Hi and welcome to the session. Let us discuss the following question. The question says curve surface area of a cone is 308 cm2 and its land height is 14 cm. Fine? First part is radius of the base and second part is total surface area of the cone. Now before solving this question we should know the formula for finding the total surface area and curve surface area of a cone. Curve surface area of a cone is equal to pi RL and total surface area of a cone is equal to curve surface area of the cone that is pi RL plus area of the circular base that is pi R square. The knowledge of these two formulae is the key idea in this question. Now begin with the solution. In the first part we have to find the radius of the base. Let R be radius of the base. We are given that curve surface area of cone is equal to 308 cm2. We have learned in the key idea that curve surface area of cone is equal to pi RL. So this implies pi RL is equal to 308. Now substitute the value of pi and L. High is equal to 22 by 7. L is equal to 40 cm. This is equal to 308. Now this implies R is equal to 308 into 7 upon 22 into 40 and this is equal to 7 cm. So radius of the cone is 7 cm. Now in the second part we have to find the total surface area of the cone. We know that total surface area of cone is equal to pi RL plus pi R square. Substitute the value of pi R and L in this. Pi is equal to 22 by 7. R is equal to 7. L is equal to 14 cm. Again pi is equal to 22 by 7. R square is equal to square of 7 cm2 and this is equal to 308 cm2 plus 154 cm2 and this is equal to 462 cm2. Hence the required answer of the first part is 7 cm and for the second part is 462 cm2. This is our required answer. So this completes the session.


Welcome everybody to our talks tonight. My name is Jeff Jamison, I'm a professor of chemistry here and environmental studies. And we're very pleased to have Dr. John Abraham here. He's here a couple weeks later than we planned on because of a cancellation. So he was ideally would have been here before the building bridges conference. But we're happy to have him here today. And Dr. Abraham is a professor of mechanical engineering at St. Thomas University. And he's gotten into climate science. And he's been doing that for the last seven or eight years. He's been fully involved in climate science. And he's going to talk to us today about global warming. There's lots of information you can get on. Dr. Abraham has a new blog now that's been out for about a year. He just told me and it's linked to The Guardian. So if you do a Google search for...actually all you do is do John Abraham's blog on The Guardian. Lots of good information there. And if you want further entertainment, I'll look for his video. Do a Google search for John Abraham and Lord of the Month. And John has some prominence for making a YouTube video. I'll just post a video on YouTube. Kind of addressing a climate skeptic's points that they made in a talk that they gave at a local university in Minnesota. And John did an excellent job of pointing out each point and how this was being misinterpreted. So we're very pleased to have Dr. Abraham here. So let's give him a warm round of applause. Much more savvy than I and my colleagues are. And how many of you are science students studying fields of science? Okay. Well, you know, scientists have a reputation of not being very good communicators. Being nerdy. You know, pocket protective kind of approach. And in real life it's not that way. As the introduction, thanks for that great introduction, the very generous introduction mentioned, I'm a practicing scientist. I publish on oceanography, climate sensitivity, paleo-climatology. I've published on all these areas, which are really boring. And if you have trouble sleeping, I'll send you my articles. But there's more to being a scientist than just that. You can take a career that is really actively engaging the public. So I write a blog for a major newspaper. I was on radio today in California, California Public Radio. I'll give it a public talk today. And so there's more to being a scientist than just crunching numbers and making friends. There is telling the story. What does your science mean for our lives? And you know, when we do studies and we learn about the world, I think it's our obligation to tell people what it means. How does it impact you? How does it impact the future? And how can we use science to make better decisions about where we're going to go? So I'm going to give a talk today about global warming, talk about what we know and what we don't know. And I'll be very frank about what the state of knowledge is, where we're going to be, where we think we're going to be, and what are some of the things that we need to know to make decisions and what kind of decisions are basing us. Feel free to ask. There's going to be a Q&A period afterwards. I think feel free to ask questions if they arise or write them down and we can handle them afterwards. But I want to mention some of the highlights of a recent report. Every five to seven years, a big group of scientists write a report which summarizes all climate science.  I was one of the reviewers. The report was released last fall. It actually comes in three parts. The next two parts are coming up. What were their conclusions? Warming is unequivocal. Each of the last decades was warmer than the prior decade. It's warmer than it's been in probably 1400 years. Some extreme weather events are increasing. Heat waves, droughts, heavy precipitation. That means heavy rainfalls and heavy snows. So think about the Duluth flood. Did anyone hear about that? Wasn't there a polar bear in the street or something? Am I getting the story wrong? There was some kind of polar animal, maybe a seal going down Main Street because of incredible floods. Percades. Percades are becoming more intense. Those have increased. Greenland and Antarctica are losing ice. Decrease snow. Not this year. By the way, this is the hardest time of the year for me. Because it's the end of winter, right? We're all wishing for global warming.  Actually, my first talk was postponed because of a snowsuit. So I'm going to talk about the difference between weather and climate. And talk about how the weather is being felt all the way around the world, even if it's cold here in Minnesota. Sea levels are rising faster than previously thought. It's about the poles in the North and South Pole are warming. Glacier ice loss. And the ocean is becoming more acidic. This is a really interesting one people don't often recognize. It's often called the evil twin problem of global warming, or sometimes called the worst twin. We're actually changing the pH of the ocean. How many of you... Anyone have a soda here? Let's pretend I have a soda. If I took a Coca-Cola or a Pepsi, I shook it. And then I opened it. What would happen? I hear the sounds, right? It would fuzz, fizz. What is different about a Coca-Cola or a Pepsi than water? Carbonation. Yeah, carbonation. It's a carbonated beverage. There is carbon dioxide absorbed in the liquid. While we're putting so much carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, it is changing the chemistry of the ocean. Why are we changing it? Well, we might care if we're an animal that creates a shell out of calcium carbon. It's going to be harder to create and keep shells. So if you are concerned about food chain, the oceanic food chain, you might be concerned about oceans indication. So these aren't just problems that affect other people. We don't live near the ocean, but this still affects us. And so connecting these things to our experience, I think, is important. But I am a scientist, but I'm also a human. And in 2007, I began getting a talk and I was captivated by this photo.  And what's great about this is the skin color of the child and the continent, which is basically the photography. It represents the fact that different people, different cultures, different continents and countries will suffer more than others. One of the continents which will suffer disproportionately from climate change is Africa. Even though they are largely not responsible for the emissions. So I used to include this just because of that interesting social argument. But recently, this finger has taken on a bigger significance to my family because the finger ends on a country called Uganda. And I do cleaner, renewable energy development in Africa. And I've gone to Uganda. Well, I can't remember how many times. I've gone to Uganda and in our most recent trip, my wife and I adopted Uganda in child. So the country that my adopted daughter is from is going to be one of the countries on the vanguard of climate change. And so this started as just an interesting photo, but now it's taken on a personal significance. And then I love this photo. This is a photo of Earth from Apollo 17. And this photo is great because this thing's cool. I mean, this is where we are, right? This is where our hopes and our dreams are. Our pasts and our future, our families and our friends, people we don't like so much. This is where our bracket winners are, right? So we think about this. This is a great thing. And we sure want to make sure that we know where this thing is headed. Because it affects us and it affects the people around us. So let's talk about the science. John, why are you so certain climate change is caused by humans? How do you know? Why do 97% of the most active climate scientists agree that humans are significantly causing climate change? Four different studies have shown that. Well, it's not just the Earth could walk. The Earth could walk for a bunch of reasons. The Sun could be getting hotter. Maybe the orbit's changing. Well, it's not just that the climate's changing. It's changing in the right way. We call that fingerprinting. The changes of the climate have the fingerprints of humans. Let me give you an example. The upper atmosphere, which is called the stratosphere, is cooling. And the nights are warming faster than days. Now let's think about those two items. A lot of people think the Sun's getting more active. The Sun's getting hotter. That's what causes climate change. Well, if the Sun was getting hotter, the Sun rays pass through the entire atmosphere. You would expect the entire atmosphere to heat. That's not what we're observing. We're observing the top get colder, the top part of the atmosphere get colder, because we're holding heat down. It's like a blanket. So the pattern does not fit Suns. Another example is nights are warming faster than days. If the Sun was getting hotter, you would expect days to be getting hotter when the Sun shines. But we're observing the opposite. We're observing nights getting hotter more than days. So it's not just that changes happen. It's that it's happening with the tell-tale fingerprints of humans. And this is, the fancy word for this is called detection and attribution, but really think of it as fingertips. So what are the basic physics of the greenhouse effect? By the way, the greenhouse effect would exist if humans weren't even here. The greenhouse effect is something that makes life possible in this planet. If there weren't the greenhouse effect, life would be, the Earth would be so cold, there may not be life. So the question is, are we having the greenhouse effect? What happens if we make it more potent? The way it works. Sun might pass us through the atmosphere. The atmosphere is shown by that blue ring around the Earth. The Earth sends out its own energy. It's called infrared energy. How many of you watch cops? Come on, in a minute. Okay. It's cops, right? Don't they have scenes where a helicopter is going around and they've got this special camera that can see people at night? It's infrared energy. They're detecting the heat of the person. In the same way, the Earth is emitting heat. But what's interesting about this heat is the atmosphere can absorb some of it. And if the atmosphere absorbs it, it sends some back. So it's this piece that's coming back, those red and blue lines. There's more of them. And they're changing the energy balance of the planet. So, John, is carbon dioxide really increasing? Come on, how do you do that? Well, you're looking at one of the most famous graphs in all of science. It's called the Keeling Curve. It came down to our guy named Charles David Keeling. He began it in 1957. He was crazy. He would take his wife on family vacations along the coast of California just so he could stop at his little instruments that were measuring carbon dioxide. Honey, let's go up to eat at this place. Oh, by the way, let me check my instrument. He was checking data when his son was born, Ralph Keeling. I met Ralph Keeling, nice dad. But meticulous dad. And what his data shows is this red, bumpy line. The data shows that every year the amount of carbon dioxide goes up. Now, each year there's a little bump.  