[TheClimate.Vote] May 8, 2018 - Daily Global Warming News Digest

Tue May 8 10:52:40 EDT 2018

/May 8, 2018/

[facebook's latest blunder]
*Facebook partners with global warming skeptics while cracking down on 
'untrustworthy' news source 
<https://www.consumeraffairs.com/news/facebook-partners-with-global-warming-skeptics-while-cracking-down-on-untrustworthy-news-sources-050718.html>*
ConsumerAffairs - Amy Martyn
Conservative think tank The Heritage Foundation already wields its 
influence in high places, with numerous employees rotating in and out of 
the Trump administration and an agenda that it brags has been embraced 
by the president.
The powerful non-profit now has the ear of Facebook executives. Leaders 
at the social media giant are reportedly meeting with The Heritage 
Foundation as part of an audit into whether the platform's news feed 
harbors an anti-conservative bias.
During Senate hearings this year, numerous Republican lawmakers grilled 
CEO Mark Zuckerberg over a suspected bias that the news feed may have 
against conservative news outlets. The tech site Gizmodo had reported 
two years ago that former workers in Facebook's "trending topics" 
department suppressed trending stories if they came from conservative 
sources.
In response to the criticism, Facebook told the site Axios last week 
that it is agreeing to an outside audit into its suspected liberal bias. 
The audit will be conducted by the Heritage Foundation, as well as 
former Arizona Republican Sen. Jon Kyl, now an attorney.
- - - -
*Ranking sites by "trustworthiness"*
The foundation described Facebook's move as encouraging. "From what I've 
heard, it sounds encouraging that Facebook is taking steps to evaluate 
where things stand in the marketplace,"  Rob Bluey, a spokesman with the 
Heritage Foundation, told Axios.
It's just one of numerous investigations that Facebook has agreed to 
launch into itself recently in response to concerns about what content 
gets promoted in the news feed. But its numerous policies to address 
critics seem at times to conflict with one another. The site this year 
has also announced plans to crack down on "fake news," or untrustworthy 
news sources that spread false information.
CEO Mark Zuckerberg said last week that Facebook is now ranking news 
organizations on trustworthiness, and promoting or suppressing such 
organizations based on that metric, in an effort to end "polarization."
"We put [that data] into the system, and it is acting as a boost or a 
suppression, and we're going to dial up the intensity of that over 
time," Zuckerberg told reporters last week. "We feel like we have a 
responsibility to further [break] down polarization and find common ground."
*Denying climate change*
In that case, The Heritage Foundation would seem an unlikely partner to 
take part in its anti-conservative bias study. The Union of Concerned 
Scientists, an advocacy group of scientists, has described the Heritage 
Foundation as one of numerous organizations that spreads misinformation 
about climate science, "a strategy designed to confuse the public about 
global warming and delay action on climate change," they write.
The Climate Investigations Center says that the Heritage Foundation 
"since its inception" has used "a variety of tactics to distort public 
opinion on climate change and influence decision making in Washington."
While the Heritage Foundation says on its website that it receives 
funding from donors large and small, the group has well-documented ties 
with corporate donors that include the Koch brothers and ExxonMobil. 
Keeping in line with the ideologies of its corporate donors, the 
Heritage Foundation has for years claimed that global warming is not a 
serious problem or that the science is far from settled.

David Kreutzer was a fellow at the Heritage Foundation when he wrote 
that "no consensus exists that man-made emissions are the primary driver 
of global warming." Kreutzer briefly worked in the Environmental 
Protection Agency under Trump but resigned and returned to his former 
post at the foundation last year.
*"True believers," the Heritage Foundation describes climate scientists 
and environmental advocates as, "want us to accept sacrifices now-and a 
poorer world-in favor of unproven policies to avert warming that may or 
may not occur, and that may or may not be harmful."*
Climate scientists don't agree with that assertion, but it hasn't 
stopped policies promoted by the Heritage Foundation from gaining 
traction in the White house. The site Politico reported shortly after 
the 2016 election that the Heritage Foundation had taken over as Trump's 
"shadow" transition team, vetting resumes or working in the 
administration directly. The foundation more recently touted that Trump 
has embraced two-thirds of its own policy agenda.
- - - - -
Facebook's press team has not yet returned an inquiry from ConsumerAffairs.
https://www.consumeraffairs.com/news/facebook-partners-with-global-warming-skeptics-while-cracking-down-on-untrustworthy-news-sources-050718.html

