[update. apparently the video I posted was a bootleg. I will be updating with official link when it becomes available – cr]
[Update 2 the official video has been released and we have a post with it here. It is also available on our videos page ~cr]
Monday, August 15, 2022
Resolution: Climate science compels us to make large and rapid reductions in greenhouse gas emissions.
For the affirmative:
Andrew Dessler is a climate scientist who studies both the science and politics of climate change. He is a Professor of Atmospheric Sciences and holder of the Reta A. Haynes Chair in Geosciences at Texas A&M University. His scientific research revolves around climate feedbacks, in particular how water vapor and clouds act to amplify warming from the carbon dioxide that humans emit. During the last year of the Clinton Administration, he served as a Senior Policy Analyst in the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy. Based on his research and policy experience, he has authored two books about climate change and one book about stratospheric ozone. His educational background includes a B.A. in physics from Rice University and a Ph.D. in chemistry from Harvard University. He also did postdoctoral work at NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center. Prior to graduate school, he worked in the energy group at The First Boston Corporation doing mergers and acquisitions analysis.
For the negative:
Steven Koonin is the author of Unsettled: What Climate Science Tells Us, What it Doesn’t, and Why it Matters (2021). He joined New York University Stern School of Business as a Professor of Information, Operations and Management Sciences in September 2012. He is also Director of NYU’s new Center for Urban Science and Progress (CUSP). Professor Koonin was confirmed by the Senate in May 2009 as Undersecretary for Science at the U.S. Department of Energy, serving in that position until November, 2011. Prior to joining the Obama Administration, he was BP’s Chief Scientist, where he was a strong advocate for research into renewable energies and alternate fuel sources. He came to BP in 2004 after almost three decades as Professor of Theoretical Physics at the California Institute of Technology, serving as the Institute’s Vice President and Provost for the last nine years.
This debate may also be found on our video page.
Dressler….”Climate change is already happening”
No further viewing necessary….
I wonder if his dog has monkeypox.
Is it a greyhound?
The climate has been changing more or less constantly, ever since the earth first formed an atmosphere.
Soho Forum Video Link for Koonan vs. Dressler when it is available is at
https://www.thesohoforum.org/past-events
There is no real evidence that CO2 has any real effect on climate. There is plenty of scientific rationale to support the conclusion that the climate sensitivity of CO2 is zero. Hence all efforts to reduce CO2 emissions will have no effect on global climate. Mankind does not even know what the optimum global climate actually is let alone how to achieve it If adding CO2 to the atmosphere really caused surface warming then one would expect that the increase in CO2 over the past 30 years would have caused at least a measurable increase in the dry lapse rate in the troposphere but that has not happened.
Yes, there is laboratory evidence to confirm the radiative effect, but, other than Urbane Heat Islands (UHI) and Green Blight Effect (GBE), the GHE is a net-zero effect in global, regional, and local ecosystems, where natural phenomena and processes fully explain impulse events and anthropogenic mathematical perturbations.
There is no laboratory evidence that co2 can increase the temperature of anything. It´s unclear what you mean by “radiative effect”, do you mean the spectral properties of co2? Yes they´re confirmed, but what do they show? They show that co2 reduces intensity of heat radiation at ~14micrometers. They don´t show that co2 intensifies any radiation. To get warming you need intensified radiation, not reduced radiation.
There is evidence that the earth emits less energy around 15 µm. The reason is clear – the atmosphere is more opaque at the CO2 absorption band, so the radiation is leaving the earth from the higher and colder layers of atmosphere.
I was, in fact, distinguishing between radiative and thermodynamic processes. You’re right, GHE refers to a plausible/theoretical thermodynamic effect that is separable from radiative properties.
It’s sad that this misguided view persists. You can increase temperature by increasing energy input OR decreasing energy output. The net effect on the energy budget is the same. Increasing CO2 causes the latter.
Please, could somebody summarize shortly the main points of both sides, and what was the conclusion? Many THX in advance.
Dessler: blah, blah, blah, monkeypox…blah, blah, climate change happening, buy my book, blah, blah. How dare you?
Koonin: climate changes, not serious as I explain in my book…blah, blah, blah.
Koonin gets more votes from the audience. Koonin wins.
Hemingway couldn’t have done better.
Trust Scissor to deliver a precise cut down version that even Cliff Notes couldn’t produce.