So they lower the carbon dioxide. Then in the fall, they decay, leaves fall down. They emit carbon dioxide. So there's an annual up and down, but each year that up and down gets higher. Before the industrial revolution, carbon dioxide in the atmosphere was at 280 parts per million. That means if you take out a million molecules out of the atmosphere, 280 would be carbon dioxide. Now we're at about 400. So 40% increase entirely due to humans. Entirely due to humans. Greenhouse gases. Well, this is a graph that goes back 2,000 years. This is 14 years ago. This is the year zero. And these are three of the most important human-emitted greenhouse gases, carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide. They're more or less constant until the 1700s and 1800s when they rise precipitously. So it's not just one greenhouse gas. It's all of these that have been increasing. Where's it from? Well, we know carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases are increasing. If we want to stop it, we should at least know the sources. Electrical sources. Coal is one of the most major sources of carbon dioxide. It's also one of those major sources of energy. It makes about just over 40% of our electricity, a third of our emissions. Huge. Coal produced electricity, I think it's the number one single source. Each kilowatt hour of electricity is two pounds of CO2, which is 18 cubic feet. How many of you have an electrical bill that you pay? Some of you. And it's measured in every month you get the amount of energy you use, and it's in kilowatt hours. Take every kilowatt hour multiplied by 18, and that's how many cubic feet of space you have filled with carbon dioxide. Transportation. Each gallon of gas is about 20 pounds of CO2. So, can you imagine that? That's heavier. Now, this is mind-blowing. There are chemists who are taking chemistry. So you balance chemical reactions. Okay. So you know this, but it's still mind-blowing. Every gallon, which weighs about seven pounds, liquid, results in 20 pounds of emissions. The CO2 coming out of your tailpipe is heavier than the liquid you put in your gas tank. That's amazing. Each gallon of gas is 173 cubic feet of space. Now, I drove here. I drive a car that keeps about 50 miles of gas, but I still drove here. We're using electricity. I am not suggesting that we turn off all power in the back of the stone age. The reason why I show this slide is if we're going to make good choices about how to reduce emissions, we should better know where they're from. Because if we are going to make choices, they better be good choices. And they better be choices that work. And they better be choices that work cost-effective. So, great, John. You've shown that carbon dioxide is going up. All these other things are going up. Is the temperature increasing? Well, this is the temperature record from NASA. There's three organizations. There's actually four that keep temperature records. And this is one of them. And this is a graph you can get from their website, NASA GISTEM, G-I-S-T-E-M-P. Search it. You can get this graph. This graph goes back to about 1880. Each black dot is the yearly temperature. The red line is the smooth curve. Now, you get a hot year and a cold year and a hot year and a cold year. We're not worried about that. You know, weather changes, things happen on short-term basis. Well, I want to know is, are the temperatures increasing? Here are the hottest years on record. Back to 1880. Number one, 2010. And here's the rest of the top 10. This is the record back to 1880. Is there a trend? I think so. Now, some people say global warming stopped. They stopped in 1988 or it stopped in 2005. But you have to be careful when people say things stop or start a certain year because what people often do is they'll pick a hot year and then a cold year and they'll say, help, climate change has stopped. No problem. What we want to do as scientists is we want to look at the long-term trend. We don't care about the ups and downs of the wiggle. We want to know what is the long-term trend. But we can go back further than 1880. It turns out 1880 is the furthest back. We can go with good thermometer measurements. But there are other ways of knowing the earth's temperature that don't need thermometers. How many of you camp? Okay. Have you guys ever been to the boundary waters? Yes. Okay. Let's say you go to the boundary waters this year. And first, what's your name? Jordan. Jordan. Jordan, Dartmouth, you brought a shovel. How would he bring a shovel camping? But you brought a shovel.  And we made fun of Jordan for a while, but then he comes back to the campsite and says, guess what I found? I dug down three feet and I found a crocodile skeleton and palm fronts. Well, let's see if that happened. What would we conclude about the weather back in history when that birth was formed? Just answer. It's not a trick question. It was warmer. It was warmer. Right. Now, this kid's 11. We cannot let him, we've got to not let him be the first to answer. It was warmer, darn it. That's called a proxy. It's not a thermometer, but it's a signal from nature that tells you what the climate was like. There are other proxies. One of the best proxies is pollen. Let's say that you dig down into the ground or go down into the sediment of the oceans or lakes and you discover pollen of warm plants. Well, then you would conclude it was warm. Tree rings are another proxy. Ice cores are other proxies. The point is we can go back in history and we can get reasonably good temperature measurements even when we didn't have temperature stations in airplanes. And if we do that, we can get temperature, by the way, this is in thousands of years. So this is today. This is 400,000 years ago and the red curve is temperature. Now, it's sort of a saw shape. It goes up and then slants down, up and slants down. Those are what are called glacial into glacial periods, commonly known as ice ages, although the correct term is glacial into glacial. And on top of that, I've plotted greenhouse gases. I actually didn't do this. James Hansen did it. Greenhouse gases on top of the temperatures. Look at that. Is there a correlation? Yeah, that's pretty darn good, actually. What we've seen, in fact, you can go back 800,000 years and what you see is if you plot the greenhouse gases with temperature, wow, that is hard to explain unless you attribute it to greenhouse gas. So I am not saying dinosaurs, and by the way, I know dinosaurs were not around for... I'm not saying cavemen had coal plants and they were emitting carbon dioxide. All I'm saying is that over the past hundreds of thousands of years, these two things have been linked together when one moves the other moves. What would make us think that today, in 2014, we could increase carbon dioxide and the temperature's not going to respond? We have hundreds of thousands of years of data which suggests other ones. How do we have information that far back? Well, I talked about proxies. There are sediment proxies, there's Jordan's shovel proxy. One of the best known proxies is ice corns. Scientists can actually dig down two miles into an ice sheet. Now imagine you're in Greenland. Every year it snows a little bit. So it snows and then the next year it snows and the next year it snows on top and snows on top and it compresses the layers and you get the sandwiching. And as you compress the snow it turns to ice and you can actually drill an ice core. This is a photograph of a one meter long segment of a Greenland ice core. You see the stripes? Those are rings, just like tree rings or annual bands. So scientists can pull out this two mile long section. They can count the rings back in time so they can date it. Then what they can do is melt some of the ice and when you melt it, the air bubbles in the ice open up. And what comes out? The atmosphere from when the snow fell. So now you have the greenhouse gases because you get an atmosphere and you can get the temperature by looking at the isotopic nature of the snow. So you get temperature, time and greenhouse gas levels and that's how you get this curve. This is an ice core. So all of what I've talked about has been in the past. Where are we going in the future? Well this is temperatures over the last thousand years. That's likely the next 100 years. The summer of 2012 will be a very regular occurrence once we hit about 23. 2030 to 2050 will be every two to three years. I mean this stuff has, the stuff we're seeing now is going to become common. Remember in the summer of 2012 it was hot. Minnesota actually wasn't that bad. Here's the drought monitor. US drought monitor, you can just type in Google US drought. How many of you are online? You're online? Type in Google, I hate to do this, tell people to Google something while I'm talking. But when you go back to your apartments or dorms or your homes type in US drought monitor and see the current drought monitor. Look at it. This is the drought monitor July 2012. This drought cost $35 billion. There it was in February, middle of winter 2013. Then what happened? Went from hot and dry to super wet. We had a huge swing of weather. The fancy term is weather whiplash. We went from having a huge drought to having one of the wettest springs ever in this section. But California had one of its driest years. So we had parts of the US that were flooding. They went from drought to flooding and then the West Coast went to this terrible drought. The drought in California right now is unbelievable. If you've been following the story, you know how bad it is. I pulled this just about a month ago. California, it's the deepest drought color that you can have. Why do I care about California besides almond prices are going on? We pay for this. We pay for the cost of extreme weather. We pay for the Duluth flood. We pay for Hurricane Sandy and we pay for the drought. So if it didn't have an impact to us, it would be hard to motivate action. But this stuff affects us. It affects our pocketbook and our lives. 