[just now]
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:    MONDAY, MAY 7, 2018
CONTACT:
Pastor Harry Joseph, 5th District H.E.L.P. Association, (210) 315-7532
*State Court Declares Bayou Bridge Pipeline's Coastal Use Permit 
Illegal*
CONVENT, La. - Louisiana's 23rd Judicial District Court has ruled that 
the Louisiana Department of Natural Resources(DNR) violated the Coastal 
Use Guidelines when it issued Bayou Bridge Pipeline, LLC a Coastal Use 
Permit, allowing the company to construct and operate a crude oil 
pipeline through Louisiana's Coastal Zone. The court ruled in favor of 
the Petitioners in the case, Pastor Harry Joseph, Genevieve Butler, 
H.E.L.P. association, the Gulf Restoration Network, the Atchafalaya 
Basinkeeper, and Bold Louisiana, who argued that the DNR illegally 
failed to apply critical regulations under the Coastal Use Guidelines 
and failed to meet the agency's duty as public trustee over the natural 
resources of the state. The Petitioners are represented by the Tulane 
Environmental Law Clinic.
- - - - -(snip)
Petitioners' attorney Elizabeth Livingston de Calderon stated, "We are 
pleased for our clients that the court recognized the importance of 
enforcing the mandatory public safety and environmental protection 
provisions under the law."
NOTE: This court ruling is in reference to the Coastal Use Permit issued 
by Louisiana Department of Natural Resources. A different lawsuit 
regarding Bayou Bridge's Section 404 Permit issued by the U.S. Army 
Corps of Engineers is ongoing.

[great idea!]
*California to become first U.S. state mandating solar on new homes 
<https://www.ocregister.com/2018/05/04/california-to-become-first-u-s-state-mandating-solar-on-new-homes/>*
The California Energy Commission is scheduled to vote Wednesday, May 9, 
on new energy standards mandating most new homes have solar panels 
starting in 2020.
https://www.ocregister.com/2018/05/04/california-to-become-first-u-s-state-mandating-solar-on-new-homes/

[just the facts]
*People Can Demand Too Much Certainty of Science 
<https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2018-05-07/people-can-demand-too-much-certainty-of-science>*
Bloomberg
It's counterintuitive but true. Here's why.
Some scientists quoted in the news worried that Pruitt's new rule would 
disqualify data on the Deepwater Horizon oil spill, for example,...
- - - -
The focus on false positives is premised on the assumption that problems 
recently uncovered inpsychology 
<http://fayeflamwriter.com/researchers-show-ease-of-finding-dubious-results/>and 
some areas ofmedical research 
<https://www.nature.com/articles/483531a>also extend to environmental 
science. In a 27-page document describing the rule, Pruitt made 
reference to the so-called "replication crisis"-concerns over systematic 
reviews revealing that more than half of published studiescould not be 
replicated 
<https://www.nature.com/news/over-half-of-psychology-studies-fail-reproducibility-test-1.18248>, 
but only in those limited fields. There's no evidence so far that the 
same kind of crisis affects physics, astrophysics, chemistry, 
climatology and other fields.

