[TheClimate.Vote] May 26 , 2017 - Daily Global Warming News
Richard Pauli
richard at theclimate.vote
Fri May 26 11:51:46 EDT 2017
/May 26 , 2017/
NOAA Predicts 'Above-Normal' Activity In Atlantic Hurricane Season
<http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/05/25/530028733/noaa-predicts-above-normal-activity-in-atlantic-hurricane-season>
The Atlantic hurricane season could see between two and four major
hurricanes in 2017, according to the latest forecast from NOAA's Climate
Prediction Center. There's only a 20 percent chance that this season
will be less active than normal, the agency says.
The Atlantic hurricane season officially begins June 1, but one named
storm, Arlene, already hit land last month. The National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration says it expects between 11 and 17 named
storms (with sustained winds of 39 mph or higher), and from five to nine
hurricanes (winds of 74 mph or higher) this season.
http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/05/25/530028733/noaa-predicts-above-normal-activity-in-atlantic-hurricane-season
Forecasters predict above-normal Atlantic hurricane season
<http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/forecasters-expect-normal-atlantic-hurricane-season-47640363>
http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/forecasters-expect-normal-atlantic-hurricane-season-47640363
Since 2005 the G7 Has Recognized Threat of*Climate Change*
<https://www.nrdc.org/experts/2005-g7-has-recognized-threat-climate-change>
Since 2005, the Group of Seven (G7) countries have recognized the threat
of climate change and the need for a global agreement to address the
issue. The Trump Administration is reportedly trying to weaken or
eliminate any strong language on climate change in the upcoming G7
leaders statement. It would be extremely rare for this major set of
developed countries to not send a clear signal regarding climate change.
These leader statements typically get stronger over time so it is
important to compare the 2017 statement to the least progressive
statement in 2005 - when President Bush was in office - with the most
progressive statement from last year - right after countries had agreed
to the historic Paris Agreement.
https://www.nrdc.org/experts/2005-g7-has-recognized-threat-climate-change
NATO joins the Pentagon in deeming *climate change*a threat
multiplier
<http://thebulletin.org/nato-joins-pentagon-deeming-climate-change-threat-multiplier10790>
A new NATO special report concludes that climate change is the ultimate
"threat multiplier" - meaning that it can exacerbate political
instability in the world's most unstable regions - because by
intensifying extreme weather events like droughts, climate change
stresses food and water supplies. In poor, arid countries already facing
shortages, this increased stress can lead to disputes and violent
conflicts over scarce resources.
http://thebulletin.org/nato-joins-pentagon-deeming-climate-change-threat-multiplier10790
*National Association of Manufacturers Attempts 11th Hour Escape from
Our Children's Trust Climate Lawsuit
<https://www.desmogblog.com/2017/05/23/national-association-manufacturers-attempts-11th-hour-escape-our-children-s-trust-climate-lawsuit>*
Tuesday, May 23, 2017 -
By Dan Zegart, originally published at Climate Investigations Center
In a last-minute legal maneuver, the National Association of
Manufacturers is trying to extricate itself from a closely-watched
federal climate lawsuit 18 months after it won a legal battle allowing
it to intervene in the case.
NAM's motion to withdraw from the Our Children's Trust lawsuit came on
May 22nd, just as it was about to be ordered to turn over documents on
its climate change knowledge and activities, which would presumably have
included its participation in political front and lobbying groups that
denied the reality of climate change and spread disinformation on the
subject.
A powerful trade organization that claims to be "the largest
manufacturing association in the United States," NAM, along with the
American Fuel and Petrochemical Manufacturers and the American Petroleum
Institute, intervened in the OCT case over the heated objections of the
plaintiffs two months after the case was filed in September 2015.
The three trade associations made themselves legal "intervenors" in the
case in an effort to get it dismissed, presumably because the case was
of great interest to some of their corporate members. Outside parties
can intervene in a federal lawsuit if they have an important interest in
the case that might not otherwise not be represented by the litigants.