Excellent synopsis
Your synopsis? Sorry Scissor. TL:DR
😉
”Dessler: blah, blah, blah, monkeypox…blah, blah, climate change happening, buy my book, blah, blah. How dare you?”
AAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHA!
@ Scissor
A cutting synopsis !!
Scissor,
This is the best tldr I’ve seen in quite a while!
rip
The main points? Dessler emotion, Koonin facts. Koonin won.
If you go to the sohovote.com site it’s pretty clear the conclusion:
Results
Climate science compels us to make large and rapid reductions in greenhouse gas emissions.
Pre. Post. Change
Yes. 24.69% 19.14% -5.56%
No. 48.77% 73.46% 24.69%
Undecided. 26.54% 7.41% -19.14%
I might watch it tomorrow. We will see. The results are no different than the Rogan discussion. Koonin was far ahead there also.
Do watch it, but you will be less than impressed.
”I might watch it tomorrow”
Can’t you sandpaper your arm or something instead?
Well a lot of the discussion is about the question should we urgently change the electricity grid.
Dessler supports that idea (citing potential efficiency gains for energy mixes), but also seems very ignorant about the fact that he as an elitist will not carry the load of that burden
“If people in Bangladesh manage to afford a car, it should be an electrical one!”
Koonin shows, that a fast transition is impossible, immoral and not necessary, and the benefit of enerization/economic growth will outweigh any harm.
He also seems to cite a study finding that solar/wind is always more expensive than conventional, not sure if I got that right, but one of his points seems to be that rushing into anything is generally a bad idea.
Steven Koonin organized his rebuttal to the Soho debate proposition that “Climate Science compels us to rapidly reduce CO2 emissions” around 3 major headings summarizing his points under 3 adjectival characteristics of the AntiFossil Fuel propaganda effort to perpetuate the Catastrophic Climate Change myth and hysteria that accompanies it that Dessler supported with his argument in favor of the proposal.
Koonin referred to the three characteristics of his rebuttal argument at the beginning and the end of his time at the podium.
Rebuttal: Rapid Reduction of CO2 emissions is: Unnecessary; Immoral; and Fantastical.
He listed multiple scientific and economic points supplemented by slides of graphs from various journal articles and quotes in 5-6 minutes per heading. He took apart the Soho proposition almost word by word especially the word “us” asking the audience to ask themselves who the “us” referred to and at what human cost that reductions to zero emissions would cause.
Koonin was measured in his delivery, civil, serious in tone, well prepared, and critical in referring to Dessler’s coauthorship of an unflattering and unfair book review of Unsettled that employed an ad hominem attack of Koonin describing him as a crackpot or crank-which Dessler tried multiple times to deny knowledge of or to disavow participating in the authorship of the book review.
Koonin trapped Dessler in a lie and also revealed that Dessler had probably not even read Koonin’s book.
Koonin followed the denial with a slide headed by title of the Unsettled book review article, the name of the Publication, date, and the multiple coauthors, the last of whom was Dessler. Dessler finally apologized. Koonin won a lot of sympathy and scored debate points with the audience which he kept building on throughout the rest of the debate. I felt it was the turning point of the debate.
I don’t remember Koonin’s emphasizing scientific facts about CO2 IR absorption spectrum over lapping with water vapor or the saturation of IR radiation at peak EM frequencies or anything related to William Happer’s work; nor the flattening of the logarithmic curve of projected Temp increases in relation to increasing atmospheric CO2 concentrations.
But the rhetorical point he made that the earth has already experienced 2.0C warming since the end of the Little Ice Age, a period that has seen the most undeniable increase in human economic prosperity, improved health, increased literacy, life spans, and 98% reduction in mortality from climate disasters associated with rising CO2 levels was very effective in showing that the global benefits of energy abundance from fossil fuels far outweigh any documented harms. He emphasized that mankind has adequate time to transition to alternate forms of energy.
The Unnecessary scientific points were followed by an argument about the Immoral antihuman qualities of the most advanced nations in the West asking third world nations to refrain from developing their own resources and supply of abundant energy to power improvements in quality of life and economic progress to save the planet. What is considered air pollution in advanced societies is economic opportunity in poor nations.
Koonin ended with discussing the “Fantastical”, utterly unrealistic time table and costs of the NeoMarxist Environmental movement to rapidly reduce CO2 emissions by replacing fossil fuels with the electrification of all types of energy uses by “renewable solar and wind”.
