[TheClimate.Vote] August 3, 2018 - Daily Global Warming News Digest
Richard Pauli
richard at theclimate.vote
Fri Aug 3 11:00:38 EDT 2018
/August 3, 2018/
[latest news at https://www.abc10.com Sacramento]
*1,100 homes torched as Carr Fire rages on in California
<https://www.abc10.com/article/news/nation-world/1100-homes-torched-as-carr-fire-rages-on-in-california/507-579333901>*
The Carr Fire is one of the most brutal fires in California history.
REDDING, Calif - The toll of devastation from one of the most brutal
fires in California history rose to almost 1,000 homes destroyed and
about 200 more damaged as a sprawling wildfire ignited by a spark from a
towed vehicle grew to more than 175 square miles.
Blistering heat, shifting winds, steep terrain and plentiful dried
growth continued to challenge more than 3,000 firefighters battling the
deadly Carr Fire, which has killed two firefighters and four area residents.
"Firefighters will continue to build control lines to mitigate spotting
despite these challenging conditions," Cal Fire said in its incident
report on the Carr Fire issued late Tuesday. "Repopulation of
communities affected by evacuations will continue as conditions allow."
https://www.abc10.com/article/news/nation-world/1100-homes-torched-as-carr-fire-rages-on-in-california/507-579333901
- - - -
[12 minute video]
*Climate Scientist: California Wildfires Are Faster, Stronger, Deadlier
& Will Continue to Intensify <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m9KlVhAEVm0>*
Democracy Now! Published on Aug 2, 2018
https://democracynow.org - In California, tens of thousands of residents
have been forced to evacuate as deadly wildfires continue to rage across
the state. The worst wildfire, the Carr Fire, has engulfed more than
100,000 acres and destroyed more than a thousand homes in and around
Redding, California, making it the sixth most destructive fire in the
state's history. Authorities said Wednesday that 16 of the largest
wildfires burning in California have scorched 320,000 acres - an area
larger than Los Angeles. Eight people have died. Governor Jerry Brown
called the growing intensity and frequency of California wildfires the
state's "new normal" this week. More fires continue to consume parts of
Colorado, Idaho, Oregon, Washington and Arizona, along with recent
blazes across the globe in Greece, Canada and the Arctic Circle. We
speak with Brenda Ekwurzel, senior climate scientist and director of
climate science for the Climate and Energy Program at the Union of
Concerned Scientists.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m9KlVhAEVm0
- - - -
[raw camera footage from live event Brown at 11: minutes in]
*Gov. Brown, fire officials hold press conference on California
wildfires (August 1, 2018) <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lLGJCisTK0c>*
Governor Jerry Brown holds press conference with the state's emergency
officials to provide an update on the destructive northern California
wildfires. (Was live)
#CarrFire
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lLGJCisTK0c (also see 24 minutes in for
talks of future fires)
[Cough, cough, ahem...]
*Wildfire smoke: experts warn of 'serious health effects' across western
US
<https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/aug/02/wildfire-events-air-quality-health-issues-in-western-us>*
Smoke from fires has been linked to asthma attacks and heart problems
and has contributed to a decline in air quality
As climate change helps push up the number of wildfires in the western
US, communities face losing lives and properties to the flames. But
another threat also looms large - dangerous exposure to wildfire smoke.
Huge wildfires in California have killed at least six people and razed
hundreds of homes. A pall of smoke has shrouded much of California and
has wafted eastwards, with Nasa satellites showing fingers of smoke
billowing as far as Salt Lake City, Utah...
- - - -
"A big wildfire event not only impacts local communities but also people
hundreds of miles away," said Richard Peltier, assistant professor of
environmental health sciences at the University of Massachusetts. "Even
if your home isn't being destroyed and you think 'this isn't my problem'
you could suffer serious health effects."
Once a forest turns into a roaring fire, plumes of sooty smoke
containing gases and microscopic particles are released. This can
cause a range of symptoms such as coughing, burning eyes and
shortness of breath.
More seriously, the smoke can trigger asthma attacks or, more
chronically, lead to heart problems and has even been linked to the
development of cancer. As summers become longer, warmer and drier in the
US west, forests are being transformed into perfect staging grounds for
repeated wildfires of increasing ferocity...