2012, every red state was the hottest ever on record. Orange were just much above average. Now a lot of people who deny climate change pointed to Washington and said, look, it's not that hot.  By the way, 2012, hottest year US record, it was cold worldwide. It was only the 10th hottest. So you can be crazy hot in one area but just moderately hot in another area. Why is some of this happening? Why are we having these extremes? Well, we don't know for sure. I'm going to let you in on a little secret. This is one of the most hotly discussed and studied topics in climate change right now. We don't know the answer to it but the evidence is emerging that this is what's happening. There's something called the jet stream. The jet stream is this super fast stream of air and it swings around the planet sort of like this. Goes around in a circle. If you're above the jet stream, you're cold. If you're below the jet stream, you're warm. What scientists think is happening is because the Arctic has lost so much ice, we've lost about 60% of the summer ice coverage. It's causing high pressure up here which is pushing the jet stream down in them. It's an undulating jet stream. How does that impact you? Well, if you're here, you should have been cold but you're hot.  And by the way, these waves move. So if you're standing here, you get hit by cold and then this comes hot and this comes cold. It's this lip lash of weather. And so the current science is telling us that these undulations are getting bigger and bigger and bigger. So let's just, do you remember last spring?  You remember last spring. Now, what was the weather like in spring? It was winter, right? Snowstorms in May. Yeah, dear God, is this going to end? I mean, it was terrible. Now, let me show you something. This is the jet stream April 19th. Last April. April 19th, last May. That didn't make any sense. Check this out. Jet stream comes down, goes up. What do you expect the temperature of the U.S. to be on that day? No. Well, it depends on where we are. Let's say it's in the middle. Anyone? Cold or hot, above the jet stream. Cold. Cold. How about here? Below the jet stream. Right. Got it. Okay. And then warm over here. Now, let me show you the temperatures. Pretty good match. Cold. This was your terrible April. The question is, how bad is this going to be as we increase climate change? I was supposed to give a talk, was it February 20th? Something like that. And it was canceled because of snow. And I pulled up the temperature anomalies and this cold blob was moving into Minnesota. Oh, it's snowing. Snow emergency. Climate change is ending. But look at this. Northern Canada, Arctic. Super hot. Scandinavia. Super hot. And then all of Europe. Northern Russia. And then you got this cold blob here. Hot here. It was so hot in Scandinavia that bears came out of hibernation in December. It hit 70 degrees in Alaska in December. So what this goes to show is what is happening in one spot is not an indicator of what's happening in another climate. We just want to remember that. The same thing is true. When we get a heat wave, it doesn't prove global warming. No way it doesn't. Just prove it. This is, is this yesterday? Yeah. Or today, I don't know. Whatever. May 19th. Look at this. Look at that huge heat wave in Northern Russia. So you want to be cognizant of what's happening globally. So what are some of the other things that we've observed? Well, this image on the left shows Arctic ice in the summer in 1980. It was the equivalent of the continental U.S., continuous U.S. minus air zone. By 2005, we lost that much. 2007, we lost that much. 2012, we lost Texas. If you look at the summer ice in the Arctic, we lost 50% of the area and 70% of the volume. Now, this is what the graph looks like. This is summer ice in the Arctic, back to 1979. And look, going down one year doesn't prove global warming. Going up doesn't disprove it. What you want to do is look at the trend. There we were in 2000. There's also the potential that things could be worse than they are. Scientists didn't forget that we would lose as much ice as we're losing, especially in greenery. One of the reasons why is there are things that are occurring that scientists didn't know about. One of them is Mulan's. This is a famous photo. I think it's from the front cover of Science. There's a river of water that is flowing toward the photographer and then it dumps into a hole. And the water goes down to the base of the ice sheet. Ice sheets sit on top of land. The water goes down to the base and then it flows out toward the ocean. And it carries with it or lubricates the base and takes some of the ice sheet with it. So we're concerned, scientists are concerned that what we've observed is just the beginning. It'll actually speed up as these things speed up. This is a fancy word for this. That is a lake on Greenwood. That's the ice in the back and that's a motorboat on a mill. If we go to the south pole, we see Antarctica. There's the east and then there's the west. The east is huge and very stable. The west is not very big but it's unstable. And I've got a call out here at the Larsonby Ice Shelf, size of Rhode Island. Here's what happened in a month and a half. January 31st, by the way, those little dots are melt parts. February 23rd, March 5th, March 7th. Size of Rhode Island collapsed in a month and a half. Was it really the size of Rhode Island? Yes, it was. In 2009 we had another ice shelf. Wilkins Ice Shelf had a collapse here. And then of course there's land-based glaciers. This is Glacier, Alaska. A photo from 1909. Same location photo 2004. Other glaciers, 1941 and then 2004. Photo from the same location. And Alpine Glacier a long time ago and then more recently. And then Portage Glacier 1914 and then 2004. Has anyone heard of the movie Chasing Ice? Has anyone seen it? Fantastic. A guy, a photographer, James Ballog, set up cameras in the Arctic. And he had to take photos like every hour or every half hour. And he's got time-lapse photography of glaciers collapsing. Unbelievable. He's got a great book. Watch the movie streaming on Netflix or whatever. Chasing Ice. Fantastic visual evidence of the stuff. Well, why do we care? Well, this is a topological map showing Asia and how high areas are above sea level. We'll focus on Bangladesh. Bangladesh has 160 million people. The consensus is that we're going to have about a meter of sea level rise by 2,103 feet. So a lot of people living near the coast of Bangladesh and other countries. You know, we as a country have trouble dealing with hurricane Katrina evacuees, richest country in the world, a couple hundred thousand people. What do you do if you're Indian and you have 20 million climate refugees? How do you do that? There's the real concern that there's going to be social changes, countries deal with climate refugees, and the Pentagon has identified climate changes as their number one long-term security threat. So the number one thing they're looking at, more than Russia and Crimea, it's climate change. This is the southeast part of the U.S. Red shows what would be covered with one meter sea level rise, three meters, and six. Ami is gone, way before this. In some places you can build seawalls. Not Miami. The ground's porous. The water will come up underneath. So Miami is a lost city. New Orleans, that's a tough one. Now, maybe we don't care about Miami, but dealing with relocating or dealing with raising sea level protection, that costs money. New York is putting 19 billion into rising sea level and storm surge protection. These are real dollars with real costs, both financial and human costs. China, is the ocean really going to rise that much? Well, Greenland is 23 feet of water. West Antarctica, five meters or 17 feet. Those are the two scientists are concerned about. That's 48 of sea level rises. Now, the general consensus is three feet by 2100. Do we care about what happens after 2100? It depends. It depends on how you view equity amongst different generations. I can, if all of Antarctica melted 2700 feet, these are not, I mean these are shocking numbers. There's a lot of water trapped inside. Here are some of the other things that we expect. Lower crop yields, especially in subsistence farming areas like Africa, which is what I showed in that video, the photo, ocean acidification, water. The general, there's two things happening with water. First of all, the atmosphere holds more water as it gets warmer. We know that July is more humid than January. So we expect more rain. But things evaporate faster. So we expect things to dry up faster. So there's two competing things. What's going to win? Well, it depends on where you are. The general view is, if you're in an area that's dry, it will become drier. If you're in an area that's wet, it will become wetter. And the rain will happen in heavier downbursts. So the southwestern US will become drier. The central and eastern part of US will become wetter, but there will be bigger downbursts followed by drier interspersed periods between the downbursts. Increased extreme weather events, hurricanes. The view of hurricanes is there will be fewer but more powerful hurricanes. But there's a lot of debate or not about hurricanes, invasive species, migration of flora. I get so depressed by this slide. I don't mind putting the slide up. What have you done? Well, if I didn't think there was a solution, I wouldn't be down here.  I hope you stay around afterwards. You're great. But the reason I come out and give talks is because I think there is a solution. What is it? Well, emissions are expected to rise over the next 50 years. There's no silver bullet, but there's silver auction. A lot of little things add up. Using energy more wisely, getting more out of a gallon of gas saves us money, and it helps improve the climate. I didn't talk about the same cloud and I was coming out of the talk and this lady says, well, you're a fancy professor. You can dry that Honda insect, which is, I told the audience, that's what I drove. The rest of us can't afford that. Well, first of all, she didn't know what professors get paid. We actually don't get paid that much, but I said to her, I said, ma'am, where's your car? And she pointed to a large-ish, old-ish vehicle, and I said, how many miles do you get on gallon? She said about 15. And I said, how many miles are in your car? $150,000, I said. All right, I pulled up my iPhone, and I said, I'm going to figure out how much extra you paid in gas. Let's pretend gas is $3 a gallon. She said, no, it's way more than that.  I said, let's pretend gas is $3 a gallon. Over the 150,000 miles she drove a car, do you know how much extra she paid in gas compared to my car?  So it would be great. 21 grand. She paid more in gas than my car cost to buy. Now, am I a better person for driving a car? No, but I have more money. And so there are some solutions that just make sense. Like using energy more wisely.  