The OCT plaintiffs, a group of 21 young people aged 9 to 20 from all
over the United States each of whom allegedly suffered harm from global
warming, sued not the fossil fuel industry nor any corporation, but the
federal government for allegedly violating their constitutional right to
life via policies that harm the climate.
One powerful reason for NAM to leave the case now is that it and the
other intervenors must decide by May 25th whether they will admit to
certain facts about climate change. The federal government has already
made a series of 98 such admissions, but two weeks ago, the intervenors
begged the court for more time to respond. ..
A press release by Our Children's Trust said NAM and the intervenors
"went to great lengths to become a party defendant in this case…Now,
faced with significant legal victories by these young plaintiffs, and on
the eve of having to take a position on climate science, NAM wants out
of this case."
NAM may have been scared off by the extremely detailed discovery request
already filed by OCT against the American Petroleum Institute - 21 pages
of questions citing names, dates, organizations and activities bearing
on what API understood about climate science versus its apparent
participation in sophisticated efforts to confuse the public, deny the
science and obstruct progress on the issue to protect petroleum sales.
For NAM to undergo similar discovery, or to have to take positions on
climate matters that might conflict with past behavior and statements,
is something it clearly wishes to avoid. ...
One line of inquiry, for instance, could lead to NAM's participation
during the 1990s - along with API - in founding the Global Climate
Coalition, a powerful front group with a membership of over 50 fossil
fuel, chemical, industrial and consumer goods companies, electric
utilities, trade groups, and others. The GCC carried out a media
campaign using climate change denying scientists, it planted news
stories, and it used political influence to try to thwart the work of
the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. The Global Climate
Coalition was run out of NAM's offices for some years and NAM was a
member of the GCC for over ten years...
If a trial of the OCT suit does follow in short order, as federal
Magistrate Judge Thomas Coffin has indicated it will, and if any
documents detailing tortious or potentially illegal acts are obtained
through pre-trial discovery, those documents could well become exhibits
at a trial in Coffin's courtroom and become public records, a
politically toxic possibility for the fossil fuel industry and others
like NAM. Of course, the industry could try for a protective order
sealing the documents from public view.
It's now up to Judge Coffin to rule on whether to let NAM out of the case.
If he does, and if a trial in the OCT case comes before the end of the
year, as Coffin has promised, then there's not much time left for a
defendant-intervenor to withdraw from Kelsey Cascadia Rose Juliana v.
United States of America, as the case is formally known.
Northeastern University law professor Richard Daynard, who worked
closely with plaintiff's lawyers in the 1990s to help launch lawsuits
against the tobacco industry, called the intervention by the trade
organizations "an impressive piece of stupidity."
"They'll be very lucky if they get out of that one unscathed," he said.
https://climateinvestigations.nationbuilder.com/manufacturers_group_tries_11th_hour_escape_from_kids_climate_lawsuit
https://www.desmogblog.com/2017/05/23/national-association-manufacturers-attempts-11th-hour-escape-our-children-s-trust-climate-lawsuit
*Climate change*litigation growing rapidly, says global study
<https://phys.org/news/2017-05-climate-litigation-rapidly-global.html>
A new global study has found that the number of lawsuits involving
climate change has tripled since 2014, with the United States leading
the way. Researchers identified 654 U.S. lawsuits - three times more
than the rest of the world combined. Many of the suits, which are
usually filed by individuals or nongovernmental organizations, seek to
hold governments accountable for existing climate-related legal
commitments. The study was done by the United Nations Environment
Program and Columbia University's Sabin Center for Climate Change Law.
Around 177 countries recognize the right of citizens to a clean and
healthy environment, and courts are increasingly being asked to define
the implications of this right in relation to climate change.
"Judicial decisions around the world show that many courts have the
authority, and the willingness, to hold governments to account for
climate change,"...
