Right, thank you Tony for that fatalistic examination of our future, not fatalistic though, it's not fatalistic, I didn't say near fatalistic, realistic. Further challenge to energy supply and the consistency thereof, radical innovations in production leading to changes, balance of power between different countries and indeed between different groups within societies, a dystopia, the need to respond to climate change rather than realistically being able to stop it. And at the very end there Tony makes the point about how the difficulty of getting citizens, I think this is the challenge for governments, getting citizens to understand what's happening in order that those who govern have a chance of moulding and allowing them citizens to deal with or perhaps to react appropriately to these kind of changes. I see I could have given a talk in 30 seconds because Tony just did. Good, right, excellent, it's easier for me, I was just following you. Now if I can move on to our discussions and give them sort of two or three minutes each just to open out from what they've heard and with the view then to having a bit of a discussion around the table and then I'll open it up to the audience a little bit later on. Tessa, are you optimistic, pessimistic or fatalistic? Oh, I'm always optimistic. It's very important if you are a politician and I've been a Member of Parliament as you know for 20 years and I've been a Minister in the UK government for 13 years of which more than eight were in the Cabinet. So all that makes me very optimistic and I've also been one of the sort of five or six people most centrally involved in conceiving and delivering the Olympic Games. That makes me feel even more optimistic given the conditions in which huge challenges become possible. But my experience of facing these huge challenges and in a way we all come to this I think by analogy and my first job in government was as public health minister. And then the other and within that one of the major objectives to reduce health inequality to reduce the levels of inherited deprivation through the construction of programs for early intervention in childhood and then the Olympics. Now what's the common theme through all these disparate public policy challenges including that which is ostensibly the focus of our discussion today. It is the need for pluralism and the frustration about inactivity on climate change and some of the very difficult questions that Tony outlined, energy security. The ideological nature of much of energy policy is what stands in the way. And I think that there are long term challenges. Known as Nigel Lawson. What? Known as Nigel Lawson. That's a political remark. OK right. Well I'm just. No I think that's a heckle so I'm just going to carry on. Lot of you there. So I think that the only prospect for getting a rational long term set of policies to address the acute challenges of climate change is to build the basis of cross party agreement. I'm talking here from a UK perspective but climate change as many of these challenges is heavily tiered the impact of action to give effect to climate change starts with behaviour change. How we all act in the privacy of our own homes. Did we how many of us turned the plugs off that we charged our phones with overnight last night you know and and so forth. How many of us are scrupulous in meeting the recycling requirements of our local council rather than just putting everything that we can get away with into a big black bag.  And then of course the interact ability of reaching global agreements but what underpins this is a pretty brutal recognition that if you allow these policies to rest purely within the electoral cycle nothing will happen. And that's why if I were in government now I would be identifying three or four major areas for long term change which are absolutely fundamental to the resilience of our society and I would be putting an awful lot of effort into those. And to move from the heavily strategic to the small and local to here the reason that the delivery of the Olympic Games on sustainability grounds on cultural grounds sporting grounds regeneration grounds confounded all expectations was the stability that came with the agreed terms for consensus. And you mentioned the Olympics and in the UK there's no doubt there was an all party consensus that drove that and you were an element in that but. I was the instigator. You were the instigator. I'm sorry. Not that we want to over clean. The battle I had in cabinet means that I shall always be quite proud of being the instigator of that. But it still begs the question of more generally with the fall in trust in politicians and not only in Britain not unique to bring by any means. That makes it difficult and I like to come on back on to this when he speaks. I mean the question of how if trust in politicians is falling away does it make it more difficult for them to lead the kind of changes and to make the kind of policy that are needed to react to the changes that Tony was talking. No I think it actually makes it easier and much easier because I think that anyway let's set aside the question of trust in politicians. I think that politicians who think that they're ever going to be trusted are unrealistic and trust is too high a bar for politicians to aspire to. However. Still more or less trust. More or less trust. But if you set politics aside we are as anora O'Neill set out so clearly in the reath lectures we are a society that runs on trust. We are a trusting society and I'm being very UK centric here but I mean I can talk about India by comparison where I was last week for 10 days if you like. But I think that where the public see politicians putting aside the hard edge of ideological difference in pursuit of the public interest that increases their confidence. The word I prefer to trust that increases their confidence in politics and politicians because they feel it's about them rather than about the politicians. OK. Well thanks for that. I'm sorry to interrupt there. I'll turn to our second respondent Craig Calhoun. Thanks Tony. Well thanks both Tony's for the good talk and the passing of the floor. Just some quick remarks first regarding what Tessa just said and cited anora O'Neill for I have a partial pessimism on that if we're a society that runs on trust I think we're in trouble. And indeed we are a society that runs on trust and we have really a series of major problems about that first off at various sorts of scales. What is the structure of trust and solidarity that works at a European scale to global scale. But indeed in Britain or in any other national society there are lots of indicators of serious problems on this front and difficulties with sort of public trust. Which means which creates problems for any potential responses to an issue like climate change. And we have the sort of declining trust in political parties or the other sorts of indicators of difficulties in potential collective action. If government is to play a central role I think it must in these sorts of responses then we have a real question about the political bases for being able to generate the effect of responses. I think the most important thing to say about urban responses to climate change is that they're mostly hypothetical. We had some yesterday some wonderful prospective visions that the possibilities are enormous the technologies are interesting and the realities so far are pretty small in a relationship to the issue. Massive risks are real but massive risks unsettle us more than they in themselves guide change. I think that they don't produce in and of themselves responses that go in particular directions. And so knowing that there's a risk explains more that people get nervous than it does what they do to actually confront this. And a lot of what does shape responses existing social organization. So I worry that we get for example proposals that reflect more about the existing political economy than they do the kind of response needed. A simple example is something like cap and trade as a proposal to try to deal with carbon. Not entirely implausible but a lot more about creating securitized financial instruments that can be traded in markets and be advantageous to Goldman Sachs than about actually confronting the best possible way some of the climate change issues. I think there are all sorts of obstacles I'm going to try to detail them but there is possibility here I'm not unambiguously pessimistic and this is very much a matter of cities. So one of the features of cities that's important is that cities are sites of a fair amount of social self organization. A fair amount of cooperation but also tacit of creating of ways of working together and alongside each other by a variety of different people in different organizations. And so they are indicative of the extent to which it's possible to create very complex structures and systems not in centrally planned ways. And the difficulties of centrally planned response therefore are only part of the story. But cities are also here structures of inequality in a way that needs to be recognized as our common theme of the urban age conferences and of LSE cities. But the extent to which it's not just that there are the wealthy and the poor but that cities are structures shaped by the activities of production and consumption and the byproducts of them. So that cities do a lot of creating externalities externalizing the impacts of production into some parts of the cities. Whether through pollution or through poverty or through extreme over concentration and so forth. So that we need to look at the extent to which these dynamics are constantly reproducing in new form these extreme inequalities and externalizing the negative byproducts of what we do. And I think that goes on into the climate change issues and who lives in low line areas as the sea level rises and a whole series of other sorts of things. And we won't have the solidarity. We won't have the trust to confront this so long as we continue to reproduce these vast inequalities and structure them into cities in crucial ways. We are very likely to face increasing disasters we already do so I actually accept Tony Giddens' suggestion that we see the kind of hurricane Sandy Superstorm discussions as portents whether there's an exact individual relationship to a trend is not. But then we recognize that disaster is often itself urbanizing that massive disasters that climate change disasters don't come just in the form of walls of water hitting cities in Japan or the United States. They come in the form of ecological change in Africa that things like the situation in Darfur are intensified by water shortages and other shifts that are climatically induced shifts. And they have the impact of driving urbanization in significant parts so that we're actually getting more urbanization in part by responses because people displaced from other forms of life end up largely becoming urban populations. And a lot of urban growth is driven by difficulties elsewhere in the larger ecology and that and it creates an issue for resilience not just of the cities we live in of the big high tech cities but of resilience for low and middle tech cities in other parts of the world. And a lot of the question of lives lost and the resilience questions need to be asked there not in the places or not only in the places where we imagine the new utopian technologies to come. Urbanization has long made and remade nature of this and this is going on today and there are various bits of this we could go on and talk about. I would in line with my remarks yesterday note the importance of repurposing infrastructure, the extent to which cities are rebuilding and repurposing projects not unlike the space in which we sit and that in our imaginings of ways to deal with this, imagining repurposing is often as important as imagining completely new things we would build into cities yet our imaginations are heavily structured towards the completely new as in the smart cities fantasies and so forth. And a last thing I would put on the table is the we come at whatever our new era is and however we're going to describe it we come at it at the end of an era of de institutionalization unlike the post war boom that built a variety of social institutions for dealing with problems. We come at our current situation after 30 or 40 years of undoing many of the social institutions of weakening many of the social institutions that in fact create resilience that help people cope with problems that deal with social inequality and this undermines our ability to respond effectively. And this is reinforced by much of the way in which we think about the electric city that is our techno fantasies are often highly individualistic techno fantasies and on the one hand and yet every possible solution that's proposed is a system level solution. So we have a sort of a political individual utopian fantasy of the technical cities. We have a dystopian fantasy of which is I think quite realistic of systems in which people don't matter the matrix or however you want to think about it. And we have a very hard time connecting these into an imagining of a future which is actually amenable to various sorts of socially organized action for which we would need institutions organizations something between the libertarian individual and the massively planned system. And this place is a premium on politics mechanisms for participation kinds of social protection that would enable people to cope. And so I think the biggest issue of responding to climate change isn't per se the technologies of response.  