I insulated my house and in the first year I saved the amount of energy the amount of money the whole energy costs. It makes sense. These things just make sense. What can we do? What else can you do? Well, first of all, talk to people. Talk to your elected officials. Tell them that this stuff matters to you. If an elected official gets a phone call about a topic it's just a crank. If they get three or four, it's a ground slope. Call them up. State or local official. Call them up. Let them know what you think. Talk to your friends. Let your family and friends know that this is important to you. Reduce your own energy use. Reduce transportation. And if you ever hear someone with a fact that this proves gold woman call me I've heard it all before and I can help you walk through the baloney that people get on line. Change is possible. I love this image. So Rusty OLL with beautiful wind turbines in the background. Texas. Texas is the number one wind power producer city. Does anyone here drive through Southern Minnesota? Like, Worthington? What do you see?  Wind turbines. I mean, they're everywhere and they are investments. You know, engineers manufacturers installers. Farmers get paid for wind turbines. I would rather pay one of you to help design and install and maintain a wind turbine than to pay someone else in another country for their energy. These things just make sense. There's this guy doing algae biofuel.  So, this is the second and last one. I also am a dad. Not many of you are parents but you've got family members. And climate change is one of the biggest issues that's going to, it's already going to be one of the biggest issues that will impact you and people around the world. And in the future your kids or your friends are going to ask you, you know like my kids are going to say, dad, you knew.  What were you doing? They're either going to say how did you let this happen? Or they're going to say how did your generation have the courage to do something to maintain this environment for us? I desperately want my children to ask me that second question. And this is the daughter I adopted from Uganda in her home country. And I want to be able to tell her that while her country suffers disproportionately from climate change, we worked as hard as we could to reduce that. Climate change is going to impact us. The question is how much? What are the takeaway messages? Four things to remember. The first thing we know, I love it I say the four things to remember. Everyone starts writing their notes. There's going to be a test tomorrow. There's actually going to be an exit exam. You can't leave and go home unless you pass the test. Scientists know we've actually known about the greenhouse effect for more than 150 years. This isn't new. It wasn't invented by Al Gore.  We know, but we can solve it today. We don't need to wait for cold fusion. We don't need to wait for magic pixie dust to come from aliens. We can solve it today with today's technology. During World War II this is a stat I've heard. I think it's correct. Do you know how many... I got it from looking. No, I'm kidding. I'm kidding about that. How many aircraft did the US military build during World War II? There's no way you'll know. 600,000. 600,000 aircraft during a short war. We were building bombers and ships and tanks and all this other stuff. You give me 600,000 wind turbines? We can solve this problem today. We've solved hard problems in our past. We can solve this one. And we can also make a buck while we do it. Not only can we solve the environmental problem, we can create jobs. How many of you would like a $70,000 engineering job designing the next wind turbine? I would. How many of you would like a $60,000 to $70,000 job wind fixing turbines, or developing the next biofield? I would. I mean, those are great jobs. We can solve the problem and create the new economy of the future. And if we don't, we're going to get killed economically. China right now has made it a mission to own renewable energy. They are killing us in solar panels. They're destroying us. And we're going to suffer economically. And together, export our intellectual ideas to the rest of the world and buy those. So let's win this. Let's make this a competition. Win it. We can diversify our energy supply. We can improve national security. The last thing is, some people will come in and say, John, it's too expensive. Solve this problem. As if Sandy at $65 billion wasn't too expensive. It's $12 billion. $35 billion wasn't too expensive. It is already expensive not doing anything. Doing nothing is a choice. It's a choice that has tremendous economic costs. Almost all economists that study this agree it is more expensive to do nothing than to do something about it. And so that's the message I'd like to end with. It's a tough problem. But it's a problem we can solve. And if we solve it, we're going to have all these other benefits. And fortunately, I truly believe this. We can solve the problem with today's technology. And some of the solvers are in this room right now. So I'm happy to take any questions that people have right now. And I do want to thank you for coming out. St. Thomas, you're getting this unfilled, so I'm stuck here. We have food, extra credit. I'm sure you're getting extra credit. I guess you're getting food, so... But even then, we would have a turnout. So thank you for this great welcome and the chance to speak with you. Thank you. I was wondering what research you're currently involved in. I'm doing a lot. I have done oceanography, so I help measure ocean temperatures. The earth is out of energy bills. We are gaining in energy every second. Approximately four hereshima bombs worth of energy. Now, what we need to do is figure out where it's going. And about 93% of it's going into the ocean. Now, let's say you wanted to measure the energy of the ocean, the temperature of the ocean. How would you do it? The U.S. Navy had this idea years ago that subs submarines could avoid detection. If they were beneath something called the thermocline, do you know what a thermocline is? Okay, I've got some head down. The upper part of the ocean is warm and the bottom part is cold and it's a real sharp break. It goes from warm to cold right away. That's the thermocline. The U.S. Navy licensed a pro, a really cheap pro called an XBT. Short for expandable bathy thermocline. And they threw these things over about 100,000 years.  Are we on line here? Is there internet here? Yeah. Now I've got to figure this out. I should never do Google search just while you're giving a talk, but I'm going to violate that principle. Thermograph. Oh, here. Boom. Right there. These little probes. And as they go down, they have a hole in the back and a wire comes out. They're connected to a computer on the board, on a ship, and they rotate as they go down and they release this wire and they record temperature depth. And that knows how. Well, the Navy wanted to know within a couple meters how deep the thermocline was and they had all of this data back to the 60s. Well, climate scientists came around and said, oh man, we've got all this temperature data. We can figure out if the ocean's been warming. But the problem was the Navy didn't know how fast they were falling. They didn't have the required accuracy due to climate studies. But NOAA oceanographers to approve the data record of all instances. So that's the biggest thing I've done, but I've also done what's called paleo-climate. We dug down into the earth and you can measure the temperature deep in the earth and figure out what the past temperature was. Comfortable temperature sensing. And then finally, I do climate sensitivity.  Are we going to increase two degrees, Yeah, can you go back to the slide with all the individual steps that we can take? Yeah. Are you going to quiz me and like ask me a tough question? No, I was just going to copy it down. You can actually do more than this. These are just like, you know, basically it comes down to use energy more wisely, talk to people. That's really it. Use energy more wisely. Let people around you know this is important. Oh, and then maybe go into climate science or something. Change the world. 33% of CO2 is from coal burning electricity. How much is compared to that? That was... Yeah, yeah, you know what? I think that was just U.S. What are the big... I don't know the answer. I can't give you the percentage, but U.S. are coal electricity, natural gas, other electricity sources and transportation. Use of energy for buildings, residential and commercial buildings are a huge component, but that's a mixture of coal and it's a mixture of natural gas and other sources. So you can... There are multiple areas that break it down by industries and break it down and include that. It's right to me and I'll send it to you. My wife told me that every graph you have reduces attention spans by a factor of two. She didn't say that. She said it just makes people pay less attention. My original slide shows back in 2007 were just packed with graphs. We were great data and I used to have that charted it and I cut stuff out and put in more pictures as time went. Although with this smarter group it was about 2000. Any other questions?  If you could answer that you would win a Nobel Prize. But I'll tell you the best source the United Kingdom commissioned what's called the Stern Report and that is the best economic analysis, STERN because I know you're writing it down, Stern Report and other consequences. But I'll also tell you what the IPCC group, this group of scientists that write a report every five or six or seven years they have three reports. The first one was last fall and it was on the science. There's two more coming out reports number two and three and they are on costs and they're also on adaptation because we've actually gotten so far that there's two things we mitigate which means stop it or we can adapt which means just pay to survive through it and we really are so far we have to do both and the question is where do we put our limited financial resources so we get the best bang for the market and those are dealt with in the IPCC reports. I think I Hello, scientific question I guess talking about the jet stream and differences in temperature between the Arctic and the lower latitude and so how does that play out in the winter? So we've had this jet stream going up and down this winter. You expect there to be more in the summer when the Arctic is warmer? Yeah, that's right and that's the area of active research we don't know when it's worse is there a lag from summer ice melt to the jet stream impact. The person who is sort of at the vanguard of this is named Jennifer Francis famous, you know scientists, we make a mark like Kratzen, didn't he do COCs or something you know Richard Feynman made a mark Einstein made a mark well Jennifer Francis was the one who brought this to the attention of the scientific community and it's hotly debated right now a number of other scientists say there's no evidence I think her data is solid Jennifer Francis her papers are very real Alright, let's thank you more. If we were to do these changes and sort of lower our CO2 emissions are we expecting to just sort of slow what's already happening or are they trying to look and see if we could actually reverse the trends? No we cannot reverse the only way you can reverse it is to suck CO2 well actually you can reverse it but it's crazy if we stopped admitting scientists we look at different scenarios like worst case scenario of emissions or best case best case means we get our act together and if we do a best case scenario we'll cut the problem in about a third maybe a half or a third so instead of three degrees celsius or maybe five Fahrenheit we would have a degree and a half two degrees so it's a big difference but we can't stop it just by cutting emissions but we make the cost a lot less and we give ourselves more time there is a way to reverse the action and it is crazy it is called geoengineering the main idea right now is to spray particulates into the atmosphere to mimic a volcano if there's a volcanic eruption a big volcanic eruption like pinot tubo or algae com the earth cools for about two years because there's all these particles in the atmosphere and it reflects some way well one of the ideas is to spray particles into the stratosphere that will reflect some way so basically you're polluting to offset pollution it's dumb but that's one of the areas another area and I know we got to go another area is to seed the ocean with iron to promote plankton growth the plankton will absorb carbon dioxide and then the plankton will die and sink and that hasn't worked very well in the test cases so geoengineering but it's just better to use energy more wisely and have more money right thank you very much, good pleasure