Scientists quicklyexpressed opposition 
<https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/answer-sheet/wp/2018/04/25/this-letter-signed-by-985-scientists-explains-why-epa-chiefs-new-move-could-harm-your-health/?utm_term=.76faffe9ef25>to 
Pruitt's transparency rule, arguing that he would use it as an excuse to 
roll back regulation critical for protecting public health. It wasn't 
clear from Pruitt's proposal whether the transparency was supposed to 
apply only to future regulations, or whether it would allow him to 
change existing ones.
UCLA statistics and epidemiology professor Sander Greenland helped me 
consider the importance of false negatives. He said that the tendency to 
produce false positives or negatives varies from one field to another, 
and may depend on the incentives faced by researchers.,,
- - - - -
The scientists who've objected to Pruitt's proposed rule are right to 
worry. The rule is vaguely worded and premised on assumptions and 
innuendo. It's all aimed at an alleged problem with false positive 
results - but Pruitt hasn't supplied any direct evidence that there's a 
proliferation of false positives in environmental science, or that such 
false results are causing any harm.
Pruitt's rule could go into effect after a 30-day comment period, though 
the Washington Postreports 
<https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2018/04/24/pruitt-to-unveil-controversial-transparency-rule-limiting-what-research-epa-can-use/?utm_term=.68aafef28b1a>that 
it could face opposition in court. Pruitt is promoting "Transparency in 
Regulatory Science" as a way to avoid regulations based on weak or 
flawed evidence. But the rule itself is based on an alleged problem for 
which there's no solid evidence at all.
https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2018-05-07/people-can-demand-too-much-certainty-of-science

[Friends of the Court]
*Three Democratic AGs File Brief in Support of California Climate Suits 
<https://www.climateliabilitynews.org/2018/05/07/three-democratic-ags-file-brief-support-california-climate-suits/>*
By Jennifer Dorroh
California Attorney General Xavier Becerra has jumped into the fight to 
hold oil companies accountable for climate change, although not with a 
state investigation as many climate activists had hoped. Instead, he's 
supporting the lawsuits by two California cities against the oil 
industry in federal court.
Becerra filed an amicus brief last week supporting San Francisco and 
Oakland in their suit against a group of oil companies in U.S. District 
Court for the Northern District of California. It was also signed by 
Democratic attorneys general Gurbir Grewal of New Jersey and Robert 
Ferguson of Washington.

The friend-of-the-court brief counters a recent filing by 15 Republican 
state attorneys general urging the court to dismiss the cases. The 
Democratic AGs said that brief and the oil companies' motion for 
dismissal, "tell a one-sided story of unbounded endorsement of 
extraction and consumption of fossil fuels by California and the federal 
government."
"Defendants do not, of course, point to any laws that explicitly 
authorize them to market fossil fuels while intentionally concealing 
their knowledge about the harms from those fuels, which is conduct the 
Plaintiffs complain of," they said.

The briefs were filed ahead of a May 24 hearing on Exxon's motion to 
dismiss. The Democratic AGs also weighed in on the jurisdictional 
battle, supporting the cities and their supporters' argument that the 
suits should be tried in state court. Although, Judge William Alsup had 
already ruled against sending the case back to state court, the cities 
believe state law is more favorable to their claims and previous federal 
cases have set precedent in favor of the industry.
Alsup wrote in his decision to place them in federal court: "Taking the 
complaints at face value, the scope of the worldwide predicament demands 
the most comprehensive view available, which in our American court 
system means our federal courts and our federal common law."..
More at: 
https://www.climateliabilitynews.org/2018/05/07/three-democratic-ags-file-brief-support-california-climate-suits/