Great. Thank you very much. I mean if I can play back to your question a bit like the one I asked Tessa but about academics, intellectuals. I mean what's their role? I mean if I have trashed the reputation of politicians or say that somehow politicians have had their reputation or trust in them has fallen. Actually academics reasonably high levels of trust. I mean what's their role in the world you've just described? High levels of trust although a certain expectation that they'll do their own thing and just not cause much trouble. So that's not an expectation that we will deliver as much that's socially useful that contributes to this as we might. I think academics have a hard time shifting their research agendas. So it's unusual.  I'm going to stop what I'm doing. I'm going to work on the climate change issue. This is very hard for academics in midstream of careers and we need more of it but not just on climate change on a variety of issues. It's also the case that we have a variety of disciplinary structures that are often antithetical to looking at major issues. Urbanisation itself cuts across ten different disciplines the extent to which we can repurpose ourselves to look in intellectually serious ways at the practical issues that cut across disciplines is crucial. And finally I'd say things like this conference are good and what I said yesterday in opening that it's a social collaborative production of knowledge that's crucial that also shares it. There's no future for imagining that academics are going to think up solutions inside their universities and somehow by some transmission belt they get on these are going to reach the larger public. It's going to be a collaborative process if it happens at all in which there are relationships with people in other settings besides pure research settings shaping the questions that are being asked shaping the research that's being done creating an appetite to use the results of research whether they're political actors or corporate actors or other kinds of actors and so we'd better be building these alliances now not just doing research waiting for some chance to disseminate it later. I'm sure lots of people in the room will have heard that. Excellent. Enrique Penalosa. Here we have been we have clarity that the cities are going to grow hugely especially in the developing world. That means in the next 40 or 50 years practically all cities in the developing world will grow between three fold and 12 or more fold. But not only the developing world for example the United States over the next 50 years will be necessary to build the homes equivalent to all of those existing in Britain and Canada together. So the way these cities are built can have a great impact in sustainability and what I will try to say is that sustainability or how to avoid climate change is extremely closely linked to equity. We have problems with sustainability in the developing world mainly because of inequality. For example we are building for example slums. We have slums all over the developing world the poor are forced to go to the wrong places very high up in the hills around cities for example. So this creates a huge amount of energy expenditure for the next 500 years because they are not being located in the right places and it's very difficult to use bicycles to reach those places too for example. Or else also private property of land around growing cities is forcing the development to go very far away. This is a fantastic study in Mexico recently in which they showed that between 1980 and 2010 approximately Mexican cities grew two fold in population and about seven fold in area because seeking cheap land so this inequality. The inequality is making people go very far to totally car dependent environments which again will consume a lot of energy. Inequality is also that which keeps upper income people from riding bicycles but they feel they are too important to go in a bicycle or to use public transport. I mean the upper income people in the developing world feel very fancy using the subway in London or Paris but they would never be caught riding public transport next to the low income citizens. So I would say that inequality creates bad cities and also bad cities create inequality but on the other hand happily also equality creates good cities and good cities create equality and many things can be done if we realize. I think we have sometimes inequality before our noses and we do not recognize it as we had for example slavery or when we think about the French Revolution we think so obvious what changed them but it was not so obvious because a thousand years had gone by and everybody thought those things were normal. Or only maybe six or seventy years ago there was no vote for women in our society and people thought this was totally normal. Now today it seems to me that for example to have a road with traffic jams without exclusive lanes for buses is a symbol of inequality almost lack of democracy and technically rationality because it doesn't take from the technical point of view doesn't take a PhD from MEPs. I might hear from LSE to realize that the most obvious way to use scarce road space is with exclusive lanes for buses and from the equality perspective if it's true as all constitutions say that all citizens are equal before the law then of course a bus with 80 people has a right to 80 times more road space than a car with one. So this are very simple technologies which could solve mobility I mean mobility is a political issue and an equity is not a technical issue and of course this could have a week you could almost solve mobility in a developing country city in a matter of months if you took the right political decisions to use road space in a democratic rationally rational way. I would also say that so that even basic infrastructure such as sidewalks will get people to walk more but in developing world there is no sidewalks protected bicycle way a protected bicycle way again is a symbol that shows that a citizen on a $30 bicycle is equally important to one on a $30,000 car. So it's equally important because it protects the citizen as it is because it increases the social status of the cyclist a bus in an exclusive bus lane. Summing by as expensive cars are in a jam is a very beautiful symbol of democracy as well. So I would say that I mean sewage can be fine if they are done for the right reasons but they are simply too expensive but often in the developing world they are done because the upper income people want them not because they have this lightest intention of ever getting into one but because they want other people to go underground so they have more space in the streets so and with sewage is wonderful and it's beautiful but it's impossible to solve this equity. Now since we are doing totally new cities, totally new cities, I would just propose that we can design totally different cities which with ingredients which do not exist in London or New York which would completely and radically change the way cities are lived and used and it would be very cheap. For example we could have hundreds in Bogotawe did for example about 70 kilometres of pedestrian and bicycle road such as bicycle highways going through a very dense city. Cawdwch lle o bai chi ddweud cyddiad hynny. Yn y bwgottag, byddwn yn 70 km o bedestru, a achos mewn arrhyentlyn lle o rwyng byddwn yn cyfriddol petrolau'r cyfriddol. Yn y pryd y cîn, yn credu byddwn yn cyfriddoll y cîn, a'i fyddechrau bod eu cyfriddol número of hynny'n cyfriddol bai cyfriddol, felly mae'r cyfriddl ni fydd ynnghwyl i fynd i gyd yno. Yn y cîn, ymddol yr cyfriddol e'n cyfriddol yno, of hundreds of kilometers, thousands of kilometers of bus-only roads which would work like fantastic mass transit systems and would be very easy and very cheaply done. And I would say that technology in many ways of course I am optimist that is making improvement but for example just to end with one last comment about this, beyond all the wonderful things that cell phones are doing for developing country people it's amazing how it improves their productivity. I would mention two things. One is electric bicycles to which was a reference yesterday. Electric bicycles can be a revolution but you have to have the infrastructure for this because you can use them even in hilly cities or where people maybe are not in good shape or whatever. And finally the iPods. I think iPods have made bicycle riding a totally new experience. It's almost like flying low through a city so I think but all of this has to do if we make the decision to make a more democratic city, a little bit more for people and a little bit less for cars. Okay, thanks. I can put a similar question to you to the one to Tessa which is I think described as a way of, if it's not a new city you're going to have to change a city. So in a sense it requires the politician to take interests on in a pretty aggressive way. Now from your own experience you've done that but other politicians don't find it or don't find it nearly as easy to do or you've said as in a sense the applause suggested people want because people in the room want. Why don't they see the obviousness of your case and then just make people change? It's really as I mentioned some things are so obvious but we are so used to the other thing. If I had said 90 years ago that women should vote people would have laughed as a little funny thing. Like today if I say that any road with traffic jams should have exclusive lanes for buses people smile a little mockingly that this is something a little funny or almost ridiculous or when I say for example that clearly the private property of I believe in the markets and private property and of course I mean this is but sometimes it doesn't work. In the case of land around growing cities it doesn't work. The beauty of the market and private property is that when prices go up such as in the case of tomatoes or computers then supply increases and then prices go down and prices tend to approach costs. That's the beauty but in the case of land around growing cities so you can increase prices all you want and the supply of land that is accessible to transport to education to jobs to water. So I think if this was more clear maybe there would be a battle to give but unfortunately the poor people in developing country cities are too worried about surviving to be able to fight and even the upper income people are so powerful. I was almost impeached when I was a mayor because I just took the cars off the sidewalks and I put ballards you know and then this was I was public enemy number one. At some point I had 15% of positive image. I even had to send my daughter to live in Canada with a brother because he was my 12 year old daughter because it was almost like being a criminal because I was so. I hope that this process which was top down led from the top down is not the right way to do it. I think with these new technologies such as Twitter and Facebook and Internet and all of these things is more possible that this change process will be more supported and even more led from the interested people. OK, right, thank you. And again last but not least, Martin Haier, your contribution, your response. Yeah, well I think actually it was a great keynote that Tony just gave us there because I mean it's nice that we have all new sort of gadgets but we want to put them to a certain use and you gave it a certain urgency and orientation that I think is important. As we know at the moment we can still actually reach that two degree target but that's technically it's possible. Whether it's socially possible that's the issue I suppose here. It's not about technology, it's about how to make that society transform itself to use that technology as was just said. And then you realize that often when we talk solutions we talk really nice little solutions but not the ones that will make the change. So give you a sense of the degree to which the order of magnitude issue is not in the room a lot of the time.  