What's up everybody, Jason here with jazzyskazebrake.com. We just sold out a filler for the high end mixer. Now again, actually this is not the last filler and this is number 60, one that sold out late last night once we went out there. Number 61 is actually the original last spot filler. Just had a doodle over, but I forgot to cross out the last filler. But again, this is number 60 that sold out late last night and it is a 2022 capstone MLB one pack breaker number 60 and we're giving it two high end mixer spots so I have a chance to win one of these spots here which we only have one full spot left for as little as 34 bucks. So we're gonna do the break first, we're gonna randomize it because our names, teams, the shoe, the hits out of the pack, then at the end we'll re-randomize the original list and top two get in guys. So let's roll, it's a four into six, 10 times, good luck, one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine, 10, 10 times. David, down to Eugene. 10 times here, one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine, 10. Red Sox down to the Nationals. All right, and again, of course guys, let's stick to what you got because it's just a quick little capstone pack. Let's quickly do the pack. Feels really thick though, so maybe we got a relic here or something? Yeah, I think we got something there. Melinda Renato, Mike Trowell, Toscar Hernandez and a Terry Curtis relic. That is for Minnesota. There you go. All right, let's switch scenes back and let's do the main part of this break which is the giveaway. Top two get a spot in the break. Roll, this time 11, six and a five, good luck. One, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine, 10 and 11th and final time, guys. Boom, 11 times. Just missing out with Eugene, sorry, buddy. But, Tris and Tim, congratulations. Boom, top two are right there. So, you guys are now in the break. And like I said, capstone number 61 one is the last one we need to do to unlock the break. So, get that next one going, guys. Thank you and congrats to the winners. And again, that break is almost sold out, guys. One more full spot and then that last filter that you see on the website. Thank you, guys.


Greetings from the National Archives. I'm David Ferriero, Archivist of the United States and it's my pleasure to welcome you to tonight's panel discussion on the Bill of Rights at the Schoolhouse Gate. We are presenting this program in partnership with iCivics and we thank them for their support. We would especially like to welcome all the educators, teachers and students and their parents who are viewing this program. Before we begin, I'd like to invite you to join us in a couple of days for another program you can view on our YouTube channel. On Thursday, December 17th at 1pm, we'll welcome Allison M. Parker to discuss her latest book, Unceasing Militant, The Life of Mary Church Terrell. Born into slavery during the Civil War, Mary Church Terrell would become one of the most prominent activists of her time with a career bridging the late 19th century to the Civil Rights Movement of the 1950s. I hope you can join us on December 17th. Today we mark Bill of Rights Day, the anniversary of the day in 1791 when the first ten amendments to the Constitution, later known as the Bill of Rights, were ratified. These amendments protect our most fundamental rights, freedom of speech, protest and conscience, and guarantee our equal protection under the law. The Bill of Rights have been displayed in the National Archives Rotunda since 1952 on Bill of Rights Day to be exact. Since then, millions of visitors from across the country and around the globe have gazed upon the handwritten words on parchment that have guided us as a nation for nearly 230 years. Over the centuries, though, individuals and organizations have debated the extent of these rights under various circumstances. Tonight our speakers will examine how these rights apply. Now it's my pleasure to welcome Julie Silverbrook, the Senior Director of Partnerships and Constitutional Scholar in Residence for iCivics, our partner organization for this evening. Thank you for joining us today. Thank you. As the archivist said, I am Julie Silverbrook, Senior Director of Partnerships and Constitutional Scholar in Residence at iCivics. Founded by U.S. Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, iCivics is the nation's premier civic education provider reaching over 150,000 teachers and 7.5 million students in all 50 states each year. We are so pleased to partner with the National Archives this year to celebrate the 229th anniversary of the ratification of the Bill of Rights. We have assembled an all-star panel of experts to discuss with us the Bill of Rights at the schoolhouse gate. This is my privilege to now introduce our moderator and panelists. Moderating tonight's discussion is Stephen Vermeel. Stephen is a professor of practice at American University, Washington College of Law, where he teaches constitutional law, First Amendment, civil rights litigation, and a seminar on the U.S. Supreme Court. His coauthor of two books has published many law review articles and magazine and newspaper columns and writes a periodic column on the Supreme Court for SCOTUS blog. He previously was the Supreme Court correspondent for the Wall Street Journal and a political reporter for the Boston Globe. Our panelists are Mary Beth Tinker. In 1911, Mary Beth was one of three plaintiffs in the landmark students' rights case, Tinker v. Des Moines Independent School Community, that was decided at the Supreme Court in 1969. She holds master's degrees in nursing and public health and speaks with students throughout the country about her case and the First Amendment, encouraging students to know their rights and to use them. Stephen Driver is a professor of law at Yale Law School. He teaches and writes in the area of constitutional law and is the author of the schoolhouse gate, public education, the Supreme Court, and the battle for the American mind. It's an excellent book. You should order it on Amazon after today's program. Linda Monk is a constitutional scholar and author most recently of the Bill of Rights users guide, which has a forward by the late U.S. Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. It's also an excellent book, which I encourage you to check out if you haven't already. She has twice won the American Bar Association Civil Gavel Award. It's highest honor for media about the law. Before I hand this over to Steve to moderate tonight's discussion, I did want to note that those of you who are joining us virtually can pose questions via the YouTube chat. Those questions will be shared with Steve, who will then pose them to our panelists toward the end of the program. And with that, I will leave things in Steve's very capable hands. Thank you and happy Bill of Rights Day. Thank you so much, Julie. Thank you to iCivics and thank you to the National Archives for putting on this wonderful and timely program. And we're going to talk about how the Bill of Rights applies to students and at the schoolhouse gate. And we're celebrating not only the 229th anniversary of the Bill of Rights, but as we were discussing before the program started. Tomorrow marks 55 years since our honored guest, Mary Beth Tinker, engaged in her protest wearing a black armband in school, which led to the landmark decision about student rights, which she'll talk a little bit about and others will discuss as well. So let me start with a question for Mary Beth. Tell us a little bit about your experience. We'll do the math quickly and say 55 years was 1965, and it was around Christmas time. And how does that experience relate to the different kinds of protests and protest challenges that students are facing today? Thank you so much, Steve. It's so good to be with all of the panelists and with the audience and thank you to the archives and iCivics. As we talk about one of my favorite subjects, which is youth and the rights of youth, the voices of youth, which are so important to any society's growth and to a society getting better and better. When youth voices are stymied, it's not only unfair to the youth, it's unfair to the entire society, to all of us, because young people have such great creative ideas and they have a sense of fairness and they have the willingness to take risk and to take action. As a nurse, I've seen this so often and it's actually in the brain chemistry of young people. So that's how I think us kids felt when I was growing up. We were inspired by the other youth of our generation. The Black Lives Matter of our time was the Birmingham children in Birmingham, Alabama in 1963. They stood up to the white supremacists there and they marched and sang and around 2,000 Black students that year were arrested. And then soon after that in September, when I had just turned 11 years old, thanks to the free press, we learned that four of the young people in Birmingham had been murdered by the white nationalists, the white supremacists. And so it was mighty times a lot like now when so many kids are facing some of these very similar issues. And we felt that we wanted to speak up about the war then later two years after that. And we had examples of other youth who had spoken up and taken a stand. And so when we started seeing more and more of the horrors of the war on the news, we felt like so many young people a desire, a natural desire to speak up and to express ourselves. And so that's what happened. How does that relate to the challenges students are facing today? There are so many protests and so many different currents of thought in our society. What do you think is the lesson? There are so many young people speaking up again today and it's very heartening as a trauma nurse. I've been so happy to see students speaking up about gun