Technology will not suffice to address coming problems, say the authors;
laws and policies must be part of any strategy. They say that because of
the Paris Agreement, plaintiffs can now argue in some jurisdictions that
their governments' political statements must be backed up by concrete
measures to mitigate climate change.
https://phys.org/news/2017-05-climate-litigation-rapidly-global.html
Investors lean on Southern Co. to tackle business risks of*climate
change*
<http://www.utilitydive.com/news/investors-lean-on-southern-co-to-tackle-business-risks-of-climate-change/443545/>
Southern Co. shareholders yesterday narrowly defeated a proposal for the
company to report on its business plan for a carbon-constrained future,
with 46% in favor of the measure. Essentially the proposal would request
Southern Co. to align its business operations with a 2 degree Celsius
global warming scenario, the limit outlined in the Paris Climate Accord.
The shareholder proposal was filed by the Interfaith Center on Corporate
Responsibility (ICCR), a coalition of Catholic institutional investors.
Shareholders are ramping up pressure on utility companies to address the
business risks of greenhouse gas emissions. Last week, 57% of
shareholders in Pennsylvania utility PPL Corp. voted in favor of a
similar non-binding resolution.
http://www.utilitydive.com/news/investors-lean-on-southern-co-to-tackle-business-risks-of-climate-change/443545/
How to spot a misrepresentation about*climate change*
<https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/how-to-spot-a-misrepresentation-about-climate-change/2017/05/24/fee19c1e-0b0c-11e7-93dc-00f9bdd74ed1_story.html>
James Inhofe gave a master class on this when he brought a snowball onto
the Senate floor in 2015 to prove that climate change is a myth); and
the "demonizer" (when, for instance, a public official blames a disease
outbreak on illegal immigrants).
In each case, Levitan traces the lies back to the source. He points out
that when Rep. Gary Palmer (Ala.) went on the radio in 2015 to say that
the government was manipulating climate-change data, the argument in
fact came from climate denier (and retired accountant) Paul Homewood. On
his blog, Homewood offered no evidence to back up his incendiary claim
of massive temperature tampering. Even so, that piece was picked up by
Christopher Booker of the British newspaper the Telegraph and then
shared hundreds of thousands of times. (Levitan calls this type of fib
"blame the blogger." )
The book offers a common-sense approach for catching misrepresentations.
"When a politician makes what sounds like a very specific point - no
warming for seventeen years, not sixteen or eighteen - be wary." And:
"Every measurement . . . [has] some margin for error. Pointing that out
when it suits a political agenda isn't an argument; it's just a
smokescreen."
Levitan's analysis is accurate and often interesting. But the book feels
terribly light on the "why" - why are politicians so willing to mangle
science? How do corporations and other special interests back them up?
How did we become a country of scientific know-nothings?
While the author spends a lot of time debunking myths around climate
change, I wish he'd talked about how companies like ExxonMobil spent
millions on phony science and research to create the confusion about
global warming that so many people now feel, even in the face of
overwhelming scientific consensus.
Instead, though, Levitan sticks to the facts. By doing so, he might miss
the bigger picture.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/how-to-spot-a-misrepresentation-about-climate-change/2017/05/24/fee19c1e-0b0c-11e7-93dc-00f9bdd74ed1_story.html
*This is Your Brain - on Facts Quirks in the way we think - and the way
we think we think.
<http://www.sightline.org/2017/05/24/this-is-your-brain-on-facts/>*
This article is part of the series Flashcards Author: Anna Fahey
<http://www.sightline.org/author/anna-fahey/>
If you were watching TV in the US in the late 1980s, you'll probably
remember the anti-drug ads with the egg - "this is your brain" - and
then the egg cracked into a sizzling hot frying pan - "this is your
brain on drugs." But if neuroscience and psychology and behavioral
economics tell us anything, it's that the human brain scrambles itself -
no drugs required! Dozens of cognitive biases
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cognitive_biases> - all well
studied - mean good old homo sapiens is not as wise - or rational or
objective - as we've cast ourselves to be. Unconscious mental shortcuts,
ingrained social survival impulses, and evolutionary glitches complicate
how we evaluate new information, form opinions, gauge risk, or change
our minds.
