[TheClimate.Vote] October 27, 2017 - Daily Global Warming News
Richard Pauli
richard at theclimate.vote
Fri Oct 27 09:17:20 EDT 2017
/October 27, 2017/
*Climate change might be worse than thought after scientists find major
mistake in water temperature readings
<http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/climate-change-worse-water-temperature-reading-scientists-global-warming-ice-melt-weather-a8020696.html>*
Global warming might be far worse than we thought, according to a new study.
The research challenges the ways that researchers have worked out sea
temperatures until now, meaning that they may be increasing quicker than
previously suggested.
The methodology widely used to understand sea temperatures in the
scientific community may be based on a mistake, the new study suggests,
and so our understanding of climate change might be fundamentally flawed.
The new research suggests that the oceans hundreds of millions of years
ago were much cooler than we thought. If true, that means that the
global warming we are currently undergoing is unparallelled within the
last 100 million years, and far worse than we had previously calculated.
Until now, scientists believed that the temperature of the ocean depths
and the surface of the polar ocean 100 million years ago were about 15
degrees warmer than they are today. But they might in fact have stayed
relatively stable - making the warming we're currently undergoing far
more alarming.
"What appeared to be perfectly preserved fossils are in fact not. This
means that the paleotemperature estimates made up to now are incorrect,"
said Sylvain Bernard, a CNRS researcher at the Paris-based Institute of
Mineralogy, Materials Physics and Cosmochemistry and the study's lead
author.
The scientists behind the study claim that the apparent cooling of the
oceans was actually just the effect of the process they've seen. The
changes in the amount of oxygen in the shells isn't a reflection of
changing temperatures - just a consequence of the fact that the amount
of oxygen seen changes over time anyway.
The research was conducted by French researchers from the French
National Center for Scientific Research (CNRS), Sorbonne University and
the University of Strasbourg, and Swiss researchers from the Swiss
Federal Institute of Technology in Lausanne (EPFL) and the University of
Lausanne. It has just been published in Nature Communications.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/climate-change-worse-water-temperature-reading-scientists-global-warming-ice-melt-weather-a8020696.html
*(Video) Climate One TV: The New Political Climate
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RYUwpZpfxPw>*
With the People's Climate March as a backdrop, Climate One is on the
road in Washington D.C., where Tea Party co-founder, Debbie Dooley,
Executive Director of 350.org, May Boeve and Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse
(D-RI) come together and discuss what it takes to make real progress in
the fight against Climate Change.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RYUwpZpfxPw
*(YouTube) The Late Show with Stephen Colbert
<https://youtu.be/PY5EVJHj2rI>*
Published on Oct 26, 2017
Stephen does an in-depth dive into the recent actions of Donald Trump's
Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency.
https://youtu.be/PY5EVJHj2rI
*Puerto Rico needs your help: How to volunteer
<https://www.alltherooms.com/w/2017/10/volunteer-puerto-rico-needs-help/>*
On September 20, 2017, Hurricane Maria, a powerful Category 4, hit the
island of Puerto Rico causing catastrophic effects. It's a humanitarian
crisis that is very close to home - here at AllTheRooms, our CEO Joseph
DiTomaso is half Puerto Rican.
Over one week on from the hurricane, the island is still without power,
with the exception of a few generators that are being used for
high-priority buildings such as hospitals. Millions are left without
drinking water and cannot bathe or flush toilets. The lack of water is
leading to a serious lack of sanitization and this means that conditions
are ripe for illness and disease to spread. The island is in desperate
need of help from the international community. If you're keen to
volunteer, here's how you can help:
*1. Who should I volunteer with?*
The American Red Cross is currently training volunteers who will be
dispatched to Puerto Rico. The Red Cross is using Florida as a base to
give initial training, whilst delegating volunteer roles. They are
looking for volunteers with all sorts of different skills, from helping
to rebuild houses, through to working with children affected by the
hurricane. Find out more information or sign up to be a Red Cross
volunteer. <http://www.redcross.org/hurricane-irma-volunteer-application>
Meanwhile, the organization Voluntary Organizations Active in Disaster
(VOAD) is responsible for coordinating relief efforts and delegating
roles to volunteers. There are a lot of smaller organizations focusing
on one specific area of the relief aid, and VOAD brings together the
organizations so they can coordinate, collaborate and communicate. If
you're interested in volunteering with a smaller organization, you can
contact VOAD who will help to put you in contact with relief efforts
that are already underway. Volunteer with VOAD.
