[TheClimate.Vote] July 17, 2018 - Daily Global Warming News Digest

[Richard Pauli]

/July 17, 2018/

[ABC TV news]
*Dry weather, lightning igniting wildfires across the West 
<https://abcnews.go.com/US/dry-weather-lightning-igniting-wildfires-west/story?id=56614504>*
Hot weather moving into California and parts of western Rockies on 
Monday and the next several days - with temperatures soaring into the 
100s - will has authorities fearing more fires could start.
There are 35 large uncontained wildfires burning across the western U.S. 
on Monday morning.
Temperatures soared yesterday to 100 degrees in Portland, Oregon, for 
the first time this year. The temperature was just a few degrees shy of 
a record.
With the heat, dry weather, gusty winds and dry lightning, numerous fire 
and heat warnings have been issued for the West...
https://abcnews.go.com/US/dry-weather-lightning-igniting-wildfires-west/story?id=56614504


[Honolulu, Hawaii]
*Mayor issues directive on climate change 
<https://www.khon2.com/news/local-news/mayor-issues-directive-on-climate-change/1306968449>*
The Commission says the city should plan for 3-feet of sea level rise by 
the mid-century and if action isn't taken now, nearly 4,000 structures 
on Oahu would be flooded, and nearly 18 miles of coastal roads would 
become impassable.
https://www.khon2.com/news/local-news/mayor-issues-directive-on-climate-change/1306968449


[skewers global warming deniers with satire]
*TruthBrary.org from Sacha Baron Cohen 
<https://www.truthbrary.org/global-warming>*
https://www.truthbrary.org/global-warming


[President Obama]
*Obama: Climate change could cause a refugee crisis that's 
'unprecedented in human history' 
<http://www.businessinsider.com/obama-climate-change-refugee-crisis-food-2017-5>*
Climate change is not only leading to global rising temperatures, it's 
also displacing millions of people from their homes.
According to former President Barack Obama, if we don't mitigate 
greenhouse gas emissions soon, climate change will likely result in a 
global refugee crisis.

"If you think about monsoon patterns in the Indian subcontinent, maybe 
half a billion people rely on traditional rain patterns in those areas," 
he said at Seeds and Chips, a global food innovation summit in Italy, on 
May 9. "If those rain patterns change, then you could see hundreds of 
millions of people who suddenly find themselves unable to feed 
themselves, because they're already at subsistence levels. The amount of 
migration - the number of refugees that could result from something like 
that - would be unprecedented in human history."

Regions - from the US to Southeast Asia - are already seeing the effects 
of climate change, including sea level rise, drought, and sinking land. 
All of these factors can displace people from their homes, and make it 
difficult to grow food on top of that.

Every year since 2008, an annual average of 21.5 million people have 
been forcibly displaced by weather-related hazards, like floods, storms, 
wildfires, and extreme temperature, according to the United Nations 
Refugee Agency. Cyclone Komen and monsoon floods in Myanmar and India 
displaced 1.6 million and 1.2 million people respectively in 2015, and 
many traveled to European or neighboring Asian countries.
http://www.businessinsider.com/obama-climate-change-refugee-crisis-food-2017-5


[More factors to calculate ]
*Thawing permafrost microbiomes fuel climate change 
<https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/07/180716151529.htm>*
Date: July 16, 2018
Source: University of Queensland
A University of Queensland-led international study could lead to more 
accurate predictions or the rate of global warming from greenhouse gas 
emissions produced by thawing permafrost in the next 100 years.
The study of the microorganisms involved in permafrost carbon 
degradation links changing microbial communities and biogeochemistry to 
the rise of greenhouse gas emissions.
It was led by Australian Centre for Ecogenomics researchers in the UQ 
School of Chemistry and Molecular Biosciences Dr Ben Woodcroft, PhD 
student Caitlin Singleton, Professor Gene Tyson and international 
colleagues.
"As global temperatures rise, large amounts of carbon sequestered in 
perennially frozen permafrost are becoming available for microbial 
degradation," Dr Woodcroft said.