And I mean all of us
<http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/media/2017/02/fake-news-problem-left-too>.
Don't forget that rascally blind spot bias
<https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-big-questions/201212/we-struggle-objectivity-the-bias-blind-spot>
- where we tend to notice others' flaws in reasoning far more readily
than seeing them in ourselves.
As we humans seem to careen toward an epistemological precipice sped
along by intense partisanship, it's worth reviewing some of the most
powerful tricks our own brains play on us.
*Confirmation bias: We cherry pick "evidence" that backs up what we
already "know"*
Consider the news sources you trust compared to places your politically
opposite uncle reads. You each think the other is spouting fake news.
But both of you - consciously and unconsciously - seek out information
thatsupports your existing beliefs
<http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/02/27/why-facts-dont-change-our-minds>
and ignore or reject information that contradicts it
<https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/science-choice/201504/what-is-confirmation-bias>.
And it's not just looking for proof that we are right; information we
deem credible, how we interpret it, and what we remember also serve
existing convictions over new ones and protect us from having to admit -
even to ourselves - that we were wrong.
<https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/22/smarter-living/why-its-so-hard-to-admit-youre-wrong.html>
*The backfire effect: Faced with conflicting evidence, the brain defends
existing beliefs like a fortress*
Think of your belief system as a house - but not just any house, this is
the very structure that your identity, your worldview, your common
sense, your self calls home! When new evidence threatens to destroy even
one building block of our house, we build up defenses in order to keep
the whole thing from falling down. When someone challenges our
preconceptions we may very well dig in our heels. And this is only
partly metaphor. Ask a neuroscientist and they'll tell you that beliefs
are physical, established in the very structure of our brains. "To
attack them is like attacking part of a person's anatomy."
<https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/05/inside-the-political-brain/256483/>
(Do not miss The Oatmeal's <http://theoatmeal.com/comics/believe>
explanation of the backfire effect!)
*Group-think: "When opinions are symbols of belonging, our brains work
overtime to keep us believing" *
That's how Dan Kahan
<http://www.nature.com/news/how-to-trump-group-think-in-a-post-truth-world-1.21056>,
Yale law and psychology researcher, describes group-think. Our affinity
groups go a long way to define who we are and what we think. People
around us give us confidence we're right because we all agree
<https://www.vox.com/conversations/2017/3/2/14750464/truth-facts-psychology-donald-trump-knowledge-science>.
Again, our identity depends on upholding and protecting the group's
worldview. It's the backfire effect all over again. We'd rather justify
our strongly held beliefs than change our minds or fly in the face of
our group's norms. Science writerChris Mooney
<https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/05/inside-the-political-brain/256483/>explains:
Our political, ideological, partisan, and religious convictions
<https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/05/inside-the-political-brain/256483/>
- because they are deeply held enough to comprise core parts of our
personal identities, and because they link us to the groups that bulwark
those identities and give us meaning - can be key drivers of motivated
reasoning. They can make us virtually impervious to facts, logic, and
reason.
Pro tip: If you're trying to change people's minds, consider messengers
from within their trusted social group. (See also: In-group bias
<http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/adam-kingsmith/cognitive-bias-politics_b_3077740.html>
and false consensus bias
<https://www.verywell.com/what-is-the-false-consensus-effect-2795030>.)
*Availability heuristic: False conclusions based on one vivid example
overpower less memorable narratives *
What comes to mind most readily can shape our thinking. For example, a
few high-profile murder cases stick in our mind and may drown out less
flashy statistics about declining violent crime rates in our city. We
tend to jump to conclusions based on the incomplete information that
stands out in our minds. "The problem is that too often our beliefs
support ideas or policies that are totally unjustified,"says author and
researcher Steven Sloman.