I haven’t read Koonin’s book, but his effective use of Moral, Economic and Scientofic arguments to counter the debate proposal and the evidence he presented-echoed the Human Standard advocated by Alex Epstein in Fossil Future Why Global Flourishing Requires More Oil, Coal and Natural Gas, Not Less. Koonin won the debate quite handily by a lot.
Koonin simply destroys Dessler.
1) He gets Dessler to essentially triviaize SLavery and China’s Civil Rights Abuses
2) He exposes his lying to the audience about signing a letter attacking Koonin
3) Dessler is simply clueless about the economics of Green Energy and easily refuted
4) The audience was laughing and mocking Dessler during the event, even the MC got is some jabs
5) You won’t be seeing any more Climate Debates, Dessler destroyed any credibility of his cause
Dessler claims the cost of backup is zero. Pure fantasy.
Dessler claims the wind is always blowing somewhere, but forgets that EVERY area where it’s blowing has to therefore supply the entire load, via switching. Again, pure fantasy.
Dessler is a pure fantasist.
By extension, you also need to build enough windmills to support the entire planet, at every point on the planet.
Not to mention building enough power lines to carry the entire world’s electricity needs from every point, to every point.
Wind and solar are already hideously expensive, this will increase the cost of both by a factor of hundreds of thousands.
When Dessler told Joe Rogan he wouldn’t debate climate change. He really meant I can’t debate climate change. With a performance like that He really needs to be kicked off the AGW debate team.
I watched the first 53 minutes – the opening 17 minute statements of both speakers.
Dressler was appalling: No data. No specifics. Off the point quotations. A rambling and barely coherent presentation. Cartoon like slides with child-like logic and sweeping assertions. It was embarrassing.
Koonin’s argument was clear and concise and memorable: There is no climate crisis. Proposed solutions impact the poorest the most. The intermittency and costs of renewables cannot be sustained. His arguments addressed the palpable flaws in the proposition.
Unless Dressler pulled out a magical piece of data in the rest of the debate, Koonin wins this debate easily.
The most entertaining thing about this debate was watching Steven Koonin’s face of boredom about to fall asleep while pretending to listen to Dessler’s hysterical lies.
A Dessler-qoute: “I installed a battery to go with my solar panels”
This is one of the most inefficient and expensive way to deal with the reliability problem. And right there profes Koonin´s points!
The elites can bail out, the masses are stuck with unwise decision!
Didn’t Dessler also claim that back up is free.
Does this mean that someone gave him that battery and paid to have it installed?
Mr. Dressler is a Michael-Mann-wannabe — with less than half the intellectual horsepower.
That’s bad because at this rate, he is really idiotic.
Half nothing, is even more of a nothing.
Koonin “won” the debate based on before & after voting. We won’t see any more debates by the alarmists for quite while.
I thought Koonin would have refuted Dessler’s repeated lies on LCOE with respect to Solar&Wind being cheaper. And Dessler’s comment about not needing to pay for backup to solar/wind until you use it was utter nonsense. Dessler’s best comment was ~”if we guess wrong on the climate [by mid-century] then we’ll be screwed”. Of course I took that to mean that if we do the proposed all-in on CLIMATE DEPENDENT renewables we will be screwed!
LOL in a sad way.
It was worth watching [Note: watch it at 1.5x speed, or 1.75x] but the slides for both sides were poorly chosen: too small, busy or wordy. [And where was Christy’s spaghetti graph of the satellite record?! It’s colorful and easy to read. By itself, it is a knock-out punch to the validity of the models]
Full disclosure: I liked Koonin’s book “Unsettled”
Dessler mentioned attribution, I was hoping he would be called out on that by Koonin.
Not only shows the difference in CO2-sensistivity between CMIP5 and CMIP6 of about 25% clearly how bad these models still are (and you really should not base any decission on them), but also R. McKitrick has published a massive critique on attribution last year, which is still standing and needs to be addressed before any climate attribution can be pulled out of the hat in such a discussion. The fact that mainstream climate scientists try to ignore that finding should not be tolerated!
Dessler is an awful presenter, skips all over the place and only offers anecdotal alarmists bs. No wonder he lost so badly. He even dresses like a slob. There must be someone better.