- - - -
There is evidence that the increase in wildfires is already taking a
toll on Americans' health. While overall air quality has improved in the
US over the past 30 years, wildfire-prone states in the northwest are a
glaring exception and are actually getting worse, new research has found.
Researchers at the University of Washington looked through data on
the very worst bad air days, totaling roughly a week each year,
across the country since 1988. While the rest of the country has
experienced a sharp improvement in air quality, a sprawling patch
that includes parts of Idaho, Wyoming and Montana, much of Utah and
Nevada, and parts of California, Oregon and Washington has got
significantly worse.
"There's a big red bullseye over that northern Rockies area where they
are getting the big wildfires," said Dan Jaffe, a co-author of the
study. "There's been a big improvement in air quality in the US but
wildfires like the ones we are seeing in California are eating away at
those gains. In some cases the smoke is bringing very bad air quality."...
- - -
"Wildfires are a growing problem and climate change is making them
worse," said Peltier. "When you expose people to higher levels of
pollution, they are more likely to become ill. We know more wildfires
will mean more deaths. Almost every place in the US, apart from maybe
Hawaii, could be impacted by upwind smoke.
"There have been a lot of predictions that if we don't get ahead of
climate change that crazy things will happen. Well, crazy things are
happening. This is what climate change looks like."
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/aug/02/wildfire-events-air-quality-health-issues-in-western-us
[rare media analysis]
*Extreme Weather Is Exploding Around the World. Why Isn't the Media
Talking About Climate Change? <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9dGIV2AE4M8>*
Democracy Now! [video 11 minutes]
Published on Aug 2, 2018
https://democracynow.org - Major corporate broadcast networks reported
on July's 2-week global heat wave at least 127 times, but mentioned
climate change only once. That's according to a report by Media Matters,
which tracked coverage of the extreme weather by ABC, CBS and NBC. We
host a panel discussion on the media's role in the climate change
crisis, the fossil fuel industry and global warming-fueled extreme
weather across the globe. We speak with Nathaniel Rich, writer-at-large
for The New York Times Magazine. His piece "Losing Earth: The Decade We
Almost Stopped Climate Change" was published August 1 in a special
edition of The New York Times Magazine dedicated to climate change. We
also speak with Rob Nixon, author of "Slow Violence and the
Environmentalism of the Poor," and Brenda Ekwurzel, senior climate
scientist and director of climate science for the Climate and Energy
Program at the Union of Concerned Scientists.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9dGIV2AE4M8
[Lessons, not learned, will be repeated]
*Surrounded by fire, California politicians question links to climate
change
<https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/jul/31/california-wildfire-climate-change-carr-fire>*
As Carr fire claims lives and homes in pro-Trump area, local residents
reject science: 'It's bull'
At a public meeting not far from the California town of Redding last
year, the US congressman Doug LaMalfa said that he "didn't buy"
human-made climate change.
"I think there's a lot of bad science behind what people are calling
global warming," he said on another occasion.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/jul/31/california-wildfire-climate-change-carr-fire
[or is it too hot to remember?]
*Was this the heatwave that finally ended climate denial?
<https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/aug/01/heatwave-climate-denial-summer-2018-sceptics>*
Michael McCarthy
The blazing summer of 2018 has led to a shift in tone from some
rightwing sceptics who can no longer deny the obvious
It's not always easy to recognise a historical tipping point when you
see one, but I believe I spotted one when I walked into my local
newsagent last Wednesday and saw the front page of the Sun. Over a map
of the world which was coloured bright scarlet, the splash headline
screamed: "THE WORLD'S ON FIRE".
- - -
Britain's biggest-selling daily newspaper was not mincing its words. The
subheading on the left-hand side proclaimed "PLANET GRIPPED BY KILLER
HEATWAVE", while the right-hand one announced: "HUNDREDS DIE IN EUROPE
AND JAPAN". And if you were wondering what the cause of all this might
be, the accompanying news report carried a quote - just the one - from
Len Shaffrey, professor of climate science at Reading University, who
said: "Global temperatures are increasing due to climate change. The
global rise in temperatures means the probability that an extreme
heatwave will occur is also increasing."
