[TheClimate.Vote] November 25, 2018 - Daily Global Warming News Digest

[Richard Pauli]

/November 25, 2018/

[audio NPR - Katherine Hayhoe's conclusion]
*New Climate Change Report Places Blame On Human Actions For Natural 
Disasters 
<https://www.npr.org/2018/11/24/670513629/new-climate-change-report-places-blame-on-human-actions-for-natural-disasters>* 

November 24, 2018 Heard on Weekend Edition Saturday
NPR's Scott Simon speaks with Katherine Hayhoe of the Climate Science 
Center at Texas Tech University about a new report showing that recent 
extreme natural events are due to climate change...

    SIMON: Is there something that gives you hope?

    HAYHOE: *I absolutely have to look for hope because without hope
    we're going to become a self-fulfilling prophecy of doom. And I
    don't find that hope in the science.* Every new study that comes out
    says that climate is changing faster or to a greater extent than we
    thought it seems. But I find hope in looking at what people are
    doing because people are acting. There are incredible things
    happening, from kids growing algae biofuels under their beds and
    winning science fair projects, to big companies like Walmart and
    Apple going with clean, renewable power over fossil fuels. The world
    is changing, and by sharing these stories of hope, we too can have
    hope, and that's how we're going to fix this thing.

https://www.npr.org/2018/11/24/670513629/new-climate-change-report-places-blame-on-human-actions-for-natural-disasters


[VOX written summary]
*3 big takeaways from the major new US climate report 
<https://www.vox.com/2018/11/24/18109883/climate-report-2018-national-assessment>*
Climate change is here, it's expensive, and it's deadly, according to a 
dire new report.
By Umair Irfan  Nov 24, 2018
Federal scientists have once again contradicted the White House in major 
new climate change assessment that was inauspiciously rushed to release 
the Friday after Thanksgiving. Their findings, however, should give even 
the Trump administration pause: Global warming could cause more harm to 
the US economy by 2100 than even the Great Recession did.

And the risks aren't just down the road. The 1,600-page report directly 
connects climate change to ongoing issues like declining water levels in 
the Colorado River Basin and the spread of ticks carrying Lyme disease, 
phenomena that are currently costing Americans resources and lives.

"The impacts and costs of climate change are already being felt in the 
United States, and changes in the likelihood or severity of some recent 
extreme weather events can now be attributed with increasingly higher 
confidence to human-caused warming," according to the new the report, 
the second volume of the fourth National Climate Assessment.
more at: 
https://www.vox.com/2018/11/24/18109883/climate-report-2018-national-assessment


[an excellent CBS 10 minute video summary - must see]
*Report reveals dire consequences of climate change 
<https://youtu.be/jt-2UxrjngM>*
CBS News
Published on Nov 23, 2018
A government report released Friday reveals the dire consequences of 
climate change. Jeff Berardelli, a CBS News climate and weather 
contributor, joined CBSN to discuss the report's findings.
https://youtu.be/jt-2UxrjngM
- - -
[PBS News Hour - 8 minutes]
*'It's happening, it's now,' says U.S. government report on climate 
change <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i0KigiiaieE>*
PBS NewsHour - Published on Nov 23, 2018
On Friday, the federal government released its most dramatic report yet 
on the effects of climate change. According to scientists, the country 
is already experiencing serious consequences from rising global 
temperatures, including more frequent and severe storms, fires and 
flooding. John Yang talks to Michael Oppenheimer, professor of 
geosciences and international affairs at Princeton University.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i0KigiiaieE


[Some real math lessons]
*The Mathematics of Climate Change 
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w4O4jK-lZrI>*
Gresham College - Published on Nov 22, 2018
Climate change is controversial and the subject of huge debate. Complex 
climate models based on maths helps us understand. How do these models work?
A lecture by Chris Budd OBE, Gresham Professor of Geometry 13 November 2018
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w4O4jK-lZrI


[from Peter Sinclair]
*Talking and Teaching about Climate 
<https://climatecrocks.com/2018/11/23/talking-and-teaching-about-climate/>*
November 23, 2018
from Yale Climate Connections: 
<https://www.yaleclimateconnections.org/2018/11/focus-on-those-with-an-open-mind/>
A confession. That cartoon where someone is hunched over the computer, 
unable to tear away from furious typing, because someone is wrong on the 
internet? That was me. Or at least it used to be.