Koonin, on the other hand, lays out a cogent argument citing experts and data. He deserves better competition.
George Foreman vs Pee Wee Herman.
Ps. I listened to both separately on Joe Rogan Experience. I had the same opinion. Total mismatch.
I loved how Koonin used the IPCC quotes to show there is no crisis to avoid.
Dessler flailed badly but wasn’t as obnoxious as his many idiotic public statements caused me to expect.
I loved how Koonin used the IPCC quotes to show there is no crisis to avoid.
Dessler flailed badly but wasn’t as obnoxious as his many idiotic public statements caused me to expect.
Thanks for posting the video!!
You can say that again.
😉
I think someone must have warned Dessler to be on his best behaviour!
That statement along with his ‘only science slide’ a ridiculous supposedly paleo-climate history of the past 30,000 years was enough to get his drift.
Steven Koonin’s presentation was to the point and convincing.
the 30,000 year scale was the past 20,000, and projecting out the next 10,000.. To put it in modern parlance:
I was like, “yeah, riiiiight..”
Having watched the performance end to end, I was left asking a basic question.
If Dessler, sorry, I mean Prof Dessler, represents the pinnacle of Climate Alarmism, why does anybody listen to the scare mongers?
It did answer one long standing question I have had though,
That question being how did Greta reach such prominence in the Climate Alarm movement.?
The answer, as shown by this performance by Dessler is, she is brighter than the other senior alarmist performers….
NB My question to the alarmists.
“Is that the best you got?”
>> why does anybody listen to the scare mongers?
Well, let me try to answer that! If you google “attention span of students”, you can find that it is about 10-15min (I did not find a proper citation for it)
Any random 10min part of the linked video likely has Dessler rambling about something alarming, as he used the larger amount of time in the discussion which was not timed.
He repeatedly says alarming things which are either refuted by Koonin or would need further research. Watching some snippet, it might sound convincing and alarming!
Same reason politicians on both sides of the isle love their 3-5 word phrases!
Because human beings, to survive, evolved to worry about danger around the corner. They pay attention to scary stories. Tell them the world will be a better place in 100 years — ho hum — not interested in good news predictions. Tell them CO2 is a boogeyman repeatedly over the past 50 years, and they listen.
Where did Dessler get that graph which showed that today’s temperatures exceed those of the entire earlier Holocene? What happened to the Holocene optimum, the Minoan, Roman and Medieval warms periods which were warmer warmer than today according to a myriad of geological evidence? Why didn’t Koonin make a comment about the graph?
Bastardized “temperature” charts are all the alarmists have.
I think he pulled it out of his nether region.
Quote:”Resolution: Climate science compels us to make large and rapid reductions in greenhouse gas emissions.
Translation:”Climate science compels us to completely lose our heads, indulge in vast mendacity/hypocrisy & junk science, wallow in troughs of virtue (and other people’s money) and not least as here, engage in Bear-Baiting and Cock-Fighting as we enter a new Dark Age as Magical Thinkers look on, stroking their beards/willies and nodding approvingly”
I can’t believe the garbage Andrew Dessler is talking. The woman with $49 left on her card can’t afford much more electricity because climate change POLICY has made it much more expensive by using very expensive (and unreliable) renewables. His whole CO2 drives climate conjecture is bunk. If the USA had spent the billions of $ on reliable nuclear rather than useless renewables, it would already be ‘carbon free’ for baseload. Also, that Biden went to the ME to beg for oil was entirely on HIS head, as HE curtailed domestic production. And no Andrew, you cannot electrify everything, and no, wind and solar are NOT the cheapest. You forgot the subsidies, huge storage costs, huge distribution & switching costs, and the cost of fossil fuel backup. Why do you think the grid is built on a JIT basis, i.e. baseload + dispatchable? Dessler really doesn’t know or understand anything!
You don’t understand. Wind and solar would be proven cheapest if only the public service were running the whole show-
Green party calls for nationalisation of big five energy firms (msn.com)
Simples really.
You’ve seen how communism works out, haven’t you? Millions prematurely dead and the rest reduced to miserable serfs. You also saw how the entire economy of Sri Lanka was collapsed because of trying to ‘solve climate change’, which when you look at the actual unbastardized data, not models, is not a problem.
But you don’t understand, those other time communism failed because the wrong people were running it.