    "Until now, accurate prediction of greenhouse gas emissions produced
    from thawing permafrost has been limited by our understanding of
    permafrost microbial communities and their carbon metabolisms."

Using sequencing techniques pioneered by Professor Tyson, over 200 
samples from intact, thawing and thawed permafrost sites in northern 
Sweden were examined.
DNA sequences of more than 1500 microbial genomes all new to science and 
involved in complex biochemical networks were recovered.
The research, which included new metagenomics software run on UQ 
supercomputers, also implicated a number of these entirely new lineages 
in the production of greenhouse gases.
Ms Singleton said permafrost stores around 50 per cent of the total 
global soil carbon (or 1580 billion tonnes).
"The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report estimated that 
between 30 and 99 per cent of near-surface permafrost could disappear by 
2100," she said.
"Northern permafrost wetlands contribute a significant portion of global 
methane emissions, particularly as collapsing permafrost can create the 
perfect anaerobic conditions for methane-producing microorganisms 
(methanogens), and their metabolic partners, to thrive.
"This is important as methane is a potent greenhouse gas - 25 times more 
efficient at trapping the sun's radiation in our atmosphere than carbon 
dioxide."
She said that as permafrost thaws, methane emissions increase, causing a 
positive feedback loop where increased atmospheric warming caused more 
thawing.
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/07/180716151529.htm


[do the math]
*Comprehensive study: carbon taxes won't hamper the economy 
<https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2018/jul/16/comprehensive-study-carbon-taxes-wont-hamper-the-economy>
  But global warming will. 
<https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2018/jul/16/comprehensive-study-carbon-taxes-wont-hamper-the-economy>*
Dana Nuccitelli - Mon 16 Jul 2018
Eleven teams participated in a recent Stanford Energy Modeling Forum 
(EMF) project, examining the economic and environmental impacts of a 
carbon tax. The studies included "revenue recycling," in which the funds 
generated from a carbon tax are returned to taxpayers either through 
regular household rebate checks (similar to the Citizens' Climate Lobby 
[CCL] and Climate Leadership Council [CLC] proposals) or by offsetting 
income taxes (similar to the approach in British Columbia).

Among the eleven modeling teams the key findings were consistent. First, 
a carbon tax is effective at reducing carbon pollution, although the 
structure of the tax (the price and the rate at which it rises) are 
important. Second, this type of revenue-neutral carbon tax would have a 
very modest impact on the economy in terms of gross domestic product 
(GDP). In all likelihood it would slightly slow economic growth, but by 
an amount that would be more than offset by the benefits of cutting 
pollution and slowing global warming.

Meanwhile, House Republicans are again on the verge of introducing a 
Resolution denouncing a carbon tax as "detrimental to American families 
and businesses, and is not in the best interest of the United States."
*The strong economic case for a carbon tax*
The modeling teams examined four carbon tax scenarios, with starting 
prices of $25 or $50 per ton of carbon dioxide, rising at 1% or 5% per 
year. These are somewhat modest policy scenarios; CCL proposes a 
starting tax of $15 per ton rising at $10 per year, and the CLC proposes 
$40 per ton rising around 4% per year. The most aggressive policy 
considered by the Stanford EMF teams ($50 per ton rising 5% per year) 
falls in between these two proposals.
The modeling studies consistently found that for all four carbon tax 
policies considered, whether the revenue is returned via rebate checks 
of by offsetting income taxes, the direct economic impact is minimal:

    in every policy scenario, in every model, the U.S. economy continues
    to grow at or near its long-term average baseline rate, deviating
    from reference growth by no more than about 0.1% points. We find
    robust evidence that even the most ambitious carbon tax is
    consistent with long-term positive economic growth, near baseline
    rates, not even counting the growth benefits of a less-disrupted
    climate or lower ambient air pollution

The last sentence is critical. The analyses consistently found that coal 
power plants would be the biggest losers if a carbon tax were 
implemented, and the costs associated with health impacts from other 
pollutants released by burning coal (e.g. soot and mercury) are 
substantial. Phasing out coal power plants results in significant health 
and economic benefits to society.