<https://www.nvoad.org/howtohelp/volunteer/>
You can also volunteer with Habitat for Humanity, which is an
organization that asses housing and shelter needs in some of the
worst-hit areas. Habitat for Humanity is currently seeking volunteers
for the recovery and rebuilding phase, which may last months or even
years. Volunteer with Habitat for Humanity. <https://www.habitat.org/>
*2. What type of volunteer work is needed?*
At the moment Puerto Rico is in a state of chaos. The streets are
flooded, there is little-to-no electricity, homes have collapsed and
there an estimated 1.5 million people are without drinking water. You
should be prepared for difficult, and heart-wrenching conditions.
Volunteers will be needed to help at one of the many shelters that are
serving the community, load and unload trucks, serve food from the
limited supplies, organize the volunteer and relief efforts and help
build and set-up facilities.
*3. What are the requirements?*
If you want to help, you must be at least 16 years old to volunteer with
the Red Cross, and for other organizations, you may need to be 18 years
old. If you are between the ages of 16-18 and keen to volunteer, you
will need parental consent. In order to volunteer, you will need to be
fit and ready for manual tasks such as loading and unloading heavy
objects bringing supplies and building shelters. Most organizations
require that you work 8-12 hours a day, depending on the task at hand.
If you are working with children, you will need to provide a background
check.
If you have any tips to add to help with the volunteer effort, we would
love to hear from you.
Carmela Rodriguez is a Journalist from London. She recently quit the
rainy UK and moved to Medellin, Colombia, where she is a Content Writer
for Alltherooms.com
https://www.alltherooms.com/w/2017/10/volunteer-puerto-rico-needs-help/
*Report: Pollution Kills 3 Times More than AIDS, TB And Malaria Combined
<http://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2017/10/19/558821792/report-pollution-kills-3-times-more-than-aids-tb-and-malaria-combined>*
Exposure to polluted air, water and soil caused nine million premature
deaths in 2015, according to a report published Thursday in The Lancet.
The causes of death vary - cancer, lung disease, heart disease. The
report links them to pollution, drawing upon previous studies that show
how pollution is tied to a wider range of diseases than previously thought.
Those studies observed populations exposed to pollutants and compared
them to people not exposed. The studies have shown that pollution can be
an important cause of diseases - many of them potentially fatal -
including asthma, cancer, neurodevelopmental disorders, birth defects in
children, heart disease, stroke and lung disease.
The nine million figure adds up to 16 percent of all deaths worldwide,
killing three times more people than AIDS, tuberculosis and malaria
combined. Pollution is responsible for 15 times more deaths than wars
and all other forms of violence.
"No country is unaffected," the report notes. But 92 percent of those
deaths occurred in low- and middle-income countries.
One blatant example is asbestos. About two million tons of new asbestos
is produced every year. [Asbestos is outlawed in most of the developed
world because of the high risk of lung cancer.] Virtually all of that
goes to the world's poorest countries that have poor or no regulations
against it. [According to reports it is used in the production of
building materials, among other products.] It's going to continue to
cause epidemics of cancer in poor counties. Another example is
pesticides. About 20 percent of U.S. pesticide production is of
pesticides not allowed in this country because of known health risks. So
we export it to poor countries.
http://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2017/10/19/558821792/report-pollution-kills-3-times-more-than-aids-tb-and-malaria-combined
*
**Ocean acidification research makes a strong case for limiting climate
change
<https://phys.org/news/2017-10-ocean-acidification-strong-case-limiting.html>*
Experiments and analyses carried out by more than 250 scientists from 20
German institutions clearly indicate that ocean acidification and
warming, along with other environmental stressors, impair life in the
ocean.*A brochure summarises
<http://www.oceanacidification.de/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/BIOACID_brochure_e_web.pdf>*
major outcomes of the project for policymakers and the public. Members
of the project Biological Impacts of Ocean Acidification (BIOACID) will
also be present at the United Nations climate change conference COP23 in
Bonn.