As a lifelong scientist and educator, I simply could not let stand an 
idle comment about volcanoes emitting more CO2 than humans. Allowing 
misinformation to just sit there - uncorrected - was too much to bear. 
(And did you know that it would take three Mt. St. Helens eruptions plus 
one Mt. Pinatubo eruption every day to keep up with human emissions? 
See? I can't help myself.)

I've since calmed down a bit and learned to be more strategic in my 
climate change debunking efforts. In the age of bots, trolls, and 
sycophants, one has to pace oneself.

*The spectrum of 'persuadability'*
After several years of reading, responding to, and cataloging the 
discourse around climate change, I now see a pattern becoming clear: Not 
every person offering pushback is doing so for the same reason. Sure, 
some people are itching for a fight, but myriad others have genuine 
questions, hold only tentative beliefs, or are in-sync with the 
mainstream science but not inclined to do anything about it. Gauging 
someone else's underlying position can help focus one's attention on 
whether - and how - to engage.

*Uninformed but idle: Best bang for the buck? Motivate like-minded peers.*
It's a given that a certain fraction of the public will not change their 
minds, regardless of how much evidence piles up. A more productive angle 
is to engage those who are less certain - the three groups on the left 
side of the spectrum, between 9 and 12 o'clock.

"For climate communicators, the 'informed but idle' is arguably the most 
important group," says Skeptical Science founder John Cook, now a 
research assistant professor at George Mason University's Center for 
Climate Change Communication. "Pollsshow 51 percent of the U.S. 
population is alarmed or concerned about climate change, but most of 
them don't talk about climate change with their friends and family," 
Cook says. Give-and-take exchanges can make better headway when they 
simply skip the flame wars and serve as a sharing of views between 
peers. "Activating and empowering these groups is one of the most 
productive things we can do to achieve social momentum on climate 
change," Cook says.

Scott Mandia, who teaches climate science and meteorology at Suffolk 
County Community College in New York, is a champion for science 
communication and a co-founder of the Climate Science Legal Defense Fund 
to help scientists contend with organized efforts to undermine their work.

Mandia builds on Cook's idea: "A majority of Americans are on board with 
climate change or are willing to move in that direction," he says. "The 
key is to show them that urgency is needed because climate change is 
impacting us now. It is not only in the future."

*Uninformed: Reach out to the uninformed.*
Despite years of efforts to inform the public about climate change, some 
people still don't care enough to come to grips with the issue. Those 
are people climate change communicator Susan Joy Hassol would love to reach.

The head of the climate change outreach effort Climate Communication, a 
nonprofit that helps climate scientists broaden their audiences and 
engage them in the issue, Hassol helps scientists refine their messaging 
on climate change.

"Rather than trying to get people to care about what you think is 
important, identify what is important to them," advises Hassol. "Show 
them how climate change is affecting those things, here and now."

Hassol offers some examples, such as, "giving their kids the same 
benefits we had growing up (like cold-water trout fishing or skiing), or 
the economic vitality of their beach town, or whatever it is they care 
about."

Numerous public opinion surveys have found that environmental issues 
rank low among many people's priorities, which means they're not the 
best motivator in the first place. Mandia's advice: "Frame the 
conversation as a human issue and not an environmental issue. I use 
words such as choice and opportunity to frame the discussion as hopeful 
and not dismal." Mandia points out that peoples' health, their kids, and 
their wallets are more likely to resonate than "to show another polar 
bear or to paint the future as Mad Max."

While much news about the climate is discouraging, optimism still has a 
productive role to play. "Climate change … offers opportunities, 
especially if we act now," Mandia says. "The U.S. can dominate various 
new energy technologies only if we embrace them now and with support of 
the population and our leaders."