So does slowing global warming, of course. A working paper recently 
published by the Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond concluded that US 
economic growth would slow by an extra 0.2-0.5% per year if we stay on 
our current climate path (3-3.5°C global warming) than if we meet the 
2°C Paris target. This compares favorably to a less than 0.1% per year 
slowing of the US economic growth rate under the carbon tax scenarios.

In short, climate change will slow American economic growth. If we don't 
curb global warming, the economic impact will be larger. If we implement 
a carbon tax to help meet the Paris climate targets, the economic impact 
will be negligible, and will be offset by the benefits of phasing out 
dirty coal power plants.
*Carbon taxes are effective at cutting pollution*
The Stanford EMF studies also consistently concluded that a carbon tax 
is an effective way to curb carbon pollution, especially in the power 
sector:
carbon price scenarios lead to significant reductions in CO2 emissions, 
with the vast majority of the reductions occurring in the electricity 
sector and disproportionately through reductions in coal … Expected 
economic costs (not accounting for any of the benefits of GHG and 
conventional pollutant mitigation), in terms of either GDP or welfare, 
are modest

The analyses also found that the rate of increase of the carbon tax was 
more important than the starting price. For example, a tax of $50 per 
ton of carbon dioxide rising by 5% per year would cut carbon pollution 
33-56% by 2040. A tax of $25 per ton rising 5% per year cuts it by 
25-50% by 2040. However, the policies including a tax increasing at just 
1% per year would result in a short-term cut (of about 20-40%), but 
carbon pollution would remain stable at those levels.

These results suggest that the most effective carbon tax might start 
relatively low to give taxpayers time to adjust, but increase rapidly 
over time, similar to the CCL proposal, which a separate report 
projected to cut carbon pollution 52% by 2040. The Stanford EMF studies 
also found that returning the tax revenue by offsetting income taxes was 
slightly more beneficial for the economy than using dividend checks as 
the rebate mechanism, but the former is a regressive policy and the 
latter is progressive.

Real-world examples demonstrate that pricing carbon pollution is smart. 
British Columbia's emissions have fallen as its economy has continued to 
grow. California's carbon cap and trade system has helped the state meet 
its climate targets 4 years ahead of schedule, while its economy has 
flourished.

Economic analyses consistently show that cutting carbon pollution will 
benefit the economy, and that a revenue-neutral carbon tax is an 
efficient way of accomplishing that goal. That's why there's a 95% 
consensus among economists that the US government should commit to 
cutting carbon pollution, with 81% favoring a market-based solution like 
a carbon tax.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2018/jul/16/comprehensive-study-carbon-taxes-wont-hamper-the-economy


[cool bacon]
*Is climate change turning people in B.C. into A/C pigs? 
<http://www.burnabynow.com/news/is-climate-change-turning-us-into-a-c-pigs-1.23367956>*
According to BC Hydro, the use of air conditioning has skyrocketed to 
deal with the summer heat.
The report "Cold comfort: The rising use (and cost) of air conditioning 
in B.C." reveals that A/C use in the province has more than tripled to 
34 per cent since 2001. This upward trend will likely continue, the 
report says, as 25 per cent of British Columbians are considering 
purchasing an air conditioner this summer.

"Record heat and long stretches of dry weather are becoming the new norm 
in the province, and BC Hydro's meteorologists are predicting another 
hot summer this year," said Chris O'Riley, BC Hydro's president and 
chief operating officer. "While we typically see higher electricity 
demand in the cold, dark winter months, summer demand for power is 
rising largely due to higher A/C usage."
More homes in the Southern Interior use air conditioning than any other 
region in B.C.
"This is not surprising given places such as Osoyoos, Lytton and 
Penticton are often among Canada's summer hotspots; however, the use of 
air conditioners across the province is growing," said a news release.

In the relatively moderate climate of south coastal B.C., a trend 
towards highrise apartments - often glass-walled with little air flow - 
is helping to drive A/C adoption. In the past three years, the use of 
portable or room air conditioners in the Lower Mainland has grown by 23 
per cent.