As a gigantic carbon sink, the ocean absorbs about a third of the carbon
dioxide (CO2) released into the atmosphere by human activities. But when
absorbed by seawater, the greenhouse gas triggers chemical reactions
causing the ocean to acidify. Ocean acidification affects ecosystems and
important benefits the ocean provides to humankind. This includes the
regulation of the Earth's climate, food provision, recreation and
biodiversity as a condition for intact and functioning ecosystems.
*Important BIOACID results:*
- Changes in the ocean carbonate system impact the acid-base balance in
marine organisms. This can negatively affect key processes such as
calcification.
- Many organisms are able to withstand ocean acidification, but may lose
this ability if also exposed to other stressors such as warming, excess
nutrients, loss of oxygen, reduced salinity or pollution.
- A reduction of regional stress such as nutrient runoff or the loss of
oxygen can mitigate the impact of global stressors like ocean
acidification and warming.
- In a natural community, the impact of stressors on a species can be
amplified or diminished by associated shifts in biotic interactions such
as competition, predation or parasitism.
- Even small alterations at the base of the food web can have knock-on
effects for higher trophic levels.
- Marine life is able to adapt to ocean change through evolution and can
partly compensate for negative effects. However, since ocean
acidification happens extremely fast compared to natural processes, only
organisms with short generation times, such as microorganisms, are able
to keep up.
- About half the tropical coral reefs can be preserved if carbon dioxide
emissions are limited to concentrations that keep global warming below
1.2 degrees Celsius. However, additional risks posed by ocean
acidification are not included in this forecast.
- Ocean acidification reduces the ocean's ability to store carbon.
- Climate change alters the availability of prey for fish and as a
consequence may affect their growth and reproduction.
- Ocean acidification and warming reduce the survival rates of early
life stages of some fish species. This will likely reduce recruitment of
fish stocks and ultimately fisheries yields.
- The distribution and abundance of fish species will change. This will
have a significant impact on economic activities such as small-scale
coastal fisheries and tourism.
- It is crucial to consider ocean acidification and warming in the
management of fish stocks and marine areas.
- Following the precautionary principle is the best way to act when
considering potential risks to the environment and humankind, including
future generations. Even if the extent of possible risks is not fully
understood, precautionary measures need to be taken in order to avoid or
reduce the harm.
- A more sustainable lifestyle and economy require an interaction
between society, businesses and politics. Political frameworks should
regulate the phase-out of fossil fuels. It is crucial for every one of
us to reconsider concepts of normality and adjust behaviour in everyday
life.
https://phys.org/news/2017-10-ocean-acidification-strong-case-limiting.html
*POLITICAL TYPOLOGY REVEALS DEEP FISSURES ON THE RIGHT AND LEFT
<http://www.people-press.org/2017/10/24/8-environmental-attitudes/>*
8. Environmental attitudes
The public is deeply divided along partisan and ideological lines in its
opinions about environmental issues. And these differences are reflected
in how the political typology groups view these issues.
In views of global warming, nearly all Solid Liberals say there is clear
evidence that Earth's temperatures have been rising, with 95% saying
this is mostly caused by human activity, such as burning fossil fuels.
Among Core Conservatives, only about quarter see solid evidence of
global warming - and just 5% say the main cause is human activity.
Opinions vary across the other typology groups. Majorities across the
Democratic-leaning groups say there is solid evidence of global warming,
but only about half of Devout and Diverse (52%) say it is mostly caused
by human activity, the lowest share in any Democratic group.
http://www.people-press.org/2017/10/24/8-environmental-attitudes/
*Dr James Hansen Scientific Reticence: a DRAFT Discussion
<http://csas.ei.columbia.edu/2017/10/26/scientific-reticence-a-draft-discussion/>*
I am writing/_Scientific Reticence and the Fate of Humanity_/in response
to a query from the editor of/Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics/who
handled/Ice Melt, Sea Level Rise and Superstorms/
<https://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/16/3761/2016/acp-16-3761-2016-discussion.html>.That
paper, together with/Young People's Burden/
<https://www.earth-syst-dynam.net/8/577/2017/esd-8-577-2017-discussion.html>,
makes the case for a low global warming target and the urgency of
phasing out fossil fuel emissions. We argue that global warming of 2°C,
or even 1.5°C, is dangerous, because these levels are far above Holocene
temperatures and even warmer than best estimates for the Eemian, when
sea level reached 6-9 meters (20-30 feet) higher than today. Earth's
history shows that sea level adjusts to changes in global temperature.