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/aug/01/heatwave-climate-denial-summer-2018-sceptics
[See the graphs]
*Climate Disasters: Billions and Billions of Dollars
<https://tamino.wordpress.com/2018/08/02/climate-disasters-billions-and-billions-of-dollars/>*
Tamino on August 2, 2018 | Leave a comment
NCEI (the National Center for Environmental Information) has some
fascinating data about the number, and cost, of billion-dollar climate
related disasters in the U.S. since 1980. Cost estimates are adjusted
for CEI (the Consumer Price Index) in order to make older costs
comparable to their modern counterparts.
- - -
A few things to note are that some categories are actually multiple; for
example, "drought" includes heat waves. Also, some categories don't
count individual events, they simply record "an event" if that category
cost a billion dollars or more throughout the year. Wildfire, for
instance, is never reported as multiple events, it's either zero (when
the total yearly cost is under a billion) or one (when it's a billion or
more). With those caveats in mind, I looked for statistically
significant changes in both the number, and the cost, of each of the
seven categories of climate-related disaster.
- - - -
What is abundantly clear is that the number of billion-dollar
climate-related disasters has risen, both the total and at least three
of the individual categories. All are going in the direction expected
due to man-made global warming. That's because they are due to man-made
global warming.
Cue the climate deniers to invent excuses (often ridiculously contorted,
sometimes outright lies) to blame it on something - anything - other
than climate change.
Cue the American taxpayer to foot the bill for $300 billion in climate
disasters.
https://tamino.wordpress.com/2018/08/02/climate-disasters-billions-and-billions-of-dollars/
[thinking carefully in chaos]
*We may be fighting wildfires all wrong
<http://www.kuow.org/post/we-may-be-fighting-wildfires-all-wrong>*
By AMINA AL-SADI, CASEY MARTIN & BILL RADKE
Firefighters should rethink how they battle wildfires.
That's according to environmental journalist Richard Manning who just
wrote a piece in Harper's Magazine titled "Combustion Engines."
<https://harpers.org/archive/2018/08/lolo-peak-rice-ridge-mega-fires/>
http://www.kuow.org/post/we-may-be-fighting-wildfires-all-wrong
- - - - -
[global warming is the real cause]
*Combustion Engines
<https://harpers.org/archive/2018/08/lolo-peak-rice-ridge-mega-fires/>*
Richard Manning
One might wonder why the nation bothers to spend such vast sums of
money, and sacrifice so many lives, fighting fires in the first place.
The answer has little to do with forests, or forest health, or
ecosystems, or saving Bambi's mom from certain death. It has everything
to do with what is inelegantly labeled the "wildland urban interface," a
term truncated into an acronym rhyming with "gooey" but nonetheless
pronounced in serious conversation. It designates the edge of forests or
other wild areas accessible enough for people to build houses. Such
places host much of the West's rapid growth in residential construction,
despite the peril, which is offset by factors such as cheaper land, open
space, wildlife, and distance from neighbors, building inspectors, and
assorted regulators.
According to the scientists who wrote the National Academy paper,
Because of the people and property values at risk, WUI fires
fundamentally change the tactics and cost of fire suppression as
compared with fighting remote fires and account for as much as 95
percent of suppression costs.
Only about 15 percent of the total area burned in the West since 2000
has been in the WUI, though, meaning we spend the vast majority of our
fire budget on a small portion of affected lands.
In other words, we as a nation pay ever-mounting bills to save a
comparative handful of houses owned by people who against all sane
advice choose to build in the path of catastrophe. Between 1990 and
2010, a period when we should have already known better, 2 million new
homes were built in the interface. These homes don't always appear to be
on the edge of the wilderness. The entirety of Seeley Lake, a town with
more than 1,700 permanent residents, is located in the WUI: the main
drag with its tourist trade, the sawmill at the edge of town with its
130 workers, the cabins, trailers, frame houses, the high school, Cory's
Market, the American Legion hall, and Pop's cafe...
- - - -
This political issue, like wildfire itself, is not a conundrum. It is
easily solved. We know in detail what a set of zoning regulations
governing house placement, thinning, building materials, access roads,
and so forth might look like. All of these can be promulgated and
enforced at the county level. But the federal government then needs to
make fighting wildfires-a social process-subject to a social contract.