"Cold comfort comes at a cost," said the news release. "Running a 
central air conditioner for nine hours a day over the summer costs 
around $300, compared to just $6 for a fan for the same amount of time."

A recent survey commissioned by BC Hydro also found 93 per cent of 
British Columbians are adding to their energy bills by setting A/C units 
lower than the BC Hydro-recommended 25 degrees Celsius. For example:

    20 per cent of respondents in the Lower Mainland and on Vancouver
    Island set their thermostat between 17 and 19 degrees Celsius.
    32 per cent of residents in the North set their thermostat between
    17 and 19 degrees Celsius.
    It is estimated that every degree lower an air conditioner is set
    can increase cooling costs by three per cent. Adding to their costs,
    more than 40 per cent of British Columbians surveyed said they
    always or sometimes leave their air conditioners running when they
    are not at home.

"The survey results show that residents in the Southern Interior tend to 
be the best at guarding their homes from heat - and setting their air 
conditioning units at the recommended temperature.
Other results from the report include:
Only half surveyed said they close the windows or doors when the 
temperature outside is hotter than the temperature inside.
About 25 per cent of those surveyed do not shade windows. Shading 
windows can block out up to 65 per cent of the heat.
37 per cent of respondents leave fans on when they are not at home. Fans 
do not cool the air, but they do have a cooling effect on the skin.
http://www.burnabynow.com/news/is-climate-change-turning-us-into-a-c-pigs-1.23367956


[Audio report from PRI]
*How do we process doom-and-gloom climate news? How should we? 
<https://www.pri.org/stories/2018-06-21/how-do-we-process-doom-and-gloom-climate-news-how-should-we>*
Livable Planet
https://www.pri.org/node/179483/embedded
Frightening stories about climate change seem to come in a never-ending 
wave these days.

In just the past week, we've learned that Antarctica is melting three 
times faster than it was a decade ago, rising seas might flood more than 
300,000 US homes twice a month within decades, and that India is facing 
the worst water crisis in its history.

How do our brains respond to this onslaught of negative news?
Not well.

"Climate change has all the hallmarks of an issue which is difficult for 
people to engage with psychologically," says Lorraine Whitmarsh, 
professor of environmental psychology at the University of Cardiff in 
Wales.

People perceive the risks of climate change "as both considerably 
uncertain and also as being mostly in the future and geographically 
distant, all factors that lead people to discount them," according to a 
2009 American Psychological Association report on the topic.

In other words, the worst impacts of climate change feel far away - in 
both time and place - to many Americans. So while it will increasingly 
impact all of us, every day, it's hard for us to get worked up about it.

So do news stories with frightening projections about the future prod us 
to action, or make us stick our heads in the sand?

It's a debated topic in psychology, and some recent research suggests 
there's not enough evidence to empirically say whether or not "arousing 
fear" is an effective way to communicate the risks of climate change. 
But other psychologists argue we know enough to say scare tactics don't 
work when it comes to engaging the public.

"What we know from psychological studies is that if you overuse 
fear-inducing imagery, what you get is fear and guilt in people, and 
this makes people more passive, which counteracts engagement," Norwegian 
psychologist and author of "What We Think About When We Try Not To Think 
About Global Warming," Per Espen Stoknes, told YaleEnvironment360.

*So what does work in effectively communicating the risks of climate 
change?*

Making it personal, Whitmarsh says. "Talk to people about the impacts of 
climate change on things that are important to them, things that they 
value," Whitmarsh tells The World. "They may be family, or their local 
area, or objects or areas that are important to them, rather than 
talking about distant regions."

When it comes to changing behaviors that impact the environment, 
Whitmarsh has found it's often more effective not to raise the issue of 
climate change at all.

"If you want people to save energy, reduce the amount of meat they're 
consuming, reduce the amount of flights they're taking, for example, you 
don't necessarily need to make an environmental or climate change 
argument to get them to do that," Whitmarsh says.

Explain the economic argument for using less energy, for example, or the 
health benefits of eating less meat. Some research has shown, for 
example, that real-time energy usage readings help people use less energy.