violence and students speaking up against racism, gender issues and the environment. There are so many things that young people are concerned about. And the ruling in this case, we didn't stop the war but we did make a precedent at the Supreme Court that student voices are important and that the society through the Supreme Court said that youth voices are important and that the rights and responsibilities of youth are important and that their responsibilities are just as important. And they said that there are two things students cannot do in public school with their first amendment rights. Number one, substantially disrupt school. And that's a responsibility. And number two, to impinge on the rights of others, whatever that means. And that's been debated ever since. And I know that some of our first amendment scholars on this panel know a lot about that and we'll get into some of that later. But yes, it was a precedent that is encouraged youth to have a voice and to take part. Because the decisions that are made so often by adults impact young people. And that's why I left the hospital where I was working some years ago and I decided to, that it was good for the health of young people also to use their voices and to know their rights and to use them. Thank you. Let me turn to Justin. So, protest obviously involves free speech as I suppose one subset of what we think of as freedom of speech and Mary Beth's case, the Tinker case obviously relates very much to the free speech rights and becomes the foundation for how we think about other student rights in school. Can you lay that out for us, Justin? And where are we today? What are the challenges to students free speech rights today and other rights as well? Yeah, let me begin by commending Mary Beth and her siblings and friends for taking the stand that they did in Des Moines, Iowa so many years ago. I'm confident that it was not an easy thing to do to stand up in effect against the principal and many members of the surrounding community and say we think we want to protest against this Vietnam War upon penalty of being suspended. And that's a very scary thing for young people to do. And we should say that in December 1965, this is at a time when to the extent that people were thinking about the Vietnam War at all, they would have supported it. And so I'm aware that the family home of Mary Beth was pelted with in effect prank calls that weren't very funny and nasty letters and also as I understand it, the Tinker family home was splattered with red paint with the evident implication being that only a communist or red would dare to oppose the Vietnam War. And at the time, as I understand it, it was very much an open question whether students retained the ability to announce their views in schools. And I admire Justice Fortes' opinion on the court for, you know, sort of suggesting that students disagreeing with one another on the issues of the day is not a distraction, but is instead a vital part of the educational experience. One of the great things about this nation is that people can disagree with each other. And that he did so again, writing in 1969, when most Americans would have thought that students should have no free speech rights whatsoever. It's an incredible opinion. Indeed, he gives me the title for my book. He says he can hardly be argued that students shed their constitutional rights at the schoolhouse gate. But at the time, as I've said, that was very much an open question and had Justice Fortes not written the opinion in the way that he did, it's at least plausible to think that the courts would have said, well, students don't have any constitutional rights whatsoever, that school authorities are acting on behalf of parents in effect. And just as a parent can tell their kid, you know, be quiet without violating the freedom of speech, so too could a school principal in virtually all circumstances. So I'm really glad that that opinion exists. And there is a whole body of constitutional rights that have in effect flowed from the Tinker opinion. And just one more thought there, Justin, what are some of the challenges just briefly that the Tinker decision itself faces today? Yeah, so a couple. One would be the issue of off-campus speech. When I talk to parents and to educators and to students, they tell me that they continually encounter issues where students are writing things on social media. There are so many different platforms. I can't keep up with all of them, but you know, Twitter and Facebook and all the rest, right? And those messages then subsequently are brought by students on their phones to campus. And the question is, what can students say off-campus but online that is in effect a safe harbor? As I said, Justice Fortes' opinion says it can hardly be argued that students shed their constitutional rights at the schoolhouse gate. There are some lower court opinions that in effect disregard that notion of the schoolhouse gate and allow principals and other educators to regulate what students are doing off-campus. And that is a very distressing development from my perspective. I would also say that from my own vantage point, the Tinker opinion was marvelous. It should have been the first step, and subsequent courts should have built upon it. The test that Mary Beth announced is about whether there's a reasonable forecast of a substantial disruption, but in my view that affords students too little protection for their speech rights. All right, thank you. And Linda, when we talk about First Amendment issues and First Amendment rights in school, we're not just talking about free speech. The law of Supreme Court decisions is filled with rulings about religion in schools, prayer, school aid, all kinds of issues. Can you speak to that and how that relates to our First Amendment discussion? Well, in fact, I'd like to agree with Justin about that schoolhouse gate. It's like you want to let the First Amendment in, but you don't want students' rights to be suddenly the schoolhouses everywhere and they have no free speech outside of the school. So I'd like to, Mary Beth was rightly connecting the civil rights movement and the activism of young people there to what went on in the schools, and she talked about the Vietnam War. I'd like to look at what was going on during World War II and students' rights at that point, because that's when we first get that crack right before World War II. The Supreme Court held that, yes, students could be compelled to give the Pledge of Allegiance despite strong religious beliefs, contrary. Three years later, the Supreme Court reverses itself and says, no, even when it's something as important as patriotism, the government cannot require students to be forced to say the Pledge of Allegiance, both on freedom of religion grounds and freedom of conscience and freedom of speech. So we had that little crack, and then rightfully, I think, in the Tinker case, it was clear that it's not just students can't be forced to do something, but students also have an affirmative right. And then the question becomes, how does religion play a part in that? Because as we know that freedom of speech is tied to freedom of conscience, the first two clauses of the First Amendment have to do with what we call freedom of religion. And what does that mean when you say the government can't establish religion on one hand? Justice O'Connor said at the very least, that means coercion. Government can't coerce you into some kind of belief in violation of your conscience, and then free exercise on the other. In the schoolhouse, how that becomes relevant is because we're talking about public schools here, remember it's just the government, and then you're compelled to go to school. So if a government official, in this case, the teacher, tries to lead a prayer or some religious activity, the Supreme Court is held, that's not allowed, because that's really coercive in a school setting. On the other hand, you have freedom of expression that includes religious topics. As we know, there was a case involving a Bible Club, and called the Murgans decision, and the Supreme Court ruled there that if you have extra curricular activities that are not connected to the curriculum, then students can have a Bible Club or religious club as part of that. What they can't have is a teacher leading those activities. It has to be a custodial role versus a participatory role. And then to just add on to that, we see that the court has ruled against prayers at football games, even if they are so-called student-led, because the government's still creating the vehicle for that. We also have found that prayers at high school graduations, the court has ruled that, wait a minute, we don't want students to have to choose between being at their high school graduation versus their own freedom of conscience. So I think that gives an overview of how religious activity is expressed in the schools. As long been noted, as long as there are pop quizzes, there will be prayer in schools. It's not a question of whether or not students can pray. It's a question of whether or not teachers or the government can create the form or leave that religious activity. Thank you Linda. I'm going to go back to Justin for a minute because, and then bring Mary Beth back in. The tinkered decision in 1969 was ostensibly about free speech and protest, but that statement about students' rights at the schoolhouse gate raises questions about other student rights as well. The Bill of Rights, as we know, which we're celebrating today, has a number of provisions that relate to criminal procedure and freedom from certain kinds of government searches and seizures. Justin, can you talk a little bit about the influence of society's concern about safety in schools and criminal activity and how that relates to the tinkered decision and to student rights, and then we'll get Mary Beth's perspective on that as well. Absolutely. The Fourth Amendment prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures, and the Supreme Court of the United States has had several opportunities to contemplate the contours of that constitutional provision within the schoolhouse gate. The initial case was decided in the 1980s called TLO versus New Jersey, and at the time there was some widespread fear that the Supreme Court would say that the Fourth Amendment has no meaning whatsoever in schools because of the fears of safety. The Supreme Court gave what we might think of as a junior varsity constitutional right, where in the public park probable cause is the sort of signal test, but in TLO it was announced that it was reasonable suspicion, which there's ambiguity there, but it is clear that it's a lower standard than probable cause. The most distressing cases involving schools in the Fourth Amendment from the Supreme Court, in my view, involve suspicionless drug searches where students who participate in extracurricular activities can be required by school districts to offer urine samples. Under traditional Fourth Amendment standards, you would regard this as a violation of the Constitution because it is what people refer to as a drag net search where the government is swooping up a great deal of information without any individualized suspicion of wrongdoing and seeing what turns up. Unfortunately, from