Perhaps the feds should commit themselves to refusing to send in the
troops to any county that has not taken such measures. Perhaps the
solution to houses in the interface is to let them burn....
- - -
Everybody where I live has an opinion about wildfire, and it usually
boils down to personal preference about the nature of the landscape:
Green trees. Clean water. Charismatic megafauna. Logs for mills. Peace
and predictability. Above all-and we all agree on this-no smoke in the
air. But it doesn't matter now what any of us wants. That's the point,
why fire is so valuable to our collective education. It announces the
enormity of the consequences of climate change. Life will never be the
same again. None of us will get what we want. Fire will come. Houses
will burn. People will die.
Wilderness has a better grasp of global warming than we do. We humans
are informed by instruments, computers, satellites, and sensors roaming
the globe, telling us epochal upheaval is under way. But every
functioning ecosystem, every living array of biological complexity, has
even more adept sensors. The difference between the human and the wild's
grasp of the matter is the denial. Wilderness has no reasoning, no
wishes, no preferences. Instead, it deploys death and fire to prepare
the way for whatever is to come.
https://harpers.org/archive/2018/08/lolo-peak-rice-ridge-mega-fires/
[BBC invited to grow up]
*I won't go on the BBC if it supplies climate change deniers as
'balance'
<https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/aug/02/bbc-climate-change-deniers-balance>*
Rupert Read
The science is not in doubt, so the corporation no longer needs to give
them a platform
Like most Greens, I typically jump at opportunities to go on air. Pretty
much any opportunity: BBC national radio,BBC
<https://www.theguardian.com/media/bbc>TV, Channel 4, Sky - I've done
them all over the years, for good or ill. Even when, as is not
infrequently the case, the deck is somewhat stacked against me, or the
timing inadequate for anything more than a soundbite, or the question up
for debate less than ideal.
But this Wednesday, when I was rung up by BBC Radio Cambridgeshire and
asked to come on air to debate with a climate change denier, something
in me broke, and rebelled. Really? I thought.This summer
<https://www.theguardian.com/world/gallery/2018/aug/01/july-global-weather-extremes-wildfires-heatwave-flooding-in-pictures>,of
all times
<https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/jul/27/heatwave-made-more-than-twice-as-likely-by-climate-change-scientists-find>?
So, for almost the first time in my life, I turned it down. I told it
that I will no longer be part of such charades. I said that the BBC
should be ashamed of itsnonsensical idea of "balance"
<https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/apr/02/mps-criticise-bbc-false-balance-climate-change-coverage>,
when the scientific debate is as settled as the "debate" about
whethersmoking causes cancer
<https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/climate-risks-as-conclusive-as-link-between-smoking-and-lung-cancer/>.
By giving climate change deniers a full platform, producers make their
position seem infinitely more reasonable than it is. (This contributes
to the spread of misinformation and miseducation around climate change
that fuels the inaction producing thelong emergency we are facing
<https://www.greenhousethinktank.org/facing-up-to-climate-reality.html>.)
From a public service broadcaster, this is simply not good enough.
Was this the heatwave that finally ended climate denial?
Michael McCarthy
Read more
What makes it so frustrating is that there are important debates to be
had around climate change. And so I told the Beeb that I would be very
happy to come on and take part ina different debate
<https://medium.com/@GreenRupertRead/apollo-earth-a-wake-up-call-in-our-race-against-time-5f8121687966>.
For example, we should be debating whether the Paris climate accord is
going to be enough, orif we need to do more
<https://www.thelondoneconomic.com/opinion/climate-change-once-we-no-longer-deny-it-then-we-just-might-have-the-will-to-try-drastically-to-change-course/14/03/>.
Or discussing just how radically our society needs to change to meet the
challenges of the climate crisis, andhow we should rethink our activism
<http://www.truthandpower.com/rupert-read-some-thoughts-on-civilisational-succession/>.
But I will no longer put up with the absurd notion that a straight
debate about the science can be justified, especially given the
fundamental truth that we've known for decades: that even if there were
any real room for doubt about the science, we should still take radical
action to safeguard a liveable climate, on the basis of thePrecautionary
Principle <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MfsVlkaExF8>. Thisprinciple
of international law <https://arxiv.org/pdf/1410.5787.pdf>states that
even the absence of certainty about the risk of widespread and
catastrophic harm to the environment or public health ought not to stop
us from taking preventive action to head off such potentially ruinous harms.