But this society is one in which we localize compromise, become more compact in the cities but we combine it with a global life. So that is precisely the sort of non-solution that's not going to help us out of this issue. There is not enough bio-fuel to run these aeroplanes in a sustainable way. So there is a real politics of energy and I think that was well put. And you can also actually see in a conference like this sort of the outskirts of what that politics is about and it is as of yet uncertain. What we know is that we have to think very broadly and think perhaps about 20th century, 21st century. Because the 20th century, say take the post war period was all based on fossils. It was based on global integrated organizations like the United Nations. It was based on the idea that hierarchy would solve the major public issues and it was based on a central rule approach. Once the elite agreed we would just devolve and the solutions would be implemented. But now we can no longer use fossil fuels and it is in the mix that we now have. We have five, sometimes ten percent renewables. The rest is fossils. That implies that you have to work on a sort of a war based system to get into that two degree world. We cannot rely on the UN. These sort of global institutes are not going to deliver. There is not going to be a consensus based 193 country wide coalition for this. So it are going to be coalitions of the willing. That's the new 21st century term. And these coalitions of the willing might be big corporations NGOs and some cities and perhaps a few universities. But these were all sort of actors, the new actors of change that know how to fight each other not how to find each other. We know very well how to put sort of multinational capital in the dock from a critical science perspective. But we know that we need to have new sort of coalitions of the willing to make this move. Now then the third was hierarchy of the 20th century is cooperation probably of the 21st century. That is I think very much in the room here. The spirit of cooperation using these gadgets to share because one of the reasons why we needed hierarchical organization was that we needed some unit that had all the information. Now the information is spread out. And central rule won't work. We need sort of incentive based rules. And I suppose that's one of the things that I think that the state can make a difference. To really say we have that vision, we can still manage to keep this a pleasant place. And this is the incentive structure. We're not going to tell you what to do, but we're going to tax carbon. For instance a very logical approach. If you have a problem in a society of taxation in the 21st century, well connect it to the one big problem that you have. If you have another big problem which is labour, then reduce the amount of tax on labour. I mean you don't have to reinvent a sort of employment strategy. You have to put the incentive rights. And there again I thought that what Bruce Ked said is important, but also shows you the problem of getting this play on the stage so to say. Because we must also allow ourselves to talk about it in a political way. Where there's space for real disagreements. Because let's not forget that one solution for the climate crisis is not immediately supporting your sort of equality project. There are many solutions to the climate problem that say well we have to take that away from you. We are going to sort of control and make sure that the world is going to be a safer place. So that mix of different things we want to get right is what we need. And then I suppose the urban being the site where this all happens is precisely because this is the space where we create new norms. I think that value change is going to be the driver of it all. And cities are renowned for being places where you are seen, want to be seen and where people are seeing each other. And what you now see and that is I suppose a really significant change is that it becomes hip to be sustainable. A house in California that is visibly sustainable, that means it has PV on the roof, is worth more than the value of the house and the PV together. Because we like to be seen to be doing good. And that is I suppose what also is coming through from this conference is that there is indeed sort of a value change. And now the problem is, and it's not Enrique's problem because he's sort of an odd case out, you are sort of a courageous politician. But most politicians only dare to follow when they're certain that it is a majority issue. So the issue really for us now is how to construct the sort of a coalition that says we want this. We think this is a good strategy. And I think that will come from very different political issues. And when Tony said the new politics of energy, I think there is no one single solution to that energy issue. And it might actually be one where you have to choose very directly whether you prioritize the central electricity generation or central electricity generation. And a smart grid which helps people that are prosumers might be one that you want to put forward. You want to prioritize that investment to the detriment of the super grid because there's also a solution suggesting that we are going to get all our energy and electricity from desert tech in Africa. And that would be a central organizational principle. So good old Charles Perrow did an investigation of the Harrisburg disaster in Three My Island. And what he came up with was a disaster for the fact that these systems were tightly coupled. They were not loosely coupled. And I suppose one of the interesting things that we can now decide is to have very decentral energy systems that allow society to be much more democratic, much more able to innovate to readjust by changing out a module and putting in a new one and avoid that we need a song state which we don't have and that we need to have central technological solutions that we probably don't want. Again, the question to you. I mean, how far do you think politicians can be or the leadership that you're describing, either from politicians or from social and more popular movements? How fast they can move in relation to Tony Giddins' is we may be too late for you? Well, I think that if you look at it historically that politicians often do not really lead but follow. So they codify something that's already happening. So if you look at the major innovations in building insulation, it wasn't that politicians said that needed to be installed. It was that the industry said they could do it. And then the rules followed. So what you can now do best is to make it an interesting trajectory. And look at the Danish example. They had a sort of societal agreement that that renewable revolution was what they wanted and that was what made it robust against coalitions that changed. The German example, again I suppose, is now, well, it's getting controversial but the reason why it's relatively robust is that a new interest emerged of people that now are seeing themselves as energy producers, renewable energy producers. And they constantly monitor these acceptance rate of that energy vendor. So it is, politicians do not walk up front but what we could do, critical social scientists, people working in industry is show that this is actually viable proposition. Many politicians are, I think it's fair to say, willing to be a bit more proactive than that in many cases, aren't they? But the question is, how far can they go beyond their own image? Some do it for image purposes, some do it because they believe in it. But I think you're saying it doesn't really matter providing they do it. That's what you're saying, isn't it? I mean everybody, you would like to give the politician the glory of being the one that changed the world. But I think the big issue underneath will be the value issue. And often that goes unintentionally. So I suppose that one of the positive effects of the austerity of this day and age is that people look for radically different solutions. So what I find striking for instance in our discussion here is that the incompleteless is now idealized. So we say that's good that something is incomplete. I don't know why. I mean I like a beautiful finished building. But the reason why many buildings are incomplete and why we start to like it I think is because we have to anticipate that we no longer can afford to build these expensive buildings. So values have a funny way of adjusting to new systemic challenges. Okay, Tessa's caught my eye. I'm going to ask Tony Giddins to respond to the responses in a moment. But Tessa, you've caught my eye. I just wanted to pick up what I think has become a theme. And please challenge me if I'm wrong. Which is for these big challenges, whether it's shaping new cities or climate change to be met requires a different kind of politics and in some senses different kinds of politicians. The difference between those of us who are politicians is that we're on a kind of five-year contract and at the end of that time the people can vote us out. A lot of you may have a bit more security of tenure than that. But that is an asset. It's not a liability. But I think the other thing is that I would invite on behalf of politics and politicians, I would invite you to be more open-minded in creating coalitions for progress with politicians whether they be city level or local level or national politicians. Because that's the way in which good policy is achieved. And I think that somehow creating the stocks for politics as an activity as a vocation is entirely counterproductive in this. The best cities are cities that are led by vibrant and engaged politicians who would always put it kind of grit under their fingernails, to connect with what's actually happening in people's lives. Experience the rush hour on the underground in the morning or waiting for the bus or the fury at the cars who drive up the bus lane when you're actually sitting on the bus and so forth, this sense of solidarity. And I therefore go back to what I said at the beginning. I think there's enormous possibility of building these kinds of alliances for long-term change and turning the product of that alliance into a kind of contract with the public more widely. But I think that this is a big moment for politics and for politicians and those who will emerge as the leaders of the next 10 or 15 years are those who understand that and are prepared to act in a different way not always necessarily being the politicians who are out in front mopping up the glory, which is the result of other people's efforts. Okay, in defence of politics and rightly so, in my fault, probably just starting that one. Right, Tony, would you like to respond to the responses? Well, I'll just respond to one of two things. Thanks very much for all those observations. First of all, I'm not interested where the only one is an optimist on. I think the important thing is we recognise the reality of risk. And when you say you're an optimist, it should not involve the denial of risk. So, for example, you could have cancer and you could say I'm an optimist because I believe in lifestyle change as the way of treating cancer. Well, that would be, in my opinion, a fairly foolish position to take. I think the difficult thing for people, politicians and others is to think the reality of the risks we face.  