[behavior influences everything]
*With Schneiderman Resignation, Exxon Climate Investigation Loses a 
Leader 
<https://www.climateliabilitynews.org/2018/05/08/eric-schneiderman-resign-exxon-climate/>*
*By Jennifer Dorroh*
New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman, who launched the first 
state-level climate investigation of Exxon, resigned Monday night after 
an article in The New Yorker 
<https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/four-women-accuse-new-yorks-attorney-general-of-physical-abuse> revealed 
that four women had accused him of assault. What his resignation may 
mean for New York's investigation into possible fraud by Exxon is not 
yet clear.
"It's been my great honor and privilege to serve as Attorney General for 
the people of the State of New York. In the last several hours, serious 
allegations, which I strongly contest, have been made against me. While 
these allegations are unrelated to my professional conduct or the 
operations of the office, they will effectively prevent me from leading 
the office's work at this critical time. I therefore resign my office, 
effective at the close of business on May 8, 2018," he saidin a 
statement 
<https://ag.ny.gov/press-release/statement-attorney-general-eric-t-schneiderman>.
The movement to hold oil companies accountable for sea level rise and 
other impacts from climate change lost a powerfully placed advocate. 
Schneiderman launched his investigation in 2015 with a subpoena seeking 
40 years of records of Exxon's climate research. Since then, he has been 
tenacious in countering Exxon's legal moves to thwart his investigation, 
  and continued his pursuit of what the oil giant knew about climate 
change while simultaneously expressing doubt about climate change 
science to shareholders and the public.
After a U.S. District Court dismissed a suit Exxon pursued against him, 
Schneidermansaid in a statement 
<https://www.climateliabilitynews.org/2018/04/23/exxon-climate-probe-new-york-massachusetts/>: 
"At every turn in our investigation, Exxon has tried to distract and 
deflect from the facts at hand. But we will not be deterred: our 
securities fraud investigation into Exxon continues."
Now, his resignation raises questions about whether New York will be 
deterred from pursuing that investigation. Schneiderman, a Democrat who 
had served as New York attorney general since 2010, was running for 
re-election. The state legislature will meet in joint session to choose 
a replacement to complete his current term.
Schneiderman began the battle against the oil giant whenhe subpoenaed 
Exxon 
<https://insideclimatenews.org/news/05112015/new-york-attorney-general-eric-schneiderman-subpoena-Exxon-climate-documents>in 
December 2015.
In March 2016, Schneiderman led a group of 17 state attorneys general, 
calling themselvesAGs United for Clean Power 
<https://www.climaterealityproject.org/blog/al-gore-and-new-york-attorney-general-eric-schneiderman-launch-ags-united-clean-power-coalition>, 
at a press conference and pledged to hold fossil fuel companies 
accountable for their conduct involving climate change. Former Vice 
President Al Gore called it "the best, most hopeful step in years," and 
said, "What these attorneys general are doing is extremely important. 
These brave members of this coalition are doing their job like they did 
in the tobacco case."
The attorneys general of Massachusetts and the U.S. Virgin Islands 
launched their own investigations in early 2016, but only Massachusetts 
and its AG, Maura Healey, remains in the fight along with New York.
https://www.climateliabilitynews.org/2018/05/08/eric-schneiderman-resign-exxon-climate/

  [Pretty strong]
*George Monbiot's Out of the Wreckage; A friendly critique 
<http://www.resilience.org/stories/2018-05-07/george-monbiots-wreckage-friendly-critique/>*
By Ted Trainer, originally published by Resilence.org
Few have made a more commendable contribution to saving the planet than 
George Monbiot. His recent book, Out of the Wreckage, continues the 
effort and puts forward many important ideas…but I believe there are 
problems with his diagnosis and his remedy...
- - - -
George doesn't seem to grasp the significance of the limits, the 
magnitude of the overshoot, or therefore the essential nature of the 
sustainability problem and its extremely radical implications. Above all 
he does not stress the need to happily embrace extremely frugal 
"lifestyles". Sustainability cannot be achieved unless the pursuit of 
affluence as well as the dominance of neo-liberalism ceases, and he 
therefore does not deal with what is in fact the main task for those 
wishing to save the planet; i.e., increasing general awareness that a 
Simpler Way of some kind must be taken. George does not discuss the 
simplicity theme.

This has been a criticism in terms of goals. I think the book also has a 
problem regarding means. The book is primarily about politics. It is a 
sound critique of the way the present decision making system works for 
the rich and of the need for us to take control of it into our hands via 
localism. But George is saying in effect, "Let's get out there and build 
community and take control and then we can fix things." Unfortunately I 
think that advice is based on a questionable analysis of the situation 
and of how to fix it.