BBC Cambridgeshire is based in Cambridge, the science capital of the UK.
I expected better from it, especially after the well-publicised ruling
this year that the way that the BBC has been promoting climate change
deniers on air isno longer acceptable
<https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/apr/09/bbc-radio-4-broke-impartiality-rules-in-nigel-lawson-climate-change-interview>.
In the end, the broadcastwent ahead without me
<https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p06djwc2>. Much of itwasn't bad
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V3lSRh-I2ZQ>. The scientists
interviewed were excellent. But the framing of the debate was awful,
andframing is everything
<https://citizensclimatelobby.org/americas-linguistics-how-we-talk-about-climate-change-politics-morals/>,
so far asthe message that most listeners receive
<https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2007/nov/13/emergencytalk>is
concerned. The presenter introduced the segment by asking, "Is climate
change real?" The journalist doing vox pops bombarded ordinary people
with canards such as, "Maybe it's just a natural cycle?" And, of course,
a climate change denier was given a huge and undeserved platform on an
equal basis to his opponent.
In August 2018, this is unacceptable and it seems thatquite a lot of
people agree with me
<https://twitter.com/GreenRupertRead/status/1024377781801689089>.
However, here's the exciting thing. If we get more momentum behind the
idea of refusing to participate, it will force a change of coverage
methods by the BBC, which experts have been calling for for years. For
if we all refuse to debate with the climate change deniers on public
platforms, and press the BBC to catch up with the 21st century, it will
be forced to change its ways, because the BBC cannot defend the practice
of allowing a climate change denier to speak unopposed. If we truly want
to see change on this issue, we need to be willing to let it know
exactly how we feel. So, now I'm going to get on with filing myofficial
complaint <http://www.bbc.co.uk/complaints/>to the BBC …
•Rupert Read teaches philosophy at the University of East Anglia and
chairs the Green House thinktank
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/aug/02/bbc-climate-change-deniers-balance
[2017 article by David Wallace-Wells]
*He wrote a Story on the Worst Scenarios of Climate Change
<https://youtu.be/z9RlqNKmP-A>*
Climate State - Published on Aug 1, 2018
The Uninhabitable Earth is a New York magazine article by American
journalist David Wallace-Wells published on July 9, 2017. The long-form
article depicts a worst-case scenario of what might happen in the future
due to global warming. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Uninhabitable_Earth
Release at NYMag The Uninhabitable Earth
http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2017/07/climate-change-earth-too-hot-for-humans.html
Scientists explain what New York Magazine article on "The Uninhabitable
Earth" gets wrong https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VfZbYcLxQBI
https://youtu.be/z9RlqNKmP-A
[Because nobody wants to PAY for a movie about a huge, real calamity]
*Why Are There No Decent Blockbusters About Climate Change?
<https://www.esquire.com/uk/culture/a22592476/why-are-there-no-decent-blockbusters-about-climate-change/>*
<https://www.esquire.com/uk/culture/a22592476/why-are-there-no-decent-blockbusters-about-climate-change/>Hollywood
generally revels in world-ending melodrama, but it's bottled out of
taking on the biggest threat of all
It's all getting very real. Yet nobody's even tried to reimagine climate
change as a monster which smashes up a city, in the long cinematic
tradition of turning anxieties into crowd-pleasing, lizard-shaped
spectacles.
There are a fair few good films in worlds where climate change has
happened - Blade Runner, Soylent Green, Mad Max: Fury Road, AI:
Artificial Intelligence - but they're not really Films Which Are About
Climate Change. They're as much about climate change as Die Hard is
about Christmas. It's just the frame in which their worlds exist.
It might be that Hollywood never quite got over spending $175 million on
certified stinker Waterworld (plot summary: Kevin Costner sails around
looking for a bit of dry land called Dryland for two hours) in 1995, but
the climate change disaster film is out of vogue. The one big exception
is The Day After Tomorrow, which was a) not very good, b) only
tangentially based on science, c) released 14 years ago and d) came with
the tagline 'This year, a sweater won't do'. We can presumably do better.