my perspective, the Supreme Court has validated these searches and said in effect that drugs are a serious problem in American society and we dare not take this away from schools districts. It's my hope that the Supreme Court of the United States will revisit that and the reason that I hope that that is so is because I think it teaches a very dangerous message to students about their place in society and makes them in effect the sort of just the objects of law and that's a dangerous message to communicate to our young people. Mary Beth, do you want to weigh in on that? Yes, because I think there is a general safety issue when it comes to young people, children and teenagers, what helps to make kids safe and what helps to make them healthy and as it turns out graduating from high school is the healthiest thing that a teenager can do. And so we want to have high schools to be places where kids want to be and classes to be places where kids want to be, whether it's virtual or in person, we want that to be an experience that students want. And if you start putting all punitive searches and things in the way, especially for extracurricular activities because that's one of the things that really attracts kids to stay in school a lot of times, it becomes a barrier to student success. And so I think these issues should, the students themselves should also have a chance to weigh in on what helps them to feel safe and what are the real dangers, you know, to them. Linda, anything to add? Well, my thought is also that are we habituating an entire generation and each successive generation to government interference in their lives? I mean, so that it's like being what is referred to in prison settings as institutionalized. So if we're training students that yes, the government is always involved in your life to a certain level, I think it's like, you know, the elf on the shelf. Some people would say that habituates you to being watched. A question of if you're having to go through a metal detector, et cetera, et cetera, every time you enter school, is that really keeping your safe? Or is that just habituating you to government searches? Let me let me pose a general question. Anybody can take a first crack at it. It strikes me as we've talked about a couple of these cases, the Tinker case in 1969, the TLO Fourth Amendment search case in the 80s, that everything's more complicated than it was when those cases were decided, right? I mean, the sort of the arm band, the protest was kind of black and white to the court in 1969, not to Justice Hugo Black who dissented, but to Fortis and the court's majority. The TLO case was really just the tip of the iceberg of the drug culture and drugs as a problem in our society. Do we need to revisit these to make them more appropriate or to fit better to the problems that our schools and students face today? Well, I think they are being revisited in various ways all the time. Steve, for example, there's a case in Minnesota where Riley, a girl named Riley, I think she was in about sixth grade or seventh grade. She was brought into the office and the administration demanded to see the passwords on her social media. And that was resolved in her favor in the end and the court said that she could not be forced to give her password. But there have been other cases, all kinds of social media cases that have been in the lower courts and have been decided in various ways. There's also a case recently in Pennsylvania, BL I think versus Mahoney, which really the out of school speech issue is so important as I think Linda mentioned. And this was one of the first cases recently where the court said that the out of school speech of the student was protected even though it was brought into school because that's a huge issue right now compared to Tinker. In the Tinker ruling, it said that in school speech was the issue, but the student did out of school, that was different. That was social media, the line is blurred, but and so really recently, there is no schoolhouse gate. If something happens outside of school that affects students in school, then the students are, you know, can be there can be consequences depending on the speech. But this recent case in Pennsylvania challenged that. So the cases, I don't know what Linda and Justin think about that, but there are cases that are sort of adapting to the times when it comes to student speech rights. Well, specifically, I'd like to chime in with Mary Beth at she's the public health expert and the trauma nurse is that it seems like we're finally a society starting to realize that drug use is a health issue. And should we treat it in a health manner versus a punitive manner. And I defer to Barry Beth on that judgment, but it seems like if in the rest of society, there's movement that way. Perhaps schools should also be following it. On the on the drug point. I would note successor to the Tinker case. That's technical name is worth versus Frederick, but that everybody calls bong hits for Jesus, where a student unfurled a 14 foot long banner across the street from high school during a sort of school released activity that said by bong hits for Jesus. Unfortunately, the Supreme Court of the United States said that it was permissible to punish the student for that speech. And, you know, that was misguided in my view because it is a viewpoint restriction Chief Justice Roberts his opinion for the court said that it's permissible to punish students who promote illicit drug use. But of course students can take the opposite point of view and without being punished by saying drugs are a bad idea. And so I, you know, Chief Justice Roberts articulates and defends that idea by saying drugs are a really important problem in American society. And he's surely right. But for my vantage point, Justice Stevens in descent got much the better of the argument where he says, in effect, what is illegal today can become legal tomorrow and how does that process work but for people exchanging ideas on the issue of the day. This was a case that was decided in 2007. And there, of course, has been a major transformation with respect to the legality of marijuana in the last 13 years. And so I think that the Supreme Court should events a greater commitment to these free free speech principles. Chief Justice Roberts has said he's the biggest friend of the freedom of speech on the current court. And unfortunately that friendship for the freedom of speech has not been in evidence on the issue of student speech. And you just to explain to our audience just and you mentioned viewpoint discrimination. Can you explain the significance of that concept in free speech law. Absolutely viewpoint discrimination is anathema. There's a people talk about the marketplace of ideas where people should be able to express themselves. And the idea behind viewpoint discrimination is you cannot tell someone, you can't say that because of the idea that it expresses that is distinct from what people would refer to as content based regulations where you would seek to silence and affect both sides of the debate, but by permitting anti drug speech, but making it permissible to punish pro drug speech. That is where the viewpoint restriction comes in. And again, from a traditional First Amendment perspective, those are sort of verboten. So it was a highly unusual opinion by Chief Justice Roberts in this bond hits for Jesus case that permits the viewpoint restriction in question. I'm glad you're talking about that issue, Justin, because viewpoint discrimination is so important. And it was really one of the main ways that we won our case. And by the way, it wasn't just Mary Beth Tinker that was involved with that action. It was a group of students and three students went to court and it was an American Civil Liberties Union case. The other students were Christopher Eckhart and my brother, John Tinker. But viewpoint discrimination because the school district had allowed students previous to us to wear black armbands to mourn the death of school spirit. But they said that we could not wear black armbands to mourn the dead in Vietnam, because that was too controversial. And so the case really is also a lot about how to deal with controversy in schools. And this is a big issue for teachers and for schools of education because we can't just eliminate controversy from school or from life or we wouldn't have education or we wouldn't have democracy. But how to deal with it is the question in ways that are respectful to all viewpoints and the government cannot decide which viewpoint is going to be allowed. That was the point of the case, the ruling in the case. So that's a perfect lead into the first question that I see posted by listeners on YouTube and I'll throw it open to anybody. But given how deeply polarized the country is right now, how do we create a school environment that provides space for expression of all different student views? Yes, it's very important traveling around the country to so many schools. I've met students that have started clubs in their schools. Some are current events clubs, current issues clubs, controversy clubs, school in Maryland that I was visiting once a month at lunchtime. They have a big group in the auditorium. The day that I was there, there were 100 kids there talking about various issues of the times and the idea of civic awareness and media literacy. We have organizations working on media literacy and the idea of respect for different viewpoints is so important. And really that's what this case is about. Really, I think that's what the First Amendment is about. It says that we in our country, we respect the right of people to have viewpoints and to express them. And that's what it's all about is respect. But I think other panelists, I think that's a hard sell, right? I mean, Justin's description that viewpoint discrimination means that the government can't favor one viewpoint over another. School officials can't favor one viewpoint over another, but it doesn't necessarily mean that we do a good job of what Mary Beth is talking about of teaching tolerance of opposing points of view. Other than talking about it and educating, is there anything else we can do to try to promote that? Well, I think we can ask students their ideas for how to do that.  So I think we should also, you know, find out what students think would help them to talk to each other about these controversial issues that are hard to talk about a lot of times, especially for adults. It's a really important question that the person has posed here. You know, you cannot be engaged with the news at all and not understand that our society is deeply polarized, that people disagree about very basic things. It's a really confounding problem as to what to do with society. I can tell you one thing that's going to make matters worse is if we, in effect, prevent young people from being able to disagree on really important questions. If people don't get into the habit of disagreeing with people while doing so in a respectful way, then when they become adults, I am confident that our current situation will become exacerbated and intensified. Too often, in my own view, when there is real controversy in the schools, the schools resort to suspending people. And the Tinker test is a really important one, but it can also be understood as reading in a heckler's veto into the doctrine. That is the idea that if particularly sensitive listeners object vociferously enough, they can shut down otherwise legitimate speech. An example of this phenomenon, just to put some flesh on the bones, is a case out of California where there were students who wore clothing featuring images of the American flag. And that was a controversial thing because this was on May the 5th, Cinco de Mayo. And some students said, what's wrong? You don't like Mexicans?  