"Emphasizing those (personal benefits) when you're communicating and 
trying to persuade people to change their behaviour is more likely to be 
effective," Whitmarsh says.

Accentuate the positive
It's a tactic climate scientist Peter Kalmus takes in his book, *"Being 
the Change: Live Well and Spark a Climate Revolution."*

Kalmus writes about his experience cutting his carbon footprint to a 
tenth of what it once was by giving up flying and eating meat, taking up 
biking, and scavenging and growing his own food. These changes not only 
helped him live more sustainably, it also made him happier and feel more 
connected to his community.

"There was a lot about it that I liked, that I would do even if there 
wasn't a climate emergency," Kalmus says, including biking, gardening, 
and converting his car to run on waste vegetable oil. "I really enjoyed 
all of these things."

Kalmus, a climate scientist at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory in 
California who speaks on his own behalf and not for NASA, tells The 
World that he had an "unpleasant wake-up call" when he started learning 
more about climate change and decided to switch his field of study from 
astrophysics to atmospheric science.

"I was kind of shaking people by the proverbial lapels and telling them 
'We need to stop burning fossil fuels,'" Kalmus said. "And then I 
realized 'Hey, I'm not actually doing that myself.' So maybe I can 
reduce my own use of fossil fuel."

About eight years ago he sat down to take stock of his own personal CO2 
emissions. He found that flying produced about three-quarters of his 
20-ton annual carbon footprint, and in 2012, he gave up flying. He still 
travels with his wife and kids - they just opt for trips within 
California and, about once a year, drive their bio-fueled car or take 
the train to visit family in Chicago, camping along the way.

Kalmus recognizes that not everyone can easily bike to work, or give up 
flying altogether.

But he says an easy first step for those interested in cutting their 
carbon footprint is sitting down to do a personal CO2 audit.

"Figure out how your actions are connected to CO2," he says, can help 
you pinpoint the biggest steps you can take to reduce your CO2 
emissions. "So hopefully people can find something that makes them 
happier and also reduces their footprint. And then that's a sustainable 
change, and hopefully they'll be eager to try taking the second step."

One person can't fight climate change alone. But Kalmus hopes he'll be 
an example others can follow.

"What I'm doing is trying to push for a cultural shift," Kalmus says. 
"As more and more people start demanding alternatives to the 
fossil-fueled infrastructure, I think the systems will start to catch up."
https://www.pri.org/stories/2018-06-21/how-do-we-process-doom-and-gloom-climate-news-how-should-we

*
Rising ocean waters from global warming could cost trillions of dollars 
<https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2018/jul/12/rising-ocean-waters-from-global-warming-could-cost-trillions-of-dollars>*
We'll need to mitigate and adapt to global warming to avoid massive 
costs from sea level rise
Ocean waters are rising because of global warming. They are rising for 
two reasons. First, and perhaps most obvious, ice is melting. There is a 
tremendous amount of ice locked away in Greenland, Antarctica, and in 
glaciers. As the world warms, that ice melts and the liquid water flows 
to the oceans.
The other reason why water is rising is that warmer water is less dense 
- it expands. This expansion causes the surface of the water to rise.
Rising oceans are a big deal. About 150 million people live within 1 
meter (3 feet) of sea level. About 600 million live within 10 meters (33 
feet) of sea level. As waters rise, these people will have to go 
somewhere. It is inevitable that climate refugees will have to move 
their homes and workplaces because of rising waters.
In some places, humans will be able to build sea walls to block off the 
water's rise. But, in many places, that won't be possible. For instance, 
Miami, Florida has a porous base rock that allows sea water to permeate 
through the soils. You cannot wall that off. In other places, any sea 
walls would be prohibitively expensive.

It isn't just the inevitable march of sea level that is an issue. Rising 
waters make storm surges worse. A great example is Superstorm Sandy, 
which hit the US East Coast in 2012. It cost approximately $65 bn of 
damage. The cost was higher because of sea level rise caused by global 
warming.