My case requires some discussion of what I see as perhaps the book's 
major problem, which is to do with the nature of community, more 
accurately with the conditions required for it to exist or come into 
existence. Again George's documentation of the sorry state of community 
today is to be applauded. But I think his strategic recommendations 
mostly involve little more than a plea for us to just come together and 
commune, as if we have made the mistake of forgetting the importance of 
community and all would be well if we just woke up and knocked on our 
neighbour's door.
- - - -
There is now no possibility of heading off an extremely serious 
multifactorial global breakdown. For instance greenhouse gas emissions 
would have to be reduced at maybe 8% p.a., and yet they are rising. 
Renewable energy would have to replace fossil fuels in a few decades … 
but presently it contributes only 1.5% of world energy use. There are 
strong reasons to think that oil will become very scarce within ten 
years. (See Ahmed, 2017.) Global debt levels are so high now and rising 
so fast that the coming CFC 2.0 will dwarf the previous GFC1. Did you 
know that global insect populations have suddenly begun to plunge? 
Forget about your white rhino, it's the little fellows at the base of 
food chains that really matter. Need I go on...
Yes, go on at: 
http://www.resilience.org/stories/2018-05-07/george-monbiots-wreckage-friendly-critique/

[Ethics and Climate Change]
*training on how to ask questions of opponents of climate change 
policies to expose ethical problems 
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qJSFUcfU6Dw>*
Donald Brown - Published on May 7, 2018 - 18:44
This video helps NGOs and media members to ask questions of opponents of 
climate change policies to expose ethical and moral problems with cost 
and scientific uncertainty arguments made against climate change  
policies and laws
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qJSFUcfU6Dw

[Not very smart since it calls greater attention]
*The Energy 202: Interior agency blocks group of archaeologists from 
attending scientific conference 
<https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/paloma/the-energy-202/2018/05/03/the-energy-202-interior-agency-blocks-group-of-archaeologists-from-attending-scientific-conference/5aea1d9230fb042db57972ac/?utm_term=.2db1390c1edd>*
By Dino Grandoni
The Bureau of Land Management blocked at least 14 of its staff 
archaeologists and other specialists from attending a major scientific 
conference this year, at a time when archeological sites have become a 
flashpoint in the debate over public lands protection.
The archeologists and other BLM employees, many working and living in 
Western states, were originally scheduled to attend the annual meeting 
in Washington of the Society for American Archaeology, the largest 
organization of professional archaeologists in the Western Hemisphere.
- - - -
One BLM employee, who requested anonymity for fear of retribution, said 
that staffers vetted their conference attendance through the BLM 
director's office for approval during both the Obama and Trump 
administrations. Under both administrations, budget was a consideration, 
but under Trump "individual events themselves and topics to be covered 
got more scrutiny," the employee said.

"This entire incident reeks of scientific interference to advance the 
administration's energy-at-all-costs agenda," said Aaron Weiss, media 
director at the Center for Western Priorities.
The restriction on archaeologists attending the conference this year did 
not span the entire Interior Department. The National Park Service, 
another division within Interior, gave the greenlight to all 25 of its 
archaeologists who asked for permission to go to the SAA conference, NPS 
spokesman Jeremy Barnum said.
At other times, however, various Interior Department agencies reined in 
how government-funded science is publicized.

Last year, officials at Interior headquarters directed the U.S. 
Geological Survey to delete a line from a news release discussing the 
role climate change played in raising Earth's oceans and removed two top 
climate experts at Montana's Glacier National Park from a delegation 
scheduled to show Facebook co-founder Mark Zuckerberg around the park 
full of shrinking glaciers.
more 
at:https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/paloma/the-energy-202/2018/05/03/the-energy-202-interior-agency-blocks-group-of-archaeologists-from-attending-scientific-conference/5aea1d9230fb042db57972ac/?utm_term=.2db1390c1edd

[Fare thee well in not-well air]
*Is air pollution making you sick? 4 questions answered 
<https://theconversation.com/is-air-pollution-making-you-sick-4-questions-answered-91605>*
Last year, a study found 
<http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736%2817%2930505-6/fulltext> 
that more than 8 million people per year die early from air pollution 
exposure. This amounts to more deaths than diarrheal disease, 
tuberculosis and HIV/AIDS combined.

As a researcher in air pollution and its health effects, I know that 
even if you don't live in these places, air pollution likely still 
affects your quality of life. Here's what you need to know.

1. What exactly is air pollution?
Air pollution is a general term that usually describes a mixture of 
different chemicals that circulate in the air.