We conclude that eventual sea level rise of several meters could be
locked in, if rapid emission reductions do not begin soon, and could
occur within 50-150 years with the extraordinary climate forcing of
continued "business-as-usual" fossil fuel emissions....
*Discussion: Reticence?*
It is conceivable that scientific reticence plays a part in the
reactions to our papers, but I am not convinced that it is the whole
story. In the 1981 and 1988/89 examples discussed above there was
evidence, in the reviews of those papers and in the published
commentaries, that much of the criticism suffered from the "blindfolds
and elephant" explanation. They did not seem to be considering the
entirety of information that we had from paleoclimate, modern
observations, and models, with recognition of model weaknesses.
However, in current analyses it seems unlikely that recognized experts
are not considering the full range of available information.
*The Ice Melt paper is long.* One author who does cite Ice Melt
immediately dismisses it, because, he claims, the freshwater injection
rates (hosing rates, he calls them) are unrealistically large.
Obviously he did not read the paper. The injection/hosing rates are
based on observed data for recent years and projected forward with
different time scales for their growth rate (10, 20, 40 year doubling
times). Our conclusion that the AMOC and SMOC are already beginning to
slow down is based on current observations and model results in the
present and near-term, not on the high rates of freshwater injection
that occur after many doublings. When one such author rejects a paper
based on such a misinterpretation, it is easy for the attitude to spread.
*Criticism of IPCC. *I chose in 1989, when faced with scientific
reticence and more, to bail out of the media circus and focus only on
science. When I reentered the fray in 2004 it was not just to criticize
the lack of climate actions by the Bush Administration, but also to draw
attention to the need for a low target on global warming if "dangerous"
consequences were to be avoided. Specifically, as spelled out in A
Slippery Slope,[34] I criticized the sea level change analysis in the
most recent (2001) IPCC report. IPCC scenarios had GHG amounts and
calculated global temperatures that were "off the charts" compared to
paleoclimate data covering hundreds of thousands or even millions of
years, yet the calculations for the contribution of Greenland and
Antarctica to sea level rise was measured in cm, very few cm. That
didn't seem plausible, as I argued on heuristic grounds, mainly
concerned with the role of a warming ocean on ice shelves.
This came across as a criticism of IPCC. I cited Richard Feynmann
insights in Slippery Slope, and more directly in Storms of My
Grandchildren,[35] about how the community tends to move slowly in
correcting an error. He is talking about scientific reticence. However,
I probably could have been more discrete in criticizing IPCC - after
all, the scientists contributing to those long reports put in a lot of
work for very little recognition.
*Superstorms and flying boulders.* Several reviews and commentaries
seemed angry about the use of the word "superstorms" in the title, even
asserting that it was intended to draw public attention to the paper.
Duh. What a bad thing to do! Is this feeling related to scientific
reticence?
We were not helped by the Washington Post article referring to flying
boulders. We did not say that any boulders flew. Our interpretation of
the boulders on Eleuthera is that powerful storm-driven late-Eemian
waves, when sea level was several meters higher than today, transported
the boulders from the cliffs below to their present location where they
rest on Eemian substrate.
Recent publications have confirmed that storms can move very large
boulders. The funneling nature of the bay on Eleuthera increases the
power of the waves in the vicinity of the boulders. Boulders in that
region moved during the Holocene are smaller, suggesting that some
storms in the late Eemian were stronger than today.
None of the major conclusions in our paper, about the threat of large
sea level rise or about AMOC and SMOC already slowing down, depend on
interpretation of the Eleuthera boulders. However, I would like to draw
attention to a new comprehensive review paper by Hearty and Tormey[36]
on the geologic evidence.