Climate scientists do their best to project how much and how fast oceans 
will rise in the future. These projections help city planners prepare 
future infrastructure. My estimation is that oceans will be 
approximately 1 meter higher in the year 2100; that is what our 
infrastructure should be prepared for. What I don't know is how much 
this will cost us as a society...
- - - -
There are four important takeaways from this study. First, while the 
economic costs are large, there is some range of projections. The actual 
costs may be lower or higher than the median predicted in the study. 
This is largely due to the fact that we don't know how fast Greenland 
and Antarctica will melt. If they melt faster than projected, things 
will be worse than what I've described here.

Second, adaptation will help. By adaptation I mean making our societies 
less susceptible to sea level rise. For example, building sea walls when 
possible, building new infrastructure away from coasts, putting in 
natural breaks to limit storm surge during large storms, and making 
infrastructure more water-resistant.

Third, what we do now matters. If we can get off the high-emissions 
business as usual scenarios - if we can increase investment in clean and 
renewable energy - we can reduce the future costs.

Finally, while scientists often use 2100 as a benchmark year, it isn't 
like oceans will stop rising then. In fact, we are committing ourselves 
to hundreds of years of rising oceans. The ocean has a lot of climate 
inertia. Once it starts rising, you cannot stop it. So, by focusing only 
on the year 2100, we are deluding ourselves into underestimating the 
long term costs.

This research shows it's important to connect climate science with 
economic science. Too often, social scientists and economists with very 
little climate science understanding have tried to tell us that climate 
change is not a problem. Whenever you hear an economist or a social 
scientist give you a rosy future prediction, take it with a grain of 
salt. Their opinion is worthless without being backed by physical 
understanding. And the loudest economists and social scientists often 
have very little of this physical understanding.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2018/jul/12/rising-ocean-waters-from-global-warming-could-cost-trillions-of-dollars


[Satire, this is satire, soon to be famous satire]
*TruthBrary.org from Sacha Baron Cohen says: 
<https://www.truthbrary.org/global-warming>*

    *WELCOME TO THE TRUTHBRARY.ORG*
    *​*
    *REJECT THE MAINSTREME MEDIA + THE LIEbrary OF FALSE INFOMATION THEY
    TRY TO PUSH INTO THE PUBLICS MIND'S. THE TRUTHBRARY WILL SET YOU
    FREE. THIS IS A LIBERTY WEBSITE FOR TRUE AMERICA AND TRUTH LOVING
    AMERICANS.*

This website is TRUTHBRARY.ORG. It is a collection of studies and 
investigations carried out by Dr. Billy Wayne Ruddick for the good of 
the American people. Now it the time when the American people must take 
back control of our media. The mainstream media cannot be trusted. They 
have there own agenda and are beholden to the whim of the deep state and 
the illuminati. We must take control of our facts and our truth. We must 
stand together to fight the dark forces of clintons and muslims and 
Godless peoples to stand strong for our religious freedom and hold forth 
for what is right in our country. Now is the time for the silent 
majority to come together ansd seek out our truth.*

Global Warming Doomsayers Are Cherrypickers*

    *The consensus of the far left, for whatever their political
    reasons, claim the sky is falling. Their doomsday predictions on
    climate change and the U.S.'s villainous role are well-documented.*

    *That is the usual hysterical thinking from the left with other
    hidden intentions in mind. The real truth is quite different.
    Contrary to the notion that global warming has caused more rain,
    there was no significant global precipitation change from 1850 to
    present. Previous studies have analyzed shorter timeframes and found
    rainfall changes that some people had attributed to global warming,
    but those results were generally not statistically significant over
    time scales of decades and centuries.*

    *According to the IPCC, which has engaged in deceitful actions to
    exaggerate global warming, evidence for such an hysterical outcome
    is highly questionable. In fact, Since 1951 there have been
    statistically significant increases in the number of heavy
    precipitation events in more regions than there have been
    statistically significant decreases.*

    *Apparent changes in rainfall intensity sometimes vanish when
    examining longer timeframes that better account for natural
    variations. For instance, cyclones with winds ranging from 39 to 73
    miles per hour are called "tropical storms," and those with winds
    exceeding 73 miles per hour are called "hurricanes." The datasets In
    the International Geophysical Research Letters in 2011, show that
    the global number and intensity of tropical storms and hurricanes
    have not increased over the past four decades.*