Well, I can understand the perspective of the students who feel frustrated and feel as though they are being trolled to use the modern parlance, but it seems to me that the solution to that problem is not to require the students wearing the clothing featuring the American flag to turn their shirts inside out or to tell them that they have to leave the school, but instead to try to have some sort of exchange of ideas so that people will be able to have greater appreciation for their fellow schoolmates and to be able to have disagreement in a sustained way. Those problems are not going to get better by just sort of driving the disputes and trying to silence them. That's the exact wrong thing in my view for the school to do. That's so true, and we need dialogue, not censorship. My brother John and I signed on to an amicus brief in that case, Dariano, saying that instead of censoring the students with the American flag shirts, there should have been dialogue. Maybe they could have had an assembly, have the Latinx kids, the Mexican kids, talk about why they were hurt when the Anglo kids wore the American flags to mock them, etc. More dialogue, less censorship. It's worth noting, I think, since we've talked about the tinkered decision, I've long thought that there are parts of that decision that don't get enough attention. The panelists already complimented Justice Fortis' vision. But in addition to the substantial disruption part of the opinion, Justice Fortis has a vision of what education is supposed to be about. He talks about how students aren't just empty vessels that the government can fill up with doctrinaire ideas and not allow other thoughts or thinking for themselves. And that, to me, is a beautiful concept that doesn't get discussed enough in the context of the tinkered decision and of student rights. Well, there are other questions. Let me move on. What student rights cases has the Roberts Court decided? And any thoughts about upcoming cases and how they might rule? I don't know if anybody wants to tackle that one, or Justin? Yeah, I can handle at least some aspects of that one. The Roberts Court hasn't done a tremendous amount with respect to students' rights. I mentioned the Bong Hits for Jesus case. Another notable case is one that was decided in 2009, and this is another fourth amendment case dealing with the prohibition on unreasonable searches and seizures. It's the Reading case where a middle school student was subjected to a strip search for possession of a contraband item in the form of ibuprofen tablets, if you can imagine such a quotidian item. And this was an incredibly traumatic event for this young woman. She never returned to the school in question. The Supreme Court of the United States found that the search did violate the Constitution, that it was unreasonable. Unfortunately, the court went on to say that this right was not clearly established, and therefore granted something called qualified immunity to the school principals in question. In my view, the decision in Reading was a very straightforward application of the TLO case, which goes to whether the search is invasive in light of the age and sex of the person, and they did not create any new law. And so I wish that even in the Reading case, while the outcome was the correct one, narrowly understood, in my view, it was still insufficiently protective of student speech rights. There are other cases as well, but Linda, do you want maybe I could pass it to you or anybody else, obviously? Well, it was specifically about the Roberts Court, and that's one where I'll defer to your knowledge. The case that always comes up for me in terms of student rights is, help me with the name of it. I believe it's out of Oregon, where the young student was being asked to urinate in a cup. And justice, oh gosh, now I'm going to forget his name, starts with a B, come on, help me out. Right, right. Well, it's not really that invasive to have to urinate in a cup. And the kid says, wait a minute, what are you talking about? So I think there's this sense of where sometimes justices on the court are themselves behind the times in terms of what a modern student might consider invasive or not. So I think that's the caveat. And I think Mary Beth brings this up very well of saying that just like in Tinker, the whole idea of what does it mean to be a parent or what does it mean to be a teacher starting to change? It's not just the justice black idea of being under the ruler from the teacher. So I would also say that in with regard to the urinating test that, yeah, maybe if you grew up in a high school where everybody was required to shower naked together, that's not a big deal. But today students may have different senses of what is personal privacy. And I think the court should have to acknowledge that. Let me move on to another question back to a free speech question. How should students push back against adults who want to limit or outright restrict censor their First Amendment rights at school? Many students are not First Amendment experts. They're not literate enough in the First Amendment to understand this. And so they just acquiesce. But what can students do? Well, when it comes to student journalism, there are ways that students can speak up. Well, only 25% of high schools have student journalism, unfortunately. And those are mostly, you know, kids that have more resources. But there are groups like the Student Press Law Center that they can turn to for advice if they feel censored in journalism. As far as censorship, I mean, I repeat the advice that the American Civil Liberties Union gave us at the time that we were suspended. First, always negotiate and try to negotiate an agreement so you can work with the administration and talk to them. And a lot of times they will change their mind. I know there was a girl in Buckeye Union in Arizona. This was several years ago. And she was told that she couldn't wear a Black Lives Matter shirt for photo day. And so she started talking to the administration and they had a small little picket outside the school, some of the students, and worked with the principal. And he changed his mind. I think the school board lawyer had something to do with that also. But the principal, I really had to admire the way that he started writing things, putting out to the public about how he was feeling badly about this, that he had embarrassed this girl and treated her unfairly. So, you know, sometimes negotiations like that can can lead to success, but it depends if your censorship is coming from family member or from the school or where it's coming from. Of course, I mean, there are plenty of students that are mistreated and disrespected in their own homes. And so that's a different ball game. And you can, you know, try to turn to other adults that are respected to help you guide you in those situations, depending on how severe the limitations are. Friends, school teachers, and others for advice. But, and there's also the American Civil Law, the ACLU. I mean, they are there for youth. They're involved in still a number of cases having to do with youth rights. Yeah, I would chime in there and say that I feel like often our students and young people get a bad rap in terms of not knowing enough about the First Amendment. I think it's the adults that need to learn more about the First Amendment. And therefore, to be more cognizant of, yes, it's the sign of a good education to learn how to understand controversial issues. We're talking now about civic education being more important than ever. What is that but a core civic skill of how to debate controversial issues and treat each other respectfully? So not only is it not interfering with the curriculum, it should be a central part of the curriculum. And if adults in the community are not supporting students and teachers in that activity, then the adults are the ones that are uneducated about the First Amendment. I do want to agree wholeheartedly with what Linda has just said that we're not doing a strong enough job as a nation of communicating civics lessons. I civics does some really wonderful work on this front. My old boss, Justice O'Connor, I was a law clerk to her when she was sort of getting this project off of the ground. And it was incredibly inspirational to me to watch how much time she dedicated to this. And the truth of the matter is I wrote my book in no small part to try to get the word directly to the students themselves. I tried to write my book in a way that would be accessible to non-lawyers. I think that is the first line of defense. And so one of the best interviews that I've had is with a high school student in New Jersey who read the book and understood it and had pushed back. And, you know, we had disagreements and that's a wonderful thing in American society. And so I thought that my mission has been accomplished in effect in the sense that I have a chapter on the freedom of speech and I try to, as I say, render this material in an accessible way. And if the young folks out there don't educate themselves, it makes them more vulnerable than they otherwise would be. I think that, and as others have said, teachers need to be educated as well because if you read the newspapers, you will see people trying to tell students that they must pledge allegiance to the flag even today. Yes. What, eight decades after the Supreme Court decided that matter. And so if you want your rights not to be trampled upon, it's important for the young people to know them. I'd like to agree with that, Justin and Linda, the importance of civics now especially. And it's been, it's taken a backseat for far too long. And a lot of people are really speaking up about this and doing a good job of that. And I civics, the National Archives, their work with teachers is so important. And the hundreds and hundreds of social studies teachers, civics teachers, journalism teachers around the country who are really working hard and they don't always get the support that they should to teach our students the basics, the fundamentals of our democracy. I'm going to make that the last word from Mary Beth. Excuse me, sorry. Thank you, Mary Beth Tinker. Thank you, Linda Monk. Thank you, Justin driver. Sorry, I got something stuck in my throat. Thank you to I civics and thank you to the National Archives. And this is an important and timely discussion. It's not going to go away. The issues will remain. The Supreme Court will revisit some of these subjects in the future. And so I hope we will have more discussions and debates like this. And thank you everybody for participating and have a wonderful holiday season. And thank you, Steve. Thanks to everyone. Thank you. It was a pleasure. Thank you. Thanks everybody.