*Early Discussion of Discussion paper and peer-review.* Both the Ice
Melt and Burden papers were submitted to journals that include
publication of an initial "Discussion" version of the paper, after it
has been checked and approved by an editor. This publication mode
seemed especially appropriate for both papers: there were upcoming
United Nations climate conferences and we hoped to get feedback from
both scientists on the science and from the public and policymakers on
the papers' policy implications. However, there was criticism of whether
the papers should be discussed publicly before the peer-review process
is complete.
Even if there is merit to that position - and I see nothing wrong with
presenting a discussion paper for discussion (!) as long as it is so
identified - both papers subsequently passed detailed peer-review.
Indeed, the Ice Melt paper seemed to go through further review by an
editorial board, which seemed to redefine the word "dangerous" to mean
something different than what the public means. See Dangerous
Scientific Reticence.
*Negative Emissions.* Perhaps nothing illustrates the dangers of
scientific reticence better than the way negative emissions crept into
IPCC scenarios. Clarifying the implausibility of that scenario is an
objective of our Burden paper.
*Co-authors. * People suggesting that we are exaggerating the global
warming threat should take a close look at the list of co-authors. They
include top scientists in the world in the relevant disciplines. I am
grateful to them for all that they have done to help produce the two papers.
I note that I am sending out this draft discussion without showing it to
the co-authors, because I need the next week to prepare materials for
discussions at the Bonn COP meeting.
http://csas.ei.columbia.edu/2017/10/26/scientific-reticence-a-draft-discussion/
*Samantha Bee Turns Climate Change Denier Into a Believer Through 'Hell
House' of Global Warming Horror
<http://toofab.com/2017/10/26/samantha-bee-turns-climate-change-denier-into-a-believer-through-hell-house-of-global-warming-horror/>*
Instead of a haunted house, Bee sends eight climate change deniers
through maze demonstrating how global warming can harm our way of life.
Samantha Bee thinks it's a catastrophe that American's are more afraid
of clowns than climate change, so she tried to scare them into taking
global warming seriously on Wednesday night.
"Over half of American's believe humans are not responsible for global
warming," the "Full Frontal" host said. "Then again, if what the
majority of what Americans thought mattered, there wouldn't be a clown
in the White House in the first place."
The thought of clowns inspired the TBS late-night host to think about
controversial "Hell Houses," which religious organizations used to host
to scare people out of being gay or getting abortions. Bee then
partnered with haunted house producer Terror Behind the Walls to create
her own version of a Hell House imagining what terrifying things
humanity will suffer through when planet Earth is destroyed beyond repair.
Bee found eight climate change deniers, with a wide range of opinions on
the subject, to join her in the experience. One of the participants
believed that although cows and their "anal gas" were to blame, they
couldn't possibly destroy everything he knows and loves.
*(videos) A Meditation on Climate Change | October 25, 2017 Cold Open |
Full Frontal on TBS <https://youtu.be/rJO0XoakOJQ>*
Something cosmic was really pushing Sam to do a show on climate change.
https://youtu.be/rJO0XoakOJQ*
Scott Pruitt vs. The World | October 25, 2017 Act 2 | Full Frontal on
TBS <https://youtu.be/hrDeKf1Cpbo>*
The guy in charge of the EPA is stabbing the environment with a
deregulation shiv.
https://youtu.be/hrDeKf1Cpbo
*Full Frontal's (Hot As) Hell House | October 25, 2017 Act 3 | Full
Frontal on TBS <https://youtu.be/DFjV8hZR4uM>*
There's only one thing that can scare climate change deniers into
believing: hanging out with other deniers.
https://youtu.be/DFjV8hZR4uM
*(Earth is) Not OK ft. Ingrid Michaelson | October 25, 2017 | Full
Frontal on TBS <https://youtu.be/jAPltvZCt9w>*
This summer's endless fires and storms left us a little unsure, so we
asked Earth herself, Ingrid Michaelson, if things are ok. Ingrid
Michaelson appears courtesy of Cabin 24 Records.