No other civilisation has been global as our civilisation is. Very hard to think the reality of risk and to take it seriously. So, to me, I'm not interested in division, between optimism and pessimism. I'm interested in recognising that these risks are huge, that the scientific basis for them is extremely solid, that whatever degree we end up with, these are massive problems, existential problems at the outer range of risk for our civilisation. On the other hand, as I said, this is a high risk society in two senses because all risks breed responses and it's our obligation as global citizens to try and create responses which are equivalent to the scale of risk. What we mustn't do is just live in denial and I fear at the moment that's what too many people are doing.   That is not a way to look at and respond to realistically a high risk, high opportunity society. We've got at least two sets of risks, climate change and nuclear weapons which could essentially destroy large chunks of our civilisation, no point pretending otherwise. Of course you can because it makes for an easy life, but as thinkers and as politicians, that is not the way to do things. It's so easy to say, oh, the risk doesn't really exist. What can I do about it? Surely it's exaggerated. The climate has always changed. All this rubbishy stuff, there's no credence if you actually look at the literature. So we must recognise the reality of risk, but recognise that all risks, even the most serious, create opportunities. For us they could create quite radical opportunities, I think. Second on the issue of trust, I'm interested in trust in politicians and social science has been studying trust for 100 years really. The big issue that arises in climate change in some extent in our society more generally is trust in science, actually. What people who deny the reality of climate change is doing are denying the validity of the scientific enterprise and quite often do that openly. Scientists who work not only on climate change but other issues like animal issues, for example animal experimentation on a front line in a way which was never true before the advent of the internet. Without the internet, we would never have had the case that you might know about East Anglia where the climate scientists' emails were hacked and then became a source of massive controversy. Science is in a new position in a dialogic internet-based civilisation where everyone thinks they can be an expert. And really scientists have got to rethink their own position because they can no longer, I think, take an ivory tower view, actually. So data must be published far more extensively than before. But there's a real issue because you can't really publish your data before you've worked on it. And see, real difficulty is surrounding the role of scientific authority in an internet world, I think, which we should be looking at and be interested in because it's not just in climate change. It's in things like cancer. You may read the case in the papers yesterday where Amala took her child away and ran away because she didn't want him to have medical treatment. Is that a freedom of the individual or not? Anyway, the police went and got the child and now the child is to have that medical treatment. I think there's a new front line here, though, in the era of the internet between science and the lay person might be quite difficult to tread.  By which I mean, we have to think beyond the existing world if we're going to cope with the risks which we face. I find more and more acceptance of this in the so-called emerging economies. It's not possible for China or India simply to tread the path which the West followed. It's not possible. Talking of traffic jams, the biggest jam in human history was from Beijing to Tibet, I think, where it went on for about four days and people were camped by the side of their road with stoves and so on because they couldn't bear to abandon their cars. This is a country which, when I first went there, and many other people, everyone rode a bike. I think we need a utopian element. We've got to revive that in politics. We've got to think beyond the world we know. I think in the realm of cities, this is very important. However, it's no good just being a utopian. Climate change is very, very real, all too real, I'm afraid, and so are other risks that we face of catastrophes. Therefore, it must be bracketed to realism. There must be some way of getting there. I'm all in favour of, for example, like the MIT study called Beyond the Automobile, which I think I would thoroughly recommend to anyone who hasn't seen it, which envisages a kind of mobility internet with a completely different make-up between private and public transport that we have now, and argues that the technology is already here for this. To recognise the motor car is a lethal instrument, not just an instrument of privilege. More people have died in vehicle accidents in the 20th century than died in two world wars. The motor car is absolutely brutal. Well, we already have the technology in place, it's avant-garde technology, to avoid traffic accidents almost altogether. Volvo is currently devising a car which they say should never be an accident, and we know that driverless cars are more effective than ones with drivers. I think utopian realism is where we are politically, and how to get a utopian element into everyday politics is a really, really difficult issue. But I think we start from the developing world. I mean, I'm not at all of the view that the poorer parts of the world have to depend on the richer for innovation. I think many innovations will come from the poorest parts of the world, and I think of what Bangladesh has done in already trying to produce resilience by, for example, creating floating gardens, by integrating a very high technology tracking of weather systems with localised kinship groups to try and provide protection for poor farmers. So, sorry. I therefore finished. Sorry to do that. I want to take three questions quickly. I've got two hands, three hands. So, one, two, three. They were the first I saw, sorry. Yep, then gentlemen behind you, I'm sorry. And then that gentleman there, right? One. This is Vasily Kimalakasi from Arp Lighting. Following a little bit what Mr Kall said before about the developing cities and developed cities, we come across to the reality that the developing cities suffer the consequences of the environmental changes and the side effects of the developed cities, or other words, the smart cities, you may say. In other words, effectively, the least energy offensive cities suffer the most with very little representation in what happens today. How do you suggest we address this issue? Thank you. OK. Breaking news. Yes, I think it's interesting. Leppler from Hamburg. It's very interesting to discuss important, to discuss the climate change, but Tony has made a comment, which I think I'm very grateful to regard the city as a center of production. City, for the last decades, all had an post industrial nexus. That's real and important point. And to see the possibility of a smart city, that's not just to get a smarter consumer, to get more entertainment, to get other forms of elections, but really to enable the people to become makers and to create a makers movement and to transform our neighborhoods in factories where we can integrate those who are excluded by all these new technologies which are offered as solutions by Siemens and Cisco and so on. So I think it's a real radical position we had to follow and to think about and we can talk about sustainability without talking about equity. And the equity is depending from the re-inclusion of the people and this is already possible by this mention of production. Thank you. No, no, very good. Gentlemen, a pink tie, gentlemen with a pink tie there. Your last, I'm afraid, fourth and last.  Sorry, Savas from the LAC. I was just wondering if the panel could address the issue of why the markets are shying away from some of the opportunities that Tony is addressing. Usually when you get a technological revolution you get a very exciting short period of financialization where barons or the railway barons, car buyers, barons just put the risk and invest in these new opportunities. So why is keeping these markets away from exploring green tech and we're still kind of giving too much value on ICT technology for example? All right, good, good. And then gentlemen in the front. Nick Rosen from Off Bread. I see the big battle of the next 30 years is off-grid versus smart grid. America is going off-grid crazy at the moment. There are TV series all over the place and preppers coming out of your ears. And the reason that they're going off-grid crazy is because of the decline in trust. It's not just trust in science and politics. It's trust in all social institutions and even society itself as a means that's going to sustain us. So people are realizing they're going to have to do it for themselves. And the smart grid seems to be a way of cementing all the mistakes of the electrical grid into place for another 50 or 100 years. Whereas what I see is, just to give you a very short big picture vision, is information is going to replace electricity. And information, Tony, is not going to need the grid. I love my smartphone. People say, well then you're not off-grid. I say, well I'm off the grid and I'm on the cloud. And the grid of computers, or that may have the same name, is not the same as the grid of electricity. You're going to have huge server farms next to nuclear power stations sending information wirelessly to people who are running their screens and their hard drives from energy they've generated locally. And the big debate now is whether that smart grid should be scrapped. Right. That's a very large question. Thank you for that to end with. Break expanded my mind if nobody else is. Right. I'm going to, I've now got, I'm told I've got four minutes left. We've got four minutes left. So what I'm going to do, I'm afraid, is to ask each of our respondents to respond in slightly less than a minute and then turn back to Tony Giddins for even less than that. Tessa, would you like to pick up some of the points in the questions or from Ogeron? Yes, if I can just, the point about why the markets are shying away. Microphone. Sorry. The question about why the markets are shying away from a number of the challenges that Tony articulated. I think it's lack of consistency and certainty. Markets will invest where there is the likelihood of stability in the certainly in the medium term. And I think that there is a lack of confidence in that, which is why I think that this this challenge of building a platform of stability through the contract, which is based on a consensus, is so important. I think that the, but also very much like your point, I think what we haven't talked about enough is human capital as the great resource here and the untapped ingenuity and inventiveness and ambition in communities. It's abundant in East London, which was one of the most deprived communities in our country. I've just come back from working in the slum in Mumbai, in