*Misinformed: Correct misinformation…politely.*
There may be no shortage of those deliberately spreading false 
information, but others may have unwittingly latched onto information 
that is simply incorrect. An easy way to tell the difference is to open 
the dialog with a question.

"Good communication is a conversation, rather than a lecture," Hassol says.

But be careful not to turn an opportunity to share good information into 
a needless fight. Acknowledge the value of the person's concerns, then 
offer a friendly, down-to-earth answer. Kudos for a response that 
revolves around a topic of real interest to your audience.

Hassol has advice on how to avoid preachiness when talking about climate 
change: "Seek out their questions and respond to them directly. If 
you're answering their questions, they will be listening. I often find 
the 'uninformed' have basic questions about what is causing warming and 
how we know for sure that it's human-induced."

After laying some careful groundwork, Hassol explains, it may be 
possible to venture into more complex terrain. "Once I answer those 
questions, they often ask, 'Why didn't I know this?' which opens the 
door for a discussion of the disinformation campaign that is intended to 
confuse and sow doubt."

In many conversations - whether online or face-to-face - bystanders may 
be observing the interplay. Not only are they listening to the content 
of the conversation, but also to the tone and the way people conduct 
themselves. Respectful, fact-based dialog may lead to a positive outcome 
for those on the edges of the conversation.

*Ideologue: Avoid trolls. Take a 'side door' with ideologues.*
Some people are resolutely immovable, but they may also take pleasure in 
hurling insults for each response they hear. That's a troll's raison 
d'etre. The way to deal with trolls is simple: ignore them and deprive 
them the attention they crave.

"For 'party-line followers' and 'ideologues,'" suggests Hassol, "rather 
than banging your head against a locked front door by starting out 
talking about global warming, use a side door, such as talking about the 
multiple benefits of clean energy, like jobs and economic growth."

"Remember, the atmosphere doesn't care what people believe, it responds 
to emissions," Hassol adds.

Mandia uses a similar strategy. "It may sound crazy coming from a 
scientist, but 'more science' is likely not going to help," he says. "I 
always look for ways to pivot to solutions and values - [that's] where 
the debate should be."

Cook acknowledges the allure of taking on hard-core contrarians: 
"Whenever I give talks, the most frequent question is 'How do you change 
a denier's mind?' I answer that our limited time and energy are better 
spent convincing the undecided majority, or activating the convinced."

Despite the urge to go head-on with an ideologue, doing so may cause 
more harm than good. "The odds of convincing someone who rejects the 
science of climate change are very slim - we can expend a great deal of 
energy which will most likely result in the person's doubling down on 
their science denial," Cook says.

*Be yourself*
An unfortunate consequence of our divisive political climate is the 
portrayal of an immovable chasm between people on opposite sides of 
issues. While that's certainly true in some cases, there is middle 
ground to be worked. Those keen to help move the needle of public 
opinion and engagement on climate change should look first toward peers 
and those who are open to change but not yet involved in the issue.
"Be yourself. Your peer group respects your values," advises Mandia. 
"Make it personal."
https://climatecrocks.com/2018/11/23/talking-and-teaching-about-climate/



*This Day in Climate History - November 25, 2006 
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/24/AR2006112401361_pf.html> 
- from D.R. Tucker*
November 25, 2006: The Washington Post reports:

    "While the political debate over global warming continues, top
    executives at many of the nation's largest energy companies have
    accepted the scientific consensus about climate change and see
    federal regulation to cut greenhouse gas emissions as inevitable.

    "The Democratic takeover of Congress makes it more likely that the
    federal government will attempt to regulate emissions. The companies
    have been hiring new lobbyists who they hope can help fashion a
    national approach that would avert a patchwork of state plans now in
    the works. They are also working to change some company practices in
    anticipation of the regulation."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/24/AR2006112401361_pf.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 
<mailto:contact at theclimate.vote> with subject subscribe, To Unsubscribe, 
subject: unsubscribe
Also you may subscribe/unsubscribe at 
https://pairlist10.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/theclimate.vote
Links and headlines assembled and curated by Richard Pauli for 
http://TheClimate.Vote <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.