybody else have a quick question? yes, sir. >> i want to ask a question about convenience. i have seen our lives. if it's not our nature, how can we on instruct ourselves. that is a tough one, to mike. dewaal deutsch with a couple sentences? >> i am afraid we are locking up against the essence of human nature. we are. of listening to what chris had to say about the republican - and so forth, i recall a quote from john kenneth galbraith to assist with the necessity of changing one's mind were approaching that it is unnecessary, nearly everybody gets busy on the proof. except that i think when we finally get busy to deal with climate change it will be out of this year to read our reaction is going to be disaster driven. we've already had quite a few disasters. there is a long menu of more the will be coming our way, and one of the reasons those disasters will be strong enough to wake us up and. let's pray it might be something close to the right thing to do. [applause] i would like to wrap up on a more optimistic note. first of all college remind you that. the one you might want to be looking for our rosalie edge furmansky rosalie edge what of mercy and sure you can find ways to do it. on the republican green i'm sure it will be something. and williams wonderful book the great. and he will be. i would like to booktv.org you for attending the session and i want to think the authors, diana for making it clear one woman can make a difference on the environment. chris for helping me understand the politics of science in the united states, and william for caring so much about the future of the landscape that we live and actually using the university's research as a writer which is something i appreciate. so the authors will be autographing books right now in the signing area which is ten to be west of here and the books are available i believe that the signing area. last but not least you are enjoying the festival and you would like to become a friend of the festival, go to the information booth on the mall or on line on our website to revive like to thank you for being here this morning and thank these wonderful authors and wished you a very good day. thank you. [applause] we will be back with more live coverage of the 2012 tucson festival of books shortly. here's a look at books being published this week.