You'd think another devastating documentary like Oscar-winning An
Inconvenient Truth could do the business, at least - except that last
year An Inconvenient Sequel: Truth To Power made $5.4 million at the box
office, about a tenth of what the original earned. There are loads of
other docs out there, all with doomy, slightly tin-foil-hat names like
Merchants of Doubt, The Eleventh Hour, Greedy Lying Bastards and the
never-not-hilarious Cowspiracy. None have had the impact An Inconvenient
Truth did in 2006, perhaps because they don't function as introductions
to the curious; they're more like set texts you have to read before
joining the seminar.
You can understand why climate change brought on by global warming isn't
as alluring to filmmakers and studios as, say, an impossibly huge shark
which hates Jason Statham. Action films are about an incredible
individual bending the environment to his (still, almost always, his)
will. You stick Tom Cruise, for instance, in a sticky situation with
some terrorists and some missing plutonium, and he'll punch people and
jump out of planes and do that weird run of his until everything's
straightened out. Climate change is terrifying precisely because no
individual is incredible enough to stop it. It's also gradual and
global. There's no in-built countdown to build a narrative around, no
control centre to set a final showdown in. It isn't something you can
get The Rock to fire a rocket at, even just for the sake of having a
decent explosion to use in the trailer.
- -
There might be something more fundamental at play, though. The damage
that human activity is doing to the planet is self-evidently stupid and
self-destructive. People just don't like being told that to their faces.
That's possibly why The Age Of Stupid, in which Pete Postlethwaite looks
back in incredulity from the 2050s at what short-sighted bloody idiots
we all were at the beginning of the 21st century, didn't make much of an
impact. High-handed earnestness doesn't tend to translate to popular or
critical success.
- -
People in general do not like being told that they've nearly irrevocably
ruined the planet they live on, and a climate change thriller would have
to say that extremely loudly and repeatedly. It'd be right, and you'd
know it was right. You just don't want to pay 12 (pounds) to be told
what a greedy, thoughtless, arrogant prick you - we all - are. Unlike in
most disaster films, the villains wouldn't just be avaricious
corporations, corrupt politicians, or scientists who were so concerned
with whether they could, they didn't stop to think whether they should -
it'll be everyone watching.
https://www.esquire.com/uk/culture/a22592476/why-are-there-no-decent-blockbusters-about-climate-change/
["For years, I've been going to the Arctic with my hair dryers and
extension cords" - sarcastic reason for Arctic melting]
*#QAnon, the scarily popular pro-Trump conspiracy theory, explained
<https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/8/1/17253444/qanon-trump-conspiracy-theory-reddit>*
How a conspiracy theory that Trump and Robert Mueller are secretly
working together got from Reddit to Trump rallies.
By Jane Coaston jane.coaston at vox.com Updated Aug 2, 2018
Conspiracy theories like QAnon are "self-sealing" - meaning that
evidence against them can become evidence of their validity in the minds
of believers, according to Stephan Lewandowsky, a professor at the
University of Bristol who studies conspiracy theories and conspiracists.
Trying to disprove a conspiracy theory thus usually only serves to
reinforce it.
*"For example, if scientists are accused of creating a "hoax," such as
climate change, *but they are then exonerated by multiple enquiries,
then a conspiracy theorist will not accept that as evidence of their
innocence, but as evidence of a broad conspiracy (to create a world
government or whatever) that involves the government, judiciary, Soros,
and anyone else who once shared a supermarket checkout line with Al Gore
in the 1970s," Lewandowsky said.
And here's the really important point: *Conspiracy theories aren't
created by evidence, but by belief,* or by the desire to believe, that
there must be something more to the events that shape our lives,
culture, and politics than accident or happenstance.
Where there is confusion, or even pain and tragedy, QAnon, or shootings
termed "false flags," or 9/11 trutherism brings some semblance of order
and security...