India, in Delhi, and in Jharkhand. And I am in awe of the ingenuity of people living in physical conditions that are unimaginable, maintaining a subsistence income on the basis of their optimism and ingenuity. Thanks, Tessa. Craig. I think that in addressing these issues, whether we're talking about the grid itself or we're talking about the politics of all this, we need solutions that link but don't depend on master plans. And so the design solutions that we're talking about are the design of ideal comprehensive systems. They are ones that design systems, that link that are open, that have that potential to connect but don't depend on all master plans. We need urban design that invites flexible repurposing, urban design, that is not like urban design now, massively tilted in favour of the wealthy of enormous buildings for corporate headquarters of office centers and districts, but that serves the poor. The cruise has been campaigning for and alternative design structures and Mexicans on the California. We need to talk about all this in a way that scales up and what worries me about a lot of our discourse is that it just doesn't take seriously. Antonio began to say some of this but it's not just a question of urgency. It's a question of how to imagine the scaling up which is quite dramatically different to challenge. So I very much agree with the call for people to be seen as makers of this but what we're making, the poetic challenge here is to be remaking a very large scale collective undertaking or else it doesn't really have the capacity and we need to deal with the fact that we may well see a partial disaggregation of some of the larger structures in which we work today so that the solutions of this future are sort of hinted at already in the off-grid comment, maybe one not necessarily the radical disaggregation of preppers for a post-Holocaust future but of reversing a long-term trend to ever larger aggregates dominating and we just need to look for ways to do that. Thank you, Enrique. Well, given that this is a conference on urban issues, cities what I find fascinating is that much of what the experts in cities so like here Richard Rogers when he made his book about this report on the new British urban environment most of the things that urban experts propose to make a city better to have more quality of life and I refer to what Dieter said about equity is the same policies that you will have to make a city more sustainable so I think it's fascinating and it's happy, it's a happy or unhappy I mean you can say because sometimes it's easier to fight for equality than to fight for something more ethereal to some people such as global warming so but what is happy is that all of these policies which will be very good such as using public transport, walking, bicycles will make a city more equitable and also more sustainable so this is I think a good thing we also have to be able to see how do we find this do we solve this challenge post by Martin about the flying around that people will hopefully will but in your senses I think it's a positive thing that we coincide in the objectives OK thank you, Martin I think the questions suggest again that there are different shades of green that need to be investigated and look at the spaces of a city if you walk into any airport these days the green advertisements all over the place so there is a big market proposition there is lots of money waiting to be invested in clean tech but whether that is the same as the off-grid solution it's also green but it's very different and as Dieter said about the city being a site of production I mean these are very different green paradigms they are not the same and I suppose what I think is a real risk is that politics get caught up in this in a nasty sort of way that they side with what they can understand which is big actors that walk into their offices where you can make a deal and that they fall into the trap that the legitimacy of that green intervention is not carried by the whole population so my single biggest thing would be to make sure that whatever you do in this green revolution make it work for people make it something that is about quality of life something that is visible that makes the quality of life of ordinary people better otherwise this might actually be a very nasty sort of transformation Thank you and the last word as the first goes to Anthony Giddins I'd like to thank everyone for their comments including those from the audience I'd just respond to the last one briefly what was said about the cloud and the smart grid I thought was what I was saying actually because you know there's a collision here sort of interchange between new communications technologies and the demands of environmentally dangerous world and that's where most of the future will be located not in electricity as such but you know if you're on the cloud you need electricity, you need power because you've got to plug your bloody phone in somewhere so you're still going to need power moreover there will always be what sociologists call the compulsion of co-presence because it doesn't matter how many times you'll use your mobile phone you want to be with people otherwise no one will be at this converse at all if we didn't need to bring people to it and be together so the cloud is never going to replace the actual physical meeting of people in specific places in cities all of this has to be powered Okay, right Thank you, Tony and thank you Tessa, Craig, Enrique, Martin thank you for your questions all I'd say by way of summarising is I think we've identified risk is the issue and the way politicians explain and deal risk and opportunity, sorry, risk and opportunity and how politicians explain and challenge people with ideas particularly I think when politicians often find it easier to sell good ideas than difficult ideas my own personal thought at the end there right the next session will start at 3.45 and is on governing urban transformation so drink your tea slightly faster than otherwise thank you very much


Where did life on Earth come from? The answer lies in the stars, which have lives of their own. Stars are responsible for the materials that form us and everything around us, including these two people. Welcome back to Think Tank. Today's topic is the supernova. Or when stars go boom. Sure, why not? Everything set with a thought visualizer? All systems go. Let's do a quick check. Think of a planet. What kind of planet? Doesn't matter. Okay, fine. Think of something that's not a planet. Perfect. Let's get started. During most of their lives, stars shine by processing fuel. But what happens when they exhaust their fuel after millions of years or longer? A star that is many times more massive than our sun ends its life in a spectacular explosion called a supernova. An explosion so powerful that for a brief period it can generate more light than an entire galaxy containing billions of stars. A supernova is more than an impressive cosmic light show. It is critical in enabling life as we know it to exist. Like dinosaurs. Yes, like dinosaurs. And butterflies. Let's not name every animal. During a star's life, nuclear fusion turns lighter elements like hydrogen and helium into more complex, heavier elements like oxygen and carbon and eventually iron at its core. When the iron core becomes too massive, it implodes and collapses into itself. The rest of the star follows suit reaching incredible pressures and temperatures. At this stage, heavier elements are formed. All of this compressed material then rebounds into an explosion that we call a supernova. Elements like copper, nickel and iron are hurled into space at millions of miles per hour. Iron is very useful. That is a brilliant insight. Supernova events are responsible for producing most of the valuable elements that we use on Earth. By distributing them into space, a supernova allows the ingredients necessary for life to be swept up and recycled into the raw material for future stars and planets. So you can think of a supernova as a unique factory that also provides a delivery service. Like a pizza company that makes deliveries by exploding. Our solar system, including the Earth, owes its chemical makeup to probably several generations of stars that went supernova. They ultimately produced the right mixture of elements that allowed life on our planet, including humans, to form and thrive. Humans, like us. That's our show. Special thanks to NASA's observatories in space as they continue to observe supernovae, helping us discover our origins. And also special thanks to me, who, I think it's fair to say, did a stellar job. Thank you for watching. We'll see you next time.


Tell somebody tell me I'm not the prestige God somebody tell me tell me how both of my start of the season Prestiges get to brand new insane cards in the Easter promo all for our final season of Wheel of Mutt By the way, I don't know if you guys watch AOT, but someone on Twitter made this shit graphic I put it on my IG story that is fire had to start the video out with that Let's get into the meat the sauce the filet mignon of today's wheel of Mutt 99 gold Jalen Ramsey and Easter Limited an absolutely cracked six foot one two hundred eight pound beast of a corner Undoubtedly getting added to this squad because I've got the prestige, baby I'm built like that literally every single prestige my starting three prestigious were in Incredible Metcalf who as a wide receiver was amazing in most feared then got a corner who helped our team out a lot And now gets another wide receiver in Easter Jalen Ramsey got God tier cards throughout the whole season and Darren Waller Started the year with a limited that was God tier and then got team of the year and he's still amazing So I really couldn't have asked for much more for my prestigious here is that new DK Metcalf low key This is gonna sound sad I actually think that DK Metcalf corner is so good that I that I want to keep it But I want to use this DK wide receiver, so I'm taking DK Metcalf corner out I'm putting wide receiver DK Metcalf in a lot of speed a lot of chomps So we got Cooper cup the grit high motor short blood guy, and then we got add to tell Joan to six foot seven or eight Maybe he's like six ten. He's gigantic and then DK Metcalf at six three two thirty So a lot of diversity you might say you might say I'm a very inclusive diverse YouTube. I don't discriminate you might say this I might say I'm not saying it. I'm saying some people might say it Let's go see what this Jalen Ramsey is gonna look like and as you guys know the Easter prom was not here Thank you for your patience. You saw two episodes without Jalen Ramsey or DK Metcalf. I apologize That's just how it is.  Sometimes I gotta make them in advance on top of that Keep in mind. I am on a cruise. I'm on a cruise from the 14th to the 20th anything new drops in that time period Obamigues will not be updating 98 speed 95 agility 99 excel 99 awareness absolute monster 82 tackling is Spectacular for a corner got good kick return to why not maybe we'll put them back there and taking a peek at our team before We upgrade anything Anthony Barr needs serious place.  They're just not that good for this deep into mad and we're gonna be pretty much exclusively playing 95 plus overall teams unless we get absurdly lucky. All right, and I updated the wheel. You can see there's Easter stuff on here We got Easter dollars. Let's see what we can get on our first wheel spin. Oh You guys have played Weddle, right? If you guys haven't played Weddle, it's a very simple game It is just like Wordle but for NFL players if you play neither let me explain super quick how this is gonna work So this is Weddle the NFL player guessing game every single day on a 24-hour cycle There is one player of the day So let's pretend the player of the day is Darren Waller I can select out of most any offensive player in the NFL here So the player of the day is Darren Waller Let's say if I were to choose Travis Kelsey the game would tell me you got the position correct You got the height very close, but you got the team wrong. So I know in my head. Okay It's a big tight end but not for the chiefs.  