This time it will work because we’ll be the ones in charge.
That should be sarcasm, except that’s exactly what I have been told by various communists, many times.
Thank you for the link.
I enjoyed the parts I watched. I was not a big fan of Koonin, but his professionalism and eloquence impressed me. So I congratulate him on his performance.
As for Dessler, I think he is a climate alarmism hustler. I’ll leave it at that.
when i try, it says video has been removed by downloder!!
Where was Dessler’s killer cognitive research?
Call me the tumbling dice!
Has anyone yet seen a response by Dr. Koonin to the critique by Roger Pielke, Jr.? I know he intended to write one, but I haven’t seen it yet.
That question is off topic, I know, but it came to mind when I was thinking about why Dr. Dressler seems to be the best they could scare up as an opponent. As Andy May observed, most alarmists seem, like Gavin Schmidt, to be once burnt, twice shy–at least when it comes to in-person debates. Only Dr. Dessler seems to have a high enough threshold of embarrassment.
This is not to say that Dr. Pielke’s piece was at all compelling. To me it was basically mush; it seemed as though he wanted to be critical without making any testable assertions in support. But I’m still interested in seeing Dr. Koonin’s take.
I’m becoming more and more disillusioned with Dr. Roger Pielke, Jr. In his critique of Unsettled, each of his factual statements and conclusions about the failures of climate science agreed with Dr. Koonin’s, except for econometric estimates of minimal economic impacts of postulated climate change. Here he ignores the fact that the analyses are based on RCP 8.5 or worse and they show minimal economic impacts.
It is laughable that Dr. Pielke rejects Dr. Koonin’s Red/Blue team proposal, but then says that assessment panels and their reports should not be directed by politicians! Politicians and Deep State actors fund climate science and the resulting scientific studies and associated reports, directly controlling the conclusions of those scientific studies and reports. Someone should ask Dr. Pielke how it is that the Leftists will willingly give up that control.
The UN IPCC ignored the high-level recommendations for reforming its processes to better reflect the science. Who will force them to change? Its my belief that only Dr. Pielke’s ” Manichean” politics of direct and contentious confrontation between diametrically opposed world viewpoints will effect such change. It seems he believes we can all sit down and agree on fundamental differences of opinion, like what he apparently thinks politicians of old were wont to do.
Overall, I think Dr. Pielke’s critique of “Unsettled” is based on his belief that Dr. Koonin is not solicitous enough the opinions of liars, charlatans and profiteers. He should have learned from his disastrous dealings with the climate hustlers that one cannot compromise with fundamental error. Of course, his various academic pursuits and tenure insulate him from much of their wrath.
Well said.
Dr. Pielke deserves props for stating the truth as he saw it about climate-related disasters; he seems to stick up for what he sees as the truth. But he does seem to have some bizarre notions of how the world actually works.
Dessler’s history of China and energy.
Dessler 1:29:15 – ” So China has been reliant on coal for decades and ,you know, because they don’t have oil, they don’t have natural gas…”
China is the world’s 6th biggest oil producer and 8th largest natural gas producer. China’s natural gas production has increased fivefold since 2000. China fracks. And yes, China’s annual coal production hit a record last year, surpassing 4 billion tonnes for the first time.
Not only that they are drilling in the South China Sea and encroaching on the Vietnamese gas and oil fields to ensure supply. Their pocket reactors are placed on barges and supply the energy to drill and concrete the reefs they are setting up their military on.
Australian thermal coal exports are at a record despite China’s embargo.
https://www.mining.com/web/why-bhp-reckons-chinas-economy-is-poised-to-improve/
Year on year thermal coal went up in profitability about 270%, metallurgical coal 225%.
The reason that China’s coal fired power stations are falling, yet they are burning more coal is that they are closing the less efficient stations and building high efficient ones, not phasing out coal for solar.
China has produced well over 10 billion barrels of petroleum from the massive Daqing field alone since its discovery more than sixty years.
From the article: “Andrew Dessler is a climate scientist who studies both the science and politics of climate change.
Political science. Yes, that’s what climate change alarmism amounts to.
” He is a Professor of Atmospheric Sciences and holder of the Reta A. Haynes Chair in Geosciences at Texas A&M University. His scientific research revolves around climate feedbacks, in particular how water vapor and clouds act to amplify warming from the carbon dioxide that humans emit.”