    *Perception accords produce a flood of global warming-related
    misinformation is spread by the media and environmental groups.
    There is low confidence in any observed long-term increases in
    tropical cyclone activity, intensity, frequency or duration, after
    accounting for past changes in observing capabilities in the last 40
    years.*

    *In the North Atlantic region, where hurricanes Harvey and Irma
    formed, tropical storm and hurricane activity have increased
    significantly over the past four decades. However, this trend fades
    in the wider context of variation over the past century.*

    *The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), shows
    no robust trends in annual numbers of tropical storms, hurricanes
    and major hurricanes counts have been identified over the past 100
    years in the North Atlantic basin. They state that North Atlantic
    tropical storms show a "pronounced upward trend" since 1878, but
    this is because these records are "relatively sparse" in their early
    decades.*

    *The trend in storm activity is "not significantly distinguishable
    from zero." Furthermore, NOAA notes the trend in the unadjusted
    data. NOAA emphasizes that one cannot logically assess hurricane
    trends based only on those that reach land, because they are "much
    less common" than the full number of hurricanes that form at sea. A
    major distinction that makes it absurd to draw conclusions based on
    hurricanes that make landfall, much less hurricanes that make
    landfall in one region in a single year.*

    *Certain media outlets with radically leftist points of view have
    linked hurricanes Harvey and Irma to global warming. They choose to
    ignore wide-ranging facts. Instead, these media outlets cherry-pick
    timeframes, geographical locations, report contents, and the
    opinions of some scientists. They ignore other well-qualified
    scientists who have contrary views.*

    *Thousands of scientists do not believe that humans are the main
    cause of changes in climate. Here are just a few of the most famous
    AGW skeptics. Search for their names on youtube and hear what they
    say that refutes what the IPCC says.*

    *-Siegfried Fred Singer, physicist, emeritus professor of
    environmental science*
    *-William Happer, Physicist*
    *-Freeman Dyson, theoretical physicist and mathematician*
    *-Bob Carter, Paleoclimatologist*
    *-Dr Don Easterbrook, Geologist*
    *-Ivar Giaever, Physicist, Nobel laureate*
    *-John Coleman, Meteorologist, Weather Channel co-founder*
    *-Dr. Judith Coleman, Climatologist*
    *-Roy Warren Spencer, Meteorologist*
    *-Wei-Hock "Willie" Soon, solar physicist*
    *-Tim Ball, historical climatologist*
    *-Dr. Patrick Moore, PHD in Ecology, founder of Greenpeace*
    **
    *Legitimate scientists will tell you that one of the worst abuses of
    analytics is to cherry pick results. Cherry pickers tout analysis
    findings when the results serve the purpose at hand. But, they
    ignore the findings when the results conflict with the original
    plan. There are no grounds to claim that global warming has
    increased rainfall or hurricane activity.*

https://www.truthbrary.org/global-warming
- - - -
[No joke, here's the 'no kidding' information; look up the 'experts' 
mentioned above]
*Global Warming Disinformation Database 
<https://www.desmogblog.com/global-warming-denier-database>*
Welcome to the DeSmog Climate Disinformation Research Database where you 
can search and browse our extensive research on the individuals and 
organizations that have helped to delay and distract the public and our 
elected leaders from taking needed action to reduce greenhouse gas 
pollution and fight global warming. Choose a tab below to view the lists 
of climate science denier individuals and organizations.
https://www.desmogblog.com/global-warming-denier-database


*This Day in Climate History - July 17, 2008 
<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=35jWlIknSFw> - from D.R. Tucker*
July 17, 2008:
• In a speech at Constitution Hall in Washington, D.C., Al Gore calls 
upon the United States to move away from fossil fuels completely by 2018.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=35jWlIknSFw
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/18/washington/18gore.html?fta=y
http://youtu.be/YEuU42qijmo

/------------------------------------------
//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/20180717/15b20cb5/attachment.html>