<https://www.vox.com/conversations/2017/3/2/14750464/truth-facts-psychology-donald-trump-knowledge-science>
*Affect heuristic: Feelings trump facts *
Tugging at heartstrings? Going for the gut? Commercial marketers,
political campaigners, and psychologists
<http://www.canadianbusiness.com/blogs-and-comment/post-factual-marketing/>
know this one well: the tendency to make decisions based on emotion, not
facts. The brain is emotional first (system one, the fast, automatic
response), analytical later (system two, the slower more thoughtful
process). But the systems aren't disconnected. A network of memories,
associations, and feelings "motivates" our system two reasoning, making
objective judgement elusive. According to Drew Westen, psychologist,
political consultant, and author of The Political Brain
<http://www.thepoliticalbrain.com/videos.php>, the brain on politics is
essentially the brain on drugs. In fact the same chemicals are in
play.Positive emotions are related to dopamine
<http://www.sightline.org/2008/03/13/drewwestenresearch/> (a
neurotransmitter found in rewards circuits in the brain) and inhibition
and avoidance are associated with norepinephrine (a close cousin of the
hormone adrenaline, which can produce fear and anxiety). In his
research, the brain function of partisans sought good chemicals and
avoided bad ones.
All this is to say that facts aren't a magic serum for changing minds.
In fact, pouring on more facts can have the opposite effect, entrenching
people's existing beliefs. You knew that. But it's good to review.
Perhaps if we stop more often to think about how we think, we'll be
better equipped to venture out of our own echo chambers, find empathy
and understanding rather than fanning the flames of polarization, and
map a bit more common ground.
http://www.sightline.org/2017/05/24/this-is-your-brain-on-facts/
Iceland's glacier guides: Tourism under*climate change*
<http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/features/2017/05/iceland-glacier-guides-tourism-climate-change-170515085246284.html>
"This glacier is now in full retreat and we're losing about 14cm of ice
a day. Right now it's changing every few days. It's quite amazing how
much goes in a short period of time."
Scientists have measured the rate of ice change on Falljokull since 1932.
The British Geological Survey and the Icelandic Meteorological Office
found that since 2005, it has been losing more than 35 metres a year as
a result of a decade of unusually warm summers.
The glacier's melting ice only contributes to its own erosion, making it
harder to explore its hidden features.
"The water that you see running down off the top acts like a hot knife
through butter," Thomas adds.
"It cuts its way into the ice, creating more cracks where water can flow
and continue melting away on the inside.
Dangers for tourists: Falling boulders
The guides used to lead tourists along the side, but big rocks have been
falling there recently, making the route too dangerous to use, Van
Holder says.
"If you look up the slope, there are massive boulders embedded in ice
that's still clinging to the walls. As it melts away, the boulders just
drop out and fall to the floor," he says, gesturing with his arms to
show how huge they are.
http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/features/2017/05/iceland-glacier-guides-tourism-climate-change-170515085246284.html
*Climate Change*Could Uncover An Abandoned Arctic Nuclear Base
<http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2017/05/23/climate-change-arctic_n_16792324.html>
Climate change is causing record levels of ice to disappear from the
Arctic, and the melt is unearthing something that was supposed to stay
buried for centuries - an abandoned U.S. nuclear base.
Camp Century was built in Greenland in 1959 during the peak of the Cold
War. The subterranean base held between 85 and 200 soldiers year-round.
The base was built under the pretense that it would be a centre for
scientific experiments on the icecap and a space to test construction
techniques in Arctic conditions.
The base was really part of "Project Iceworm," a top secret U.S. army
program that intended to build a network of missile launch sites under
the ice sheet.
http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2017/05/23/climate-change-arctic_n_16792324.html
Positive Feedbacks in Climate Change
<https://www.edge.org/response-detail/27184>
The Edge 2017 : WHAT SCIENTIFIC TERM OR CONCEPT OUGHT TO BE MORE WIDELY
KNOWN?