So if it takes me two guesses and then on my third guess I get the player right I get 200k to spend on one player 300k minus my two guesses at 50k each if it takes me seven guesses I'm literally getting no one. All right. Let's do this Weddle I'm actually gonna start out with AJ Brown. Hey. Hey. All right So I'll tell you what this means if you ever played the player of the day is 24 years old That's what the green means yellow means they're within two units and down So our player is either six foot tall or five foot 11, but they are not six foot one Their number is higher than 11. They are not a wide receiver They're not in the AFC and they do not play for the Titans It could be a quarterback. It could be a quarterback. It could be like a Kyler Murray You know what? I'm gonna guess I'm gonna guess the other AJ. I'm gonna go AJ Dillon. Let's go AJ Dillon Okay, so our player is in the NFC north. They are already running back. They're 24 years old They're exactly five foot 11. Their jersey number is higher than 28. They do not play for Green Bay So they're either a Viking a lion or a bear because it's the NFC north It could be Deandre Swift or David Montgomery I'm so tempted to guess Deandre Swift, but I'm pretty sure Deandre Swift is like literally my height I think Deandre Swift's like five foot nine. Dude. I think it's David Montgomery I think I'm gonna get on my third guess. I think we're gonna have 200k here for a corner.  Let's go 200k for a corner back digs 129 Marta Sean Latimore 129 Aaron Glenn is the first 97 at 156. Asante Samuel 159. Asante Samuel. Great stats 5 10 180. Night train lane is a menace, dude. He really is.  I'm sorry I have the male Alexa now. So I hated the woman I'm gonna have the male Alexa choose for me. One is Asante Samuel two is night train lane echo pick a number one What wrong can I How did you just change voices echo pick number one through two? Here's a number between one and two It's one. He picked one twice and you guys definitely heard that. Let's go. All right. So it's Asante Samuel I think Madden wise. I do think night train lane is better But this is cool, bro. Like this is a current player. Some of you might be big fans of Asante Samuel I probably can't say the same thing for night train. But Papa Meeks. That's so not meta, dude You're not running the meta sweaty cheesy plays that I saw on throne dot youtube dot tv We'll go acrobat. Asante Samuel actually, dude It's massive that we got that guess on that because the cheapest Asante Samuel was 159 Asante Samuel welcome to the squad.  All right boys If I could choose when I get in this wheel spin, I think offensive line would be good upgrades Uh D line could take a little bit too if I went left or right and it's Oh my god, we have to win this game.  You probably saw all them before this wheel of mud So you get the gist but this easter promo is just like the christmas promo where there are these mystery easter eggs That won't open.  These have a chance of being extravagant eggs, which are oftentimes a lot better The way I check how good I think an egg is gonna be is by the quick sell value Some of these extravagant eggs quick sell for like 16 k some quick sell for like 70 k So, you know some are better than others I'm gonna get three of these assuming I win today I get these three players added to my team after they hatch the first one just went to fucking infinity I hate that. All right. Let's see what it was.  It kind of looks like it would be a limited player No, it's a just a large egg. There's no way. It's a gold 99 limited, right?  Let's go And this one I know what this one is you can see it in there you look in the bottom I talked about in the pack opening. There's an outline there. It says redux I think this is a 95 or 96 plus redux player So that is a guaranteed super heater and our third one.  Give me something weird. What are we going?   Tell me that black and gold does not look exactly like shawn taylor's card art 37,700 bro That is a full ultimate legend. The team is all set. You guys already know the team I really didn't add that much other than asante. Samuel that leaves the challenge wheel and We are adding a new rule to the challenge wheel. I don't want number one Let me just say this first A hundred yards with a backup. That's our challenge. So any backup player needs a hundred yards from scrimmage I'm thinking it's gonna have to be brandon iuk brandon iuk is my backup wide receiver I'll sub him in for ed to tell jones and try and give him the ball a lot That's probably the best way I could do the new rule for the challenge wheel I have three options if I complete a challenge wheel one open a pack with coins to salvage a player if I lose And three an upgrade for my power up player Everybody was tossing in suggestions and I think it's a great idea So if I complete my challenge and I don't want to open a pack Holy shit, is that his top three? It'll be like that for the rest of the entirety of wheel of mutt, too I'll re-explain these rules at the start of men 23 But that is a brand new rule to wheel of mutt and I think it's a great one check barrett's in the middle here Not entirely sure how that happened. He must have became myself. I had his pa boot over dude.  He's going for the deep corner off. This is good news.    Wait a minute. Anthony Barr is saved regardless So two training levels. I can actually use this on anyone that is a power up player See, I think they're gonna release an ultimate legends bow Jackson So for example had they released ultimate legends bow Jackson I could use this on bow Jackson But they haven't released that as I'm recording this video and I don't have anyone else to upgrade Anthony bar kind of just got saved anyway. All right So we're gonna get two freebie training levels for Anthony bar just to kind of get him on his feet He goes to a 78 overall there and this takes him to an 80 next upgrade is an 82. So yeah, he is uh Nothing to be desired. He's certainly not a stud yet But I know that when we max out this Anthony bar All of our hard work will pay off because he's gonna be a freak show and you should know the rules by now We have one more spin and we're gonna play one more game due to the rage quit But see what we're playing for on this next game. It's a draft class jackpot. Oh Shit, so as you guys should know by now if I get a rage quit and it's that early I will play another game, but I don't do two wheel spins I just do one the reason I do that is because I already get a rage quit wheel And I'm scared of making the team too good too fast either way echo name a random number eight through 21 Here's a number between eight and 21. It's nine. Wait a second.  Wait a second. What draft class is that dude? There's one that's so stacked. I don't think that's it actually Matthew Stafford this actually now that I remember was not a very good draft which is a bummer But it's what echo said so we got to do it. So Stafford was one number two was jason smith Three was tyson jackson four was erin curry five was mark sanchez. Are you noticing a trend?  I'm not racist although i am yeah, we're going to play matthew's here I like that. What pick was he he was the 26th pick in the first round Damn, there's not a single redux matthew's up kind of a bummer, but i'm pretty sure this quick sells Yeah, this quick sells for 250k. It's 317k. It's like a rental for 70k. I would way rather do that Here's what we're doing. Shaq bear it with edge threat as my left end. Hey matthews will actually be my left outside line All right boys. We're ready for another game. I'm gonna use the same challenge as last time I think that's fair. I didn't really get to use it Uh, so we still need a hundred yards from scrimmage with a backup and now we're three and one in our season It's looking good 99 just uh, oh, okay. That's actually really good news That was not nearly as good as the team we played last time first and ten. He's in tight end attack. Oh, he's not waiting for Whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa. Whoa. All right. He might run that inside zone again. No Cross the middle He's not open Wait pitch it back. That's anthony bar. Matthew's made an insane play. Oh my god. I'm just gonna hand this I don't even want to touch out with both All right, we're going for two. You know, I love to go for two here. I think this could be a very very good game Oh polymers taking off that's two I think this could be a very good game for anthony bar still though Unless we get literally another rage quit, which is a good case scenario too We already did in this episode get two upgrades for anthony bar. So I can't complain that much I already know i'm gonna win this game.  He should just stick to that It's a tfl but not by anthony bar. Who was uh, william parry's been amazing by the way. Let me just say He's got to throw. Oh, he does it. He can take off He elects to throw anyway, isiah I'm gonna go get negative yards on this first play I feel like this game is such a lock for the win that it doesn't matter what I do What is he doing? I'll take a second and 94 and now we get as many yards as we can with brandon iuk This is still cover two.    I have zero yards in the backup It was so much easier when I had a half when a running back backup And I don't think I have a running back backup right now anthony bar. We must do something bro. We must Oh, there's a lot open There's a lot open You are infuriatingly bad and I still can't make anything happen with anthony bar. Let's go. Please hand it off.  I play like this guy right here. So a good one to brandon iuk underneath get him some amount of yards There's iuk. I'll go slant this time. Hopefully Clears a little higher bingo as I'm sorry. Now you can run. Oh He goes for the hit stick missus. Stop and go. Yes, sir. Iuk And it gets the stiff arm too. Let me see this can be a touchdown Um Well Rb is a touchdown though hot get socks. No, I'm gonna keep clearing him with this slant If it ain't broke, you don't fix it third and two. Let's give him the touchdown as well If he's not gonna guard it. Oh, he is gonna guard it. No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no Take a good angle. I love it I respect it brandon iuk 79 yards four receptions five targets So he cannot get it right now. Our boy gets open here. Oh the user first and goal Underneath iuk Come on, man. Wish you had a bet. I could throw right in the middle at texas right at his face Let's go for the sack. Let's get a safety anthony bar. I was right there.  No way william parry gets through 1v5 He just got through 1v5. I don't really need the touchdown And there's just no reason I need it, but wait, I do need those iuk yards. That's another 13 for iuk Let's look at player brandon iuk has 107 yards seven receptions nine targets. That's all we needed for our boy I guess we could potentially go for a touchdown here. I actually think we could hit darren waller over the middle Or not over the middle, but on this crosser That's the last thing I expect. He's gonna try and press cooper cup himself. I don't think he's capable of doing that Yeah, I'm sorry, man. This could be that inside zoni ran before It's not okay.  He's he's so good. Keep in mind though Clay matthews is 97 overall and anthony bar is 80. So it makes sense that he's shedding Tackles like crazy and I didn't get a tfl Just read the defense.  Yes I'm doing ever I'm doing literally everything I can to get this man the ball should be a touchdown cooper cup fight to guess I should gotta get to it.  I'm right there. I gotta guess his snap count better. Where are you gonna throw? You gotta throw to one of these dude, right?   Where is he? I'm just going to add two tall jones again up top Hopefully we can throw a quick int Bingo through the middle.  I was really hoping he'd throw that that sit down by the half back Here we go. This is it. I'm getting a sack right here Play action. Yes, but wait just a minute We know he's gonna throw deep. I'll just sit way back here Deception I completed my challenge wheel if I choose I could give an upgrade to anthony bar And I actually think that's what i'm gonna do that was a blowout from the start We already knew that I mean I went off with everybody who isn't anthony bar All right one more upgrade for anthony bar due to my challenge wheel next stop 85 guys You gotta understand right now like in that game. He was 81 speed. It's just so hard to use her like that Hey, either way boys. I love you Absolute blast of a wheel of mud.  I'll see you in the next one. Peace out