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/8/1/17253444/qanon-trump-conspiracy-theory-reddit
- - - -
[Media feeds pizza to fanatics]
*What Does The Conspiracy Group QAnon Have To Do With President Donald
Trump? | The 11th Hour | MSNBC
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pWPGI2GXKas>*
MSNBC - Published on Aug 1, 2018
Trump's Tampa rally on Tuesday saw a heavy presence from the conspiracy
theory group QAnon. So who are they, and why do they support the
president? Ben Collins & Clint Watts.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pWPGI2GXKas
- - - - -
[QAnon believes in fake global warming news]
Global warming conspiracy theory
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_conspiracy_theory>
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
A global warming conspiracy theory invokes claims that the scientific
consensus on global warming is based on conspiracies to produce
manipulated data or suppress dissent. It is one of a number of tactics
used in climate change denial to legitimize political and public
controversy disputing this consensus. Global warming conspiracy
theorists typically allege that, through worldwide acts of professional
and criminal misconduct, the science behind global warming has been
invented or distorted for ideological or financial reasons, or both...
- -- -
*Funding*
See also: Climate change denial § Lobbying
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_denial#Lobbying>, and
ExxonMobil § Funding of global warming disinformation and denial
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ExxonMobil#Funding_of_global_warming_disinformation_and_denial>
There is evidence that some of those alleging such conspiracies are part
of well-funded misinformation campaigns designed to manufacture
controversy, undermine the scientific consensus on climate change and
downplay the projected effects of global warming
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effects_of_global_warming>. Individuals
and organisations kept the global warming debate alive long after most
scientists had reached their conclusions. These doubts have influenced
policymakers in both Canada and the US, and have helped to form
government policies.
Since the late 1980s, this well-coordinated, well-funded campaign by
contrarian scientists, free-market think tanks and industry has
created a paralyzing fog of doubt around climate change. Through
advertisements, op-eds, lobbying and media attention, greenhouse
doubters (they hate being called deniers) argued first that the
world is not warming; measurements indicating otherwise are flawed,
they said. Then they claimed that any warming is natural, not caused
by human activities. Now they contend that the looming warming will
be minuscule and harmless. "They patterned what they did after the
tobacco industry," says former senator Tim Wirth, who spearheaded
environmental issues as an under secretary of State in the Clinton
administration. "Both figured, sow enough doubt, call the science
uncertain and in dispute. That's had a huge impact on both the
public and Congress." - The truth about denial
<http://academic.evergreen.edu/curricular/energy/0708/articles/TruthDenialNewsweek07Aug.pdf>,
S. Begley, Newsweek[
Greenpeace presented evidence of the energy industry funding climate
change denial <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_denial> in
their 'Exxon Secrets' project. An analysis conducted by The Carbon Brief
in 2011 found that 9 out of 10 of the most prolific authors who cast
doubt on climate change or speak against it had ties to ExxonMobil.
Greenpeace have said that Koch industries invested more than US$50
million in the past 50 years on spreading doubts about climate change.
ExxonMobil announced in 2008 that it would cut its funding to many of
the groups that "divert attention" from the need to find new sources of
clean energy, although in 2008 still funded over "two dozen other
organisations who question the science of global warming or attack
policies to solve the crisis." A survey carried out by the UK Royal
Society found that in 2005 ExxonMobil distributed US$2.9 million to 39
groups that "misrepresented the science of climate change by outright
denial of the evidence".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_conspiracy_theory
*This Day in Climate History - August 3, 2015
<http://www.msnbc.com/andrea-mitchell-reports/watch/sustained-change--obama-unveils-climate-plan-497534531635>
- from D.R. Tucker*
August 3, 2015:
The New York Times reports:
"The issue of climate change played almost no role in the 2012
presidential campaign.
President Obama barely mentioned the topic, nor did the Republican
nominee, Mitt Romney. It was not raised in a single presidential debate.
"But as Mr. Obama prepares to leave office, his own aggressive actions
on climate change have thrust the issue into the 2016 campaign.
Strategists now say that this battle for the White House could feature
more substantive debate over global warming policy than any previous
presidential race."
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/03/us/politics/obama-policy-could-force-robust-climate-discussion-from-2016-candidates.html?_r=0
/-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
//Archive of Daily Global Warming News
<https://pairlist10.pair.net/pipermail/theclimate.vote/2017-October/date.html>
//
/https://pairlist10.pair.net/pipermail/theclimate.vote//
///
///To receive daily mailings - click to Subscribe
<mailto:subscribe at theClimate.Vote?subject=Click%20SEND%20to%20process%20your%20request>
/to news digest. /
*** 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/20180803/1881e016/attachment.html>
More information about the TheClimate.Vote
mailing list