[TheClimate.Vote] October 25 , 2019 - Daily Global Warming News Digest

[Richard Pauli]

/October 25, 2019/

[from The Hill]
*Climate change is top priority for young voters: study*
A report from the Cause and Social Influence Initiative found that 
climate change was the top issue for 34 percent of members of Generation 
Z and 27 percent of millennials surveyed...
A CNN poll found it was a top issue for Democratic voters, while polling 
from the Sierra Club found 62 percent of voters said climate change 
plans would be an important factor in who they decided to vote for.
https://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/467205-study-climate-change-is-top-priority-for-young-voters



[Important conclusion]
Opinion Climate change
*The real reason some scientists downplay the risks of climate change*
Climate deniers often accuse scientists of exaggerating the threats 
associated with the climate crisis, but if anything they're often too 
conservative
Dale Jamieson, Michael Oppenheimer and Naomi Oreskes
Fri 25 Oct 2019
- - -
Knowing this, what do we do?
To scientists, we suggest that you should not view consensus as a goal. 
Consensus is an emergent property, something that may come forth as the 
result of scientific work, discussion and debate. When that occurs, it 
is important to articulate the consensus as clearly and specifically as 
possible. But where there are substantive differences of opinion, they 
should be acknowledged and the reasons for them explained. Scientific 
communities should also be open to experimenting with alternative models 
for making and expressing group judgments, and to learning more about 
how policy makers actually interpret the findings that result. Such 
approaches may contribute to assessments being more useful tools as we 
face the reality of adapting to the climate crisis and the disruptions 
that will occur.

For political leaders and business people, we think it is important for 
you to know that it is extremely unlikely that scientists are 
exaggerating the threat of the climate crisis. It is far more likely 
that things are worse than scientists have said. We have already seen 
that the impacts of increased greenhouse gases in the atmosphere are 
unfolding more rapidly than scientists predicted. There is a high 
likelihood that they will continue to do so, and that the IPCC estimates 
– that emissions must be rapidly reduced, if not entirely eliminated, by 
2050 - may well be optimistic. The fact that this conclusion is hard to 
swallow does not make it untrue.

And for ordinary citizens, it is important to recognize that scientists 
have done their job. It is now up to us to force our leaders to act upon 
what we know, before it is too late.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/oct/25/the-real-reason-some-scientists-downplay-the-risks-of-climate-change



[by the year 2050]
*Stopping Global Warming Will Cost $50 Trillion: Morgan Stanley Report*
Big numbers: Morgan Stanley recommended a basket of stocks in each area 
of zero-carbon tech that could profit from increased climate change 
spending:

    For renewables, companies like SunPower, General Electric and
    Huaneng Renewables are some of the bank's top picks.
    Within the electric vehicles space, Tesla is the "only pure
    play"--though they should be followed by VW and Toyota in the long
    run, while other companies like Panasonic and Albemarle are among
    the leading players in lithium technology and supply.
    In carbon capture and storage tech, Morgan Stanley highlights Bloom
    Energy, Exxon, Chevron and BP, among others.
    For hydrogen, companies to watch include Air Liquide, Siemens and
    Alstom.
    In the biofuels sphere, corporations like Neste, Sao Martinho, Shell
    and Valero Energy are all well-positioned.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/sergeiklebnikov/2019/10/24/stopping-global-warming-will-cost-50-trillion-morgan-stanley-report/#407931bb51e2
- - -
[TIME magazine found a better deal]
*These U.N. Climate Scientists Think They Can Halt Global Warming for 
$300 Billion. Here's How*
The heart of the idea is to tackle the growing problem of 
desertification -- the degradation of dry land to the point where it can 
support little life...
https://time.com/5709100/halt-climate-change-300-billion/



[Paleo-oceanography, Dr. Andrea Dutton's research contributes to a 
larger picture of the effects of greenhouse gases on global temperatures 
and subsequent sea-level rise.]
*UW Scientist wins grant to further research in climate change*
By Lindsey Matthiesen | October 24, 2019
Dr. Andrea Dutton, a research scientist at UW-Madison, received the 
"Genius Grant" to continue her research on constructing sea levels from 
125,000 years ago. The motivation behind her research is to showcase the 
effects of rising sea levels on communities and educate the public on 
environmental changes as a result of global warming.

In order to understand past sea-levels, Dutton analyzes limestone rocks 
and fossilized coral. Coral is hugely advantageous in terms of studying 
sea-level changes, as she describes in her "Reframing Sea Level Rise" 
Ted talk. By analyzing coral fossils, she learned that sea levels during 
the penultimate interglacial period were 20-30 feet higher than they are 
now.

Since she recently transferred to UW-Madison from the University of 
Florida, most of her research is on climate change in Florida. Her 
research led her to become concerned about the mid-Atlantic and 
southeast portions of the country in terms of sea-level rise, as those 
areas have seen particularly high increases.

Dutton was recently awarded the MacArthur Fellowship -- more 
colloquially known as the "Genius Grant" -- for her work in answering 
essential questions concerning climate change. Most centrally, answering 
questions concerning how much sea levels will rise.