Man learns he's not the father of his three sons, realizes what wife has done. The doctor had to be wrong. The gut-wrenching news he'd just delivered couldn't possibly be right, could it? He'd always been devoted to his sons, but now he had to believe that they weren't his? Sadly this businessman would soon discover that the life he lived had been a lie. However, once he found out the truth, he had to decide what to do about it. The answer, make her pay. 55-year-old Richard Mason was a businessman and millionaire who lived in the United Kingdom. He had successfully co-founded MoneySupermarket.com, a British price comparison website. At the time, Richard was married to a woman named Kate. When the two first met they were both working for a back during the 1980s. As a couple, they had three sons together. At least that's what Richard thought. The three sons they had were Will, who is 23 years old, and 19-year-old twins Ed and Joel. In 2007, Richard and Kate's marriage was falling apart and they were very much on the rocks. In 2008 the pair finally decided to get a divorce. Richard had no regrets about his marriage. He had three sons that he doted on and continued to provide for even after the couple parted ways. Included in the financial settlement, Kate received a lump sum of $5 million and the private school fees for all three boys would be covered. However, even so, Kate hounded me for years and tried to make me pay more, Richard stated. In Richard's mind, the three sons he had from the cold and joyless marriage were the only good things to come of it. However, there was a surprise around the corner, he just didn't know it yet. It was in 2016 when Richard discovered the truth of his former life after they had been divorced for almost 10 years. One day, he got up and got ready for a regular doctor's appointment. However, that appointment was about to change Richard's life forever. When he walked into the doctor's office he had no idea he would leave there fuming. Richard had gone for a routine checkup. However, as it turns out, it wouldn't be quite so standard. The doctor performed some tests and the results turned Richard's world upside down. However, everything changed when the doctor told Richard that he had cystic fibrosis. Things didn't end there though. The disease cystic fibrosis causes regular lung infections. This causes damage to the lungs and reduces their capacity over time. Breathing gradually becomes more and more difficult. Sadly, cystic fibrosis is a genetic disease. Richard's own sister had passed away from the disease several years earlier. As devastated as Richard was, he became scared. Could he have passed this on to his three sons? Fortunately, the doctor assured him that there was no way he could have passed this disease on to them. Richard couldn't have been more relieved. Sadly, this was short-lived because the doctor hadn't finished talking. The doctor then delivered some shocking news. There was a very specific reason why he couldn't have passed the disease on. That moment caused Richard's whole life to fall apart in one single moment. When the discussion then turned to fertility and he said, Look, yourself and Emma, you know, you're gonna have difficulty having children because you are, as a man with cystic fibrosis, infertile. But that was impossible, right? Richard saw a spark of hope. Could it be that this had been a medical miracle? Or had the doctor perhaps misdiagnosed him? Well, you must have the diagnosis wrong because I've already got three boys, Richard said proudly. I actually felt pleased to be able to tell him this, because in my mind it proved his diagnosis was wrong, he recalls. But the doctor, feeling awkward and stunned, just shook his head sadly. And then, Richard knew he had been clutching at straws. The realization dawned on Richard slowly, then the truth hit home like a sledgehammer. He replayed his life with Kate and looked at every detail with fresh eyes. He remembered times when some red flags, in retrospect, should have set off alarm bells. And then, he began to feel sick. This could not be happening. Had there been a scandal going on right under his own roof? If there had been, Richard had been too blind to notice. After all, he worked late most nights too. He hadn't batted an eyelid when Kate called him late one night from a hotel in London to tell him that her flight had been delayed. Richard snorted in disgust. It was a work trip, she had said. But there were other details emerging that he hadn't thought much of, until now. When his twins were born, of course, people began to comment. But remembering the usual and innocent croons of, oh, look, they have your eyes, Kate, now began to take a darker turn in his mind. But there was another red flag that Richard hadn't thought much of at the time. Right after Kate found out she was pregnant with their first son, she began to express an interest in something she had never mentioned during the seven years of their marriage. Kate was ecstatic to be pregnant for the first time. She read all the maternity books and went to birthing classes. But when she suddenly took an interest in Judaism, Richard was surprised. He and Kate had both been raised as Christians. Kate even went as far as giving all three of their children Jewish middle names, and she refused to have them christened. She had also been seeking advice from a rabbi. Maybe this was an insight into the double life she had been leading. And maybe this clue pointed to the man she had been seeing. Richard knew that his boys didn't resemble him at all. But they did look familiar. The clues were adding up, and Richard was starting to think that he knew who the man his wife had been seeing was. But perhaps he was getting ahead of himself. There was something else that he was forced to consider. But would Kate confess? Or was this all just a terrible mistake? Richard pondered the information and mulled it over in his mind. He had three clues to go on. The first was the fact that his ex-wife had probably been meeting up with the man while she was away on business trips. The second was that his children resemble the man he had met before a business colleague of Kate's that would make sense. And lastly, that the man was Jewish, which didn't make sense. But twins are rare, after all. In the general population, identical twin pregnancies occur 0.45% of the time, or 1 in 250 births. It's also a well-known fact that using fertility treatments increases the likelihood of conceiving twins. Had Kate realized that they were having fertility problems before he had? After all, they had been married for seven years when Kate finally fell pregnant. But that was enough speculation for one day. It was time to confront her. He angrily typed a message to Kate, demanding an explanation. Hi, I went to the Liverpool Chest Hospital today to finally receive my diagnosis that I have cystic fibrosis.  It is 98% certain that I am not the father of any children, he added. Kate had read the message, but she wasn't replying. Seeing that being civil wasn't getting him answers, Richard decided that it was time to take a harder approach. I was hoping that you could relieve me of the further indignity of more tests by letting me know now if I am the father, Richard wrote. I am happy to go along with your advice as to how best tell the boys. But if you force me to go through these extra tests, then I shall be telling them as I wish. Kate, cornered, sent her reply within minutes this time. Of course the boys are yours, no matter what the science might suggest, she wrote. Richard was incredulous. She was flat out denying everything. Okay, he thought. If Kate wanted to play hardball, he could play. He approached his eldest son, who was a university student at the time, and told him everything. But how did he take the news? I told him I'd just been diagnosed with cystic fibrosis, which he took surprisingly calmly, Richard explained. And I said, yes, but one of the things that I've just been told is that it is extremely unlikely that someone with cystic fibrosis could father a child. He said, I'm already ahead of you, dad. You're saying you're probably not my father? Richard, heartbroken at the thought that he wasn't his son's biological father, recalls that it would have been the hardest sentence to utter, and he did it for me. Then Richard told his eldest son that of course, he was still his dad, obviously, but that he didn't think that he had conceived him. It was very emotional, but I was also very angry, Richard said. He had been dealt a double blow that day. So, what was he going to do about it? Richard believes that your children define who you are. So, not only had he been diagnosed with a dread disease, but he now knew that he didn't actually have any children. His legacy would stop with him, and that thought was almost too hard for him to bear. Then, two days later, he finally heard from Kate. It turns out that Kate had been confronted by her eldest son. She called Richard and confessed. She admitted that she had been seeing another man during their 20-year marriage, and to add insult to injury, Richard had even met him in passing. The man worked at Barclays Bank. She and the man would meet at a hotel in London while she was traveling for work as a union official. But she still insisted that Richard was their children's father. He had no choice but to get an expert's opinion.  He was going to make her pay. Richard decided to seek out advice from paternity fraud expert, Roger Terrell. After he underwent numerous tests, it was confirmed that Richard was indeed incapable of fathering children. The next step was to obtain DNA samples from his sons. The DNA test results proved that the twins weren't his, but to complicate matters further, his eldest son refused to provide a sample. Richard's eldest son stated, As far as I'm concerned, he's my dad and that's that. But Richard still had all the proof he needed to launch a legal case against Kate. In December 2016, he began proceedings at Birmingham County Court. But Richard's oldest son had another message for the man he knew as his father. And the teenager remained true to his word. Of course, this caused Richard immense heartache. The ripple effect of Kate's lies has been massive. But the reaction from the twins as the case progressed was quite different. The twins still regard Richard as their dad, even though they know that he is not their biological father. One of the twins even sent Richard an overwhelming message as a show of support. The message read, Dad, as I explained from the beginning you would never not be dad to me regardless of all this. Of course I'll stay in touch, that will never change. I'm always here for you too, and you will always be dad. Love you ex. When Kate's unbelievable lies were exposed in court, Richard won his case and Kate was ordered to pay him over $300,000. Kate agreed to settle, but on one condition, the man who is the real father of her sons must remain anonymous. But it was a hollow victory for Richard. And he has a message for the boy's real father too. Richard stated that he would like the biological father to read this article and come forward. He believes that the boys have a right to know who their father is. Not least for the boy's sake, because they will want to know who their real father is, even if hopefully they will always think of me as their dad he added.


