Koefsh host, nice to have you back. Its crazy when we are looking at this intersection of technology and the consumer consumption of it all of the changes that are about to happen. It feels very unrealistic in many ways. It does. In some ways, i think its cool like recently i was looking for a camera bag to take on my trip with afault lines. Now, its the advertisement on every single website i am on. How does that happen. The weird part is i bought the camera bag. Its still on there. Its a way i want to say how do i move the conversation. Bought it the. Leave me alone . Checking the box. I always think of these conversations that always going to say we have the flying cars by this time and we dont. It reminds me of a tweet we received that said i would like to see cars that can safely navigate themselves in 10 years. It would be helpful at 2 00 a. M. In the morning. These kind of things will do these kind of operations better than we do as humans and more safely. We are going to talk a
Next david keith and Clive Hamilton debate the idea of scientifically manipulating the merman to address the threat of Global Warming. This is about an hour. Many thanks scott for that introduction and for the invitation to come and debate climate engineering with david here today. I want to talk a little bit about some of the implication but more about the social and political meaning of what it would mean to have a geoengineered planet and i want to draw on a bit of historical experiencexperienc e to get some idea of what that means. Now david has become the foremost advocate of geoengineering in response to Global Warming and in his new look a case for climate engineering if you put forward an innovative approach to solar geoengineering, that is the use of a fleet of planes to inject sulfuric acid into the upper atmosphere, the stratosphere to create a layer of tiny particles between the sun and the earth and i should point out that today we are going to be talking about this form o
So we havent had a chance to digest it. But the Attorney General in his Confirmation Hearings was very clear with a oneword answer when asked by a senator whether he had contact with the russians in any way, shape, or form. He said no, period. No condition, no modification. So obviously that turns out to not be accurate there is no reason to believe that Jeff Sessions in the Confirmation Hearing was trying to hide something. He may simply have forgotten. But it does mean two things. Number one, it adds to the incredible weight of evidence that the administration is not credible on these issues. Remember a couple of weeks ago when we heard that Michael Flynn was talking to the Russian Ambassador simply to wish him merry christmas. And of course that turns out not to be true. And Michael Flynn is no longer National Security adviser. So this white house has a very, very significant credibility problem. And its with respect to Attorney General sessions, what this means, and again, its too
Reasons that i talked to congressman cleaver, because hes out there making sure that where can i send donations coming in toward this reward. I pointed him toward crimestoppers. Those things are remarkable. They really are. And im thankful again that we dont have a situation to where we are looking on an investigation regarding a homicide and that these officers will recover, but yet it does express the support that the community has. Please understand the amount of folks that are involved in expressing their First Amendment rights who have contacted me and said hey, listen what happened to those officers was wrong and we certainly support the Police Department and Law Enforcement because if we dont have you, then we have no sense of security and we have no ability to do what were doing. So thats critical. I certainly appreciate that. The detectives are looking into this investigation around the clock. They will not rest until we get to the point of where we have a conclusion regarding
The house of representatives also debating the strategy in syria, whether to arm Syrian Rebels in the fight against isis. We must eradicate the isis regime that perverts a religion founded on peace and uses it as a platform to engage in crucifixions and beheadings and mass murders. But i oppose todays request because it fails to seek the full authorization of this body. It fails to seek a clear mandate of the American People. And because it asks this body to approve only one small portion of an overall strategy that is continuing to evolve if the house does pass that bill it will then go to the senate where West Virginia senator joe manchin laid out his very serious concerns. The opposition fighters that we will train care more about overthrowing assads regime than they do about defeating isis. Assad is evil, make no mistake about it. But he is not a threat to america. If the moderate opposition has to choose between defeating assad and defeating isis, why do we believe think about thi