https://youtu.be/jAPltvZCt9w
http://toofab.com/2017/10/26/samantha-bee-turns-climate-change-denier-into-a-believer-through-hell-house-of-global-warming-horror/
*This Day in Climate History October 27, 2006
<http://web.archive.org/web/20130303200905/http://www.rockefeller.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/press-releases?ID=87f3ae3b-0f0d-44ee-af03-9080592901a4>
- from D.R. Tucker*
-Senators Demand that the World's Largest Oil Maker Make Public Its
History of Funding Climate Change "Skeptics"-
WASHINGTON, D.C. - In an effort to call attention to the detrimental
effects of industry-funded, so-called "research" in the debate on global
climate change, Senators John (Jay) Rockefeller IV (D-WV) and Olympia
Snowe (R-ME) today called on the world’s largest oil company to end its
funding of a climate change denial campaign. Rockefeller and Snowe’s
effort would also reassert the leading role of the United States in
addressing important global issues that demand the world’s collective
attention.
Rockefeller and Snowe said that ExxonMobil’s extensive funding of an
"echo chamber" of non-peer reviewed pseudo-science had unfortunately
succeeded in raising questions about the legitimate scientific
community’s virtually universal findings on the detrimental effects of
global warming. This ongoing "debate" has also damaged America’s
reputation as a leader in global affairs.
"American companies have every right to engage in important public
debates, but these discussions should neither serve as a license to
obscure credible data and research nor impede domestic and international
actions based on that data," said Rockefeller. "Climate change is one of
the most serious environmental and economic issues facing the United
States and our partners in the international community. It is
absolutely irresponsible for any entity to try to influence our
government’s involvement in such an important debate in any way that is
not scrupulously accurate and honest."
"The institutions that ExxonMobil is supporting are producing very
questionable data. The company’s support for a small, but influential,
group of climate skeptics has damaged the United States’ reputation by
making our government appear to ignore conclusive data on climate change
and the disastrous effects climate change could have."
"ExxonMobil - which recorded $10.5 billion in third quarter profits this
year - has an obligation and a responsibility to the global community to
refrain from lending their support, financial and otherwise, to bogus,
non substantiated articles and publications on climate change that serve
only to cloud the important global debate of rigorous peer-reviewed
research and writings," Snowe said. "The efforts of those supported by
ExxonMobil foster the false belief among the international community
that the United States is insensitive to global warming and unwilling to
engage in forthright discussion on what many consider to be one of the
most important economic and environmental issues of the 21st century."
According to reports, in 2004 alone, ExxonMobil was the primary funder
of more than 29 climate change denial front groups. Since the late
1990s, ExxonMobil has spent more than $19 million on a strategy of
"information laundering," enabling a small number of professional
skeptics, working through so-called scientific organizations, to funnel
their viewpoints through non-peer-reviewed websites, such as
www.techcentralstation.com.
"Climate change denial has been so effective because the ‘denial
community’ has mischaracterized the necessarily guarded language of
serious scientific dialogue as vagueness and uncertainty," Rockefeller
and Snowe wrote ExxonMobil Chairman and Chief Executive Officer Rex
Tillerson. "ExxonMobil is responsible for much of this scientific data
debate and support of global warming deniers."
Rockefeller and Snowe insisted that ExxonMobil end its funding of the
climate change denial campaign by the Competitive Enterprise Institute
(CEI) and other organizations with similar purposes. The two Senators
also encouraged ExxonMobil and Tillerson to make its history of funding
public and acknowledge the dangers and realities of climate change.
Permalink:
http://www.rockefeller.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/2006/10/post-87f3ae3b-0f0d-44ee-af03-9080592901a4
http://web.archive.org/web/20130303200905/http://www.rockefeller.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/press-releases?ID=87f3ae3b-0f0d-44ee-af03-9080592901a4
/-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
//Archive of Daily Global Warming News
<https://pairlist10.pair.net/pipermail/theclimate.vote/2017-October/date.html>
//
/https://pairlist10.pair.net/pipermail/theclimate.vote//
///
Send email to subscribe <a%20href=%22mailto:contact at theClimate.Vote%22>
to this mailing. /
*** Privacy and Security: * This is a text-only mailing that
carries no 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/20171027/c53bc20c/attachment.html>
More information about the TheClimate.Vote
mailing list