Hey guys, welcome back to Comic Gettin TV where all geek culture collides. If you're new to the channel, don't forget to hit that subscribe button so you don't miss out on future videos. Today we're taking a look at the Voltron 84 Classic Legendary Green Lion. And we're going to compare them with the Voltron Legendary Defender Legendary Green Lion. As you can see here, you got the Voltron 84 logo, the Beast King Go Lion up top, Fire Missile, forms left arm of Voltron. Let's take a look at the back. Page is the young genius of the Voltron Lion Force. And pilot of the Green Lion, the left arm of Voltron. Then you've got the openings there. Jawblade, battering spike, missile launcher, 15 plus points of articulation. And he comes with Voltron's shield. Here's Voltron's shield that he came with. Legendary Green Lion came with part of the Blazing Sword. Legendary Green Lion also came with a shield type thingy, I guess. And a cannon. So, as you can see, just like with Red Lion, the Legendary Defender Green Lion is a little bit bigger than the Classic Green Lion. It's only because of the rounded back and he is slightly longer. However, the Classic Green Lion is a little bit wider. And just like with Red Lion, the hind legs on Classic Green Lion only have three points of articulation. They're all ratchet joints. They're there and there. As you can see, very nice ratchet, soft ratchet on the ankle. Compare that to the Legendary Defender Green Lion, which has one, two, three, four joints. And then the front, one, two, three, one, two, three joints. So they have the same on the front, but Legendary Green Lion has one more on the back. So let's take a look at his Green Lion's weapons. Here's the tri-blade, which is very nice. Hold tight, guys. I'm going to turn the light off on this camera. The shadow is looking a little funky. Okay, that looks a little bit better. I could use more lighting, but I'm in a tight area. Not enough place for extra lighting, so. Anyway, there's the tri-blade. Here's the battering spike. And you can put these anywhere on Green Lion. And then here's his missile launcher. Yeah, you might want to keep this away from younger kids. They could swallow the missile. It also has a little bit of an impact, so it could hurt someone possibly putting an eye out. You'll put your eye out, kid. A transformation of Green Lion. Very simple. Tuck the legs in. Just like that. Front legs. Just like that. Tuck the tail in. And you're done. Legendary Green Lion, on the other hand.  Legs up. Tail in. Open the back. Try and finesse it in there. Yes, it does take a little finessing. Close it. Put the shield there. And there you have it. The shield. As you'll notice there is square peg, or rectangular peg, on the handle. That is gonna go just like that. Not bad. And I haven't tried it yet, but let's see. It will fit into Legendary Green Lion's hand. Or mouth. Okay. It does a lot better than the Blazing Sword on the Legendary Red Lion. Because there isn't a whole lot of weight to it. So there you have it, guys. Voltron 84 Classic Legendary Green Lion. Compared to the Legendary Defender Legendary Green Lion. I'm Shannon from Comic-En TV. Don't forget to hit that subscribe button, and we'll see you next time. Right here on Comic-En TV, we're all geek culture collides. This is the story of the super force of space explorers specially trained and sent by the Alliance to bring back Defender of the Universe. Voltron Defender of the Universe.


Hello, my name is Emily, and tonight we'll do a short practice to focus on unwinding our shoulders. I don't know about you, but I find that lately, I feel like my shoulders have been getting tighter and tighter and tighter, so instead of being relaxed and open, they're just right here. So this practice will take place primarily in a chair, and you could do it anywhere if you wanted to be on the floor or standing up. Some of these stretches I'm going to show you would be perfect for in school or if you have a few minutes at the office. And so when you're in your chair, just be sure that you've got some space to swing your arms, and then if you're on the smaller side, perhaps you can come forward in your chair so that your knees are at a 90 degree angle. If you're on the taller side, perhaps you need to bring your hips up, and you can do that by putting a towel under your hips. So for me, I'm on the front of my chair, so I switched up just a little bit. So my knees are at a 90 degree angle, my feet are parallel as if they're running along railroad tracks, and then let's get ready to get started. We're going to start to dasana, or mountain pose. It's a very grounding pose, very important that our feet are flat on the ground.  If you find that your chin is up, bring it down. And if it's comfortable, feel free to gently close your eyes, and we'll inhale through the nose, and exhale through at your own pace. Checking in with our body, quieting the mind. Definitely pay attention to your shoulders, see if you can relax.  For the most part, we'll do everything for a count of three. So inhaling, arms float up, all over the head.  And on this one, you can hear, you want to check in with your shoulders. If you're here, maybe keep your arms a little wider, and drop your shoulders down. And exhaling, arms come down. Inhale, one arm come straight up, and we're reaching straight for the sky. Imagine trying to pick an apple, we have been a branch. Whoo, check in with that shoulder, too. Whoo, and then let's bring it to the side. Inhaling here, exhaling release. Let's inhale, bringing our arms straight up. Imagine picking an apple, checking in with your shoulder here. Inhaling, inhaling, coming over to the other side. Let's inhale, and then exhale, coming down. So opposite hand, coming up and over on the inhale. Exhale, let's bring our ear to our shoulder. Attention to your shoulder, it might be up here. Try to relax it down. So we'll inhale here. And on the exhale, let's drop our chin to the cook of our neck. We're not adding a lot of weight to our head. Just helping guide. Exhale, let's release. Whoo, let's shake our head. Opposite hand, inhaling, up and over. Exhaling, bring the ear to the shoulder, checking in with the shoulder. See if you can create some space in dropping the chin to the cook of your arm. Inhale, and exhale, hand coming down. Let's nut our head, yes, and then shake side. Ooh, excuse me. From here, let's drop our hands and do some large shoulder circles back. If you'd like to get your elbows in, let's get our elbows in. Now let's put our fingers on our shoulders and another. Now while we're here, let's bring our arms up so they're parallel to the ground. And then we'll close our elbows and then inhale.  And exhale, swinging them back. Inhale. Now for this one, inhaling here. On the exhale, I'm going to bring my hands back and then perhaps just hold them out. If you'd like to take the stretch further, you bring your hands closer together or for the fuller expression, clasp your fingers behind your back. So here, on the inhale, pulling my hands down towards the ground, opening through the chest. So inhale, I can look up and exhale, ooh, relax. Inhale, looking up, opening through the shoulders, opening the heart and then exhale. Let's inhale here and relax. We're gonna inhale, just finding length in our spine and exhale, we're going to release. Let's take a few more shoulder circles. Just for the last pose, we're going to do the ego pose. So here, we're going to inhale arms coming up. On the exhale, right arm comes under the left. You can stay here if you'd like. For my shoulders, this feels perfect. If you'd like to take it deeper, you can cross bringing your right palm over on your left palm. Let's be on deep for me today. So I'm gonna stay right here. And on the inhale, bring my elbows up, shoulders up. And on the exhale, bringing my elbows into my navel. Inhale, exhale. On the inhale, coming to a neutral position, finding length in the spine. Exhale, let's release. Let's do the opposite side. So inhale, arms coming up. Exhale, left hand comes under the right hand. Again, this right here feels really good for me.  And we'll inhale. And exhale, bringing your elbows in. Inhale, on the inhale, let's find length through the spine. Exhale, releasing the shoulders. Shoulder circles back just to loosen up. Ooh, excuse me for all of my cracking but my shoulders are very tight. Let's inhale, bringing shoulders up to our ears. And release to the side. And last one. Inhale, bringing hands up and over. Bringing palms to the center of your heart. May you move throughout the week. With ease, peace, and joy.