Invisible gases, like ozone or carbon monoxide, and tiny particles or 
droplets of liquids mix together in the atmosphere. Each molecule is 
impossible to see with the naked eye, but when trillions gather 
together, you can see them as haze.

These chemicals are almost always mixed together in varied amounts. 
Scientists do not yet understand how these different mixtures affect us. 
Each person responds differently to air pollution exposure - some people 
have few effects, while others, such as kids with asthma, might become 
very ill.
What's more, air pollution mixtures in a given location change over 
time. Changes can occur quickly over a few hours or gradually over months.
- - - -
There are also many chemical reactions that occur in the air itself. 
These reactions create what are known as secondary pollutants, some of 
which arequite toxic 
<https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4455590/>.
Finally, it's important to realize that air pollution knows no 
boundaries. If a pollutant is emitted in one location, it very easily 
moves across borders - both regional and national - to different places. 
New Delhi, for example, experiences seasonal pollution, thanks to 
extensive burning of agricultural fields some 200 miles away.
- - - - -
This is a tricky question, because air pollution is a hidden problem 
that acts as a trigger for many health problems. Plenty of people suffer 
from asthma and lung diseases, heart attacks and cancer, andall of these 
are linked to particulate matter exposure 
<http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs313/en/>. The bestevidence 
to date 
<https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0140673617305056>suggests 
that the higher the dose of air pollution, the worse our response will be.
Unfortunately, there are many other things that lead to these diseases, 
too: poor diet, your inherited genes, or whether you have access to high 
quality medical care or you smoke cigarettes, for example. This makes 
figuring out the cause of a specific illness attributed to air pollution 
exposure much more difficult.
- - - -
The U.S. and Europe have madeexcellent progress 
<https://www.epa.gov/clean-air-act-overview/progress-cleaning-air-and-improving-peoples-health#pollution>in 
reducing air pollution concentrations over the past couple of decades, 
largely by crafting effective air quality regulation.
However, in the U.S. today, where environmental laws are 
beingmethodically dismantled 
<http://columbiaclimatelaw.com/resources/climate-deregulation-tracker/>, 
there is a bigger worry that policymakers are simply choosing to ignore 
science. One new member of the Environmental Protection Agency's science 
advisory board is Robert Phalen of the University of California, Irvine, 
who has suggested that"modern air is too clean for optimum health" 
<https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/nov/16/modern-air-is-too-clean-the-rise-of-air-pollution-denial>.
This goes against thousands of research papers and is certainly not 
true. While some components of air pollution have little effect on human 
health, this should not be used to muddy our understanding of air 
pollution exposure. This is a common tactic to confuse the public with 
unimportant statistics in order to sow confusion, presumably with an 
underlying intent to influence policy.
The evidence is clear: Air pollution exposure is lethal and causes death 
across the world. That should be important to all of us.
https://theconversation.com/is-air-pollution-making-you-sick-4-questions-answered-91605
-
[proof of what you already know - in The Lancet]
Estimates and 25-year trends of the global burden of disease 
attributable to ambient air pollution: an analysis of data from the 
Global Burden of Diseases Study 2015 
<https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736%2817%2930505-6/fulltext>
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(17)30505-6/fulltext

[how about a political movement instead?]
*USA Today: Nearly Two-Thirds of Americans Have Given Up On Political 
Parties 
<https://ivn.us/2018/04/26/usa-today-nearly-two-thirds-americans-given-up-political-parties/>*
By W.E. Messamore
Many Americans will be staying out of the voting booth for the 2018 
elections, disillusioned by the promises of politicians and convinced 
that the political system is irreparably corrupt.
- - - - -
"Nearly two-thirds of adult U.S. citizens will stay away from the polls 
during the coming midterm elections, and they say they have given up on 
the political parties and a system that they say is beyond reform and 
repair…
A majority of those non-voters would like to see a third party or 
multiple parties."
As the Huffington Post notes: "The poll surveyed Americans who aren't 
registered to vote or who are registered but say they're unlikely to 
cast a ballot. Combined, the two groups include more than 100 million 
adults, the pollsters note."
68 percent of independent voters and party registered voters who say 
they are unlikely to vote this year agreed with the statement: "I don't 
pay much attention to politics because it is so corrupt." It's a marked 
increase over the 54 percent of respondents who agreed to this 
characterization of politics in the 2012 survey.
And 63 percent of respondents in these categories agreed or strongly 
agreed with the statement: "I don't pay much attention to politics 
because nothing ever gets done - it's a bunch of empty promises," which 
is also up from the 59 percent who said the same nearly six years ago.,,
Read more at: 
https://ivn.us/2018/04/26/usa-today-nearly-two-thirds-americans-given-up-political-parties/