How? Global temperatures are cooling at the present time. Where’s the amplification? Where’s the hotspot?
Idiots like this are going to determine our fate? It’s a possibility.
Dressler did say at the beginning that he only had one “science based” slide, which was his first one. After that he jumps right into some anecdotal evidence of catastrophic climate change. I guess he only had one “science based” slide because there isn’t much science to support his catastrophism arguments. I wish that Koonin had presented more data to show that the incidence of severe weather events is not increasing. That said, you really cannot debate someone who is completely immune to science and logic.
Dessler thinks there’s free money. “The govt moves in to help people pay for things” Who does he thinks pays for that? Pure fantasist.
I guess he has never heard of the Great Ronald Reagan’s observation: The nine most terrifying words in the English language are “I’m from the government, and I’m here to help.”
Dessler: “China running coal less and less” and “phasing it [coal] out”. More fantasy. China are building new coal plants like there’s no tomorrow. More Dessler fantasy.
Dessler also thinks smog is the reason for ending coal. Fantasy. Scrubbing emissions is the established solution, whilst retaining the generation capacity.
Dessler: “Climate change is irreversible”! Fantasy!
Any idea where the video has gone ?
What’s happened to the video? I started watching it yesterday, but it’s been taken down
I had to go back and look at Dressler’s CV to see if this was a sham setup for Koonin. Shocked to see someone with his background had such poor technical backup for his position. Rolling Stone Magazine?
Dessler was clearly demonstrating complacency in his preparation and remarks. A great disservice for his cause.
com·pla·cen·cy | \ kəm-ˈplā-sᵊn(t)-sē
Replace ‘complacency’ with ‘incompetence’ and you might have something. It’s obvious that Dessler is completely out of his depth at this level and is only competent to teach high school, if that.
JCM, instead of your writing “A great disservice for his cause.” you should have said his cause is a great disservice to mankind.
Not surprisingly, the video seems to have “disappeared.” Anyone have a link?
Video now deleted. Also from YouTube.
Cancel culture in action. Koonin destroyed the narrative so they can’t allow the public to see it.
As so boringly expected, YouTube has removed the video. Or, have they? The error message says “removed by the uploader”. Perhaps TY “suggested” the removal. 🙄
Ah, it’s a bootleg! Maybe YouTube isn’t the villain in this case. (Pardon my typo in my initial post, I meant YT.)
I too am wondering where the video is? I hope WUWT will tell us. I don’t mind paying for it. I would have watched it live, but I wanted to be asleep. That should be possible, in these digital times.
The posting said it was taken down because it was a bootlegged copy.
I certainly hope that the video gets widespread distribution. Both an unedited version and a condensed version would be good.
As I had previously stated, Ben Shapiro has a production company that can make a presentation that the average lay person can understand and appreciate.
The video has been removed by the uplloaderat YouTube surprise surprise
So where is the demonstration project that shows us how this will all work and be cheaper?
Can we have a demonstration project, or a series of projects, from small to large to shows all how wind and solar are the answers? Pick a spot, or several spots, ramp up the wind and solar and shut off the organic fuels. do it for a year. At the end of the year we should all be asking to join the project if it is any good.
The video has already been taken down. I wonder why?
It was a bootleg…. See top of page.
Utilise other video platforms. Rumble, Odysee, and Bitchute are ones I regularly use instead of youtube if the yt channel owner has an account there. This will also give you insurance against yt targeting your channel for posting “wrongthink”.
A good summary of the debate
Report On Yesterday’s Soho Forum Climate Change Debate — Manhattan Contrarian
The video was removed by the Soho Forum. It’s not on their Youtube channel
Public debates of this sort were what Prof. Happer was hoping for under his Red Team proposal to Trump. If they’d occurred, the recent climate change funding bill might not have passed. But Trump chickened out–so the catastrophe is largely his fault. A Profile in Cowardice. NEVER TRUMP!
BTW, I hope Koonin follows up with a short videotape of his Afterthoughts–i.e., points he forgot to make in the debate, or didn’t have time to squeeze in. Along with a couple of improved slides. Hopefully in time for the official release.
A Profile in Cowardice. NEVER TRUMP!
Pence? Romney? Cheney? Who do you think would do better on this issue?
It would appear the Soho Forum is going to make their own link to the video in their ‘Past Events’ section. We’ll see.