Bruce Parker Visiting Professor, Center for Maritime System; Author,
The Power of the Sea: Tsunamis, Storm Surges, and Our Quest to Predict
Disasters
Positive Feedbacks in Climate Change
There is very little appreciation among the general public (and even
among many scientists) of the great complexity of the mechanisms
involved in climate change. Climate change significantly involves
physics, chemistry, biology, geology, and astronomical forcing. The
present political debate centers on the effect of the increase in the
amount of carbon dioxide in the Earth's atm'osphere since humankind
began clearing the forests of the world and especially began burning
huge quantities of fossil fuels, but this debate often ignores (or is
unaware of) the complex climate system that this increase in carbon
dioxide is expected to change (or not change, depending on one's
political viewpoint...
https://www.edge.org/response-detail/27184
*This Day in Climate History May 26, 1990, 1993, 2005, 2011, 2013
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-GOZznP2O98> - from D.R. Tucker*
May 26, 1990: The New York Times covers the release of the First
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report:
<http://www.nytimes.com/1990/05/26/world/scientists-urge-rapid-action-on-global-warming.html>
"A panel of scientists warned today that unless emissions of carbon
dioxide and other harmful gases were immediately cut by more than 60
percent, global temperatures would rise sharply over the next century,
with unforeseeable consequences for humanity.
"While much of the substance of the report has already been disclosed,
the report had immediate political consequences. Prime Minister Margaret
Thatcher of Britain, breaking with the Bush Administration's skepticism
over the need for immediate action, said today that if other countries
did their part, Britain would reduce the projected growth of its carbon
dioxide emissions enough to stabilize them at 1990 levels by the year 2005."
http://www.nytimes.com/1990/05/26/world/scientists-urge-rapid-action-on-global-warming.html
May 26, 1993: House Minority Leader Bob Michel (R-IL), House Minority
Whip Newt Gingrich (R-GA), Rep. Dick Armey (R-TX) and representatives of
the Koch Brothers-funded Citizens for a Sound Economy demonize President
Clinton's BTU tax proposal in a news conference.
<http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/BT>
http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/BT
May 26, 2005: The bipartisan McCain-Lieberman Climate Stewardship and
Innovation Act is introduced in the Senate; it would be defeated in a
60-38 vote in June 2005.
<http://www.mccain.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/press-releases?ID=86c03575-8645-45df-9ac9-b7b798536bc1>
http://www.mccain.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/press-releases?ID=86c03575-8645-45df-9ac9-b7b798536bc1
May 26, 2011:In a bizarre 14-minute speech, New Jersey Governor Chris
Christie <http://youtu.be/R-qMoqAfViM>simultaneously acknowledges that
human-caused climate change is real while also announcing that he will
pull his state out of the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative, a
Northeastern-based carbon-reduction program, on the specious grounds
that the program is ineffective. It is later revealed that Christie made
this decision after meeting with billionaire climate-change deniers--and
RGGI opponents--Charles and David Koch.
http://youtu.be/R-qMoqAfViM
http://www.bradblog.com/?p=10335
http://www.bradblog.com/?p=10622
May 26, 2013: The CBS program "Face the Nation" devotes nearly fifteen
minutes to a discussion of the risks of climate change.
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-GOZznP2O98>
http://thinkprogress.org/media/2013/05/26/2063231/cbs-climate-change/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-GOZznP2O98
http://www.cbsnews.com/videos/extreme-weather-patterns-and-the-possible-role-of-climate-change//
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
////safely forward this email./
. *** Privacy and Security: * This is a text-only mailing. It
carries no graphics nor images which may originate from remote
servers. Text-only messages provide greater privacy to the
receiver and sender.
By regulation, the .VOTE top-level domain must be used for
democratic and election purposes and cannot be used for
commercial purposes.
To subscribe, email: contact at theclimate.vote with subject:
subscribe, To Unsubscribe, subject: unsubscribe
Also youmay subscribe/unsubscribe at
https://pairlist10.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/theclimate.vote
Links and headlines assembled and curated by Richard Paulifor
http://TheClimate.Vote delivering succinct information for
citizens and responsible governments of all levels. List
membership is confidential and records are scrupulously
restricted to this mailing list.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://pairlist10.pair.net/pipermail/theclimate.vote/attachments/20170526/7f299e51/attachment.html>
More information about the TheClimate.Vote
mailing list