[That's a year's worth of rain for Seattle]
*A 49-Inch Downpour in Hawaii Raises Alarm About Climate Costs Ahead* 
<https://www.climateliabilitynews.org/2018/05/03/hawaii-49-inches-rain-climate-change/>
A staggering rainstorm on the north shore of the Hawaiian island of 
Kauai is the latest clue that climate change-related impacts are already 
threatening the islands. On April 14 and 15, a gauge in Waiparecorded 49 
inches 
<https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=92081&src=twitter-iotd>of 
rain in 24 hours. For perspective, the rains from Hurricane Harvey, 
which inundated the Houston area withup to 60 inches last year 
<https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2018/01/25/580689546/harvey-the-most-significant-tropical-cyclone-rainfall-event-in-u-s-history>, 
occured over a four-day span.
The state is still assessing the full extent of damage, andGov. David 
Ige recently announced 
<https://governor.hawaii.gov/newsroom/latest-news/governor-ige-county-mayors-announce-assistance-for-kaua%CA%BBi-and-waimanalo-farmers/>a 
plan to help farmers who suffered losses during the storm. More than 220 
people had to be airlifted to safety by the Army and National Guard as a 
major road was blocked by landslides. A herd of bison was carried off by 
the flood waters, with some animals having to be rescued from the ocean.
A group within the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration that 
investigates extreme weather and climate events is analyzing the storm 
to  determine whether the storm broke the national record for the most 
rainfall within a 24-hour period.
Thecurrent 24-hour record 
<https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/extremes/ncec/records> is 43 inches, set in 
Alvin, Texas in 1979.
Setting a new record will be just the latest reminder that as the 
climate warms,  parts of Hawaii are already experiencing bigger 
torrential rains and will likely seemore frequent tropical cyclones 
<https://www.nature.com/articles/nclimate1890>. Pao-Shin Chu, Hawaii's 
state climatologist and a professor at the University of Hawaii, noted 
that his research showed that the Big Island has seen more frequent 
heavy rains in the past 50 years.
"If given a one degree C warming, the atmospheric moisture is expected 
to increase by 7 percent. With this additional moisture available in the 
air, it may help trigger heavy downpours if other conditions are right," 
Chu said by email.
But is not just heavy downpours and stronger hurricanes, Hawaii's 
Department of Land and Natural Resources published a report 
<https://climateadaptation.hawaii.gov/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/SLR-Report_Dec2017.pdf>last 
December that examined how sea level rise will affect its residents and 
economy.
The report estimated that rising seas could cost the state $19 billion 
in lost land and structures alone by the middle to second half of this 
century, with Oahu, the most populated island, the most vulnerable to 
damage. That figure doesn't include losses that result from flooded 
roads, utilities and other infrastructure. It also doesn't even begin to 
tackle the question of how much extreme weather will cost the state...
https://www.climateliabilitynews.org/2018/05/03/hawaii-49-inches-rain-climate-change/

*This Day in Climate History - May 8, 1989 
<http://www.nytimes.com/1989/05/08/us/scientist-says-budget-office-altered-his-testimony.html> 
- from D.R. Tucker*
May 8, 1989: The New York Times reports that the Office of Management 
and Budget in the George H. W. Bush administration altered NASA climate 
scientist James Hansen's upcoming Senate testimony to emphasize alleged 
uncertainties in climate science.
http://www.nytimes.com/1989/05/08/us/scientist-says-budget-office-altered-his-testimony.html

/-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
//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/20180508/cfe57bab/attachment.html>