Cecilia Conrad, the leader of the MacArthur Fellowship, explained that 
climate change scientists were specifically chosen to receive the grants 
in order to express the urgency the scientific community feels regarding 
the pertinence of climate change.

The $625,000 awarded will go towards further researching and prompting 
public concern. The scientific community as a whole does not feel like 
the world -- in particular, countries that release a large amount of 
carbon into the atmosphere - is doing enough to combat the issue. Dutton 
herself argued in a CNN article that "policies that curb greenhouse gas 
emissions can have a strong effect on future sea-level rise."

Dutton has been cited by CNN, The Washington Post and The New York 
Times. She also wrote for publications such as The Hill and Science Daily.

Her work alarms the scientific community because it provides evidence 
that when the average temperature of the earth was only a few degrees 
warmer than it is now, the oceans rose 20 to 30 feet.

If that were to happen today, many large coastal cities -- such as New 
York and Miami -- would be flooded entirely.

Dutton's data raises even more questions, prompting her to continue 
research. In an interview for InsideClimate News she is unsure how 
quickly the sea will rise, but she knows the rate ice is currently 
melting increased over the past few years.

Dutton's current focus is on educating the public about the effects of 
climate change, explaining that the issue is undeniable.

She is cited in articles discussing the 2019 IPCC report released by the 
United Nations.

The report states with "very high confidence" that greenhouse gases are 
causing the Antarctic ice sheet to melt faster than was originally 
predicted, leading to a potential "sea-level rise of several meters," 
which will cause "irreversible ice sheet instability."

The consensus among scientists is that greenhouse gas emissions are the 
primary cause of global temperature rise and subsequent melting of the 
ice caps. As the temperature rises, the oceans get warmer. Sea levels 
rise as a result of this process, as well as from the melting of the ice 
caps.

According to World Ocean Review, more than one billion people live in 
low-lying coastal regions. The immense economic and humanitarian impact 
rising sea levels could have is incalculable.
https://www.dailycardinal.com/article/2019/10/0irmm1tktmuf4ar
- - -
[Superb video 60 mins]
*Evenings at Whitney, April 2019, Dr. Andrea Dutton*
May 6, 2019
Whitney Laboratory For Marine Bioscience
123 subscribers
A Deep Dive into the Past, Present and Future of Sea-Level Rise Along 
the Florida Coast
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E3KdM1hGKkk


[Yale lecture]
*Lecture 10: Money in Politics*
Oct 24, 2019
YaleCourses
In this lecture, Professor Shapiro discusses supply of and demand for 
money in politics. He provides an overview of myths and realities on 
courts in American politics, discusses the first amendment since Buckley 
v. Valeo, the importance of the changing media context, and finally the 
demand for money in an area of weak parties.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IRsOEb2-MtE
- - -
[a related news story]
*FACEBOOK: MISLEADING POLITICAL ADS ARE IMPORTANT "DISCOURSE"*
Facebook's chief operating officer, Sheryl Sandberg, says that dishonest 
advertisements political candidates put on Facebook should stay there 
because they represent important discourse.

"We're not doing this for the money," Sandberg said during a Vanity Fair 
summit on Tuesday, according to Gizmodo. "We take political ads because 
we really believe they are part of political discourse," she added.

It's a troubling -- and likely disingenuous -- argument from a leader of 
one of the largest social media platforms in the world.
The line of questioning was based on recent reports that Facebook won't 
take down political ads that are demonstrably false.

Sandberg's talking points on the matter, however, largely serve to 
illustrate how little Facebook wants to deal with misinformation shared 
on its platform.
Sandberg told the crowd that Facebook's political ad system lets 
candidates spread their messages even if the media doesn't cover them.

"If you look at this over time, the people who have the most benefited 
from being able to run ads are people who are not covered by the media 
so they can't get their message out," she said.

And if they're flat-out lying? Well, that's "the price of free speech," 
Sandberg said.
https://futurism.com/the-byte/facebook-misleading-political-ads-discourse


[The Climate Science Legal Defense Fund (CSLDF) protects the scientific 
endeavor by providing support and resources to scientists who are 
threatened, harassed or attacked for doing their jobs]
*Here's How Science Has Suffered During the First 1,000 Days of Trump*
OCTOBER 17, 2019
One thousand days into the Trump administration, the federal government 
has attacked science 249 times--or roughly once every four days since 
the November 2016 elections.

The administration's assault on science includes attempting to cast 
doubt on climate change, limiting and eliminating access to scientific 
information, and preventing federal scientists from publicly 
communicating their research.

In the Silencing Science Tracker, a public database we maintain with 
Columbia Law School's Sabin Center for Climate Change Law, we catalog 
government efforts to restrict, censor, undermine, and misrepresent 
science. We've defined these actions as those that aim to restrict or 
prohibit scientific research, education, or discussion, or the 
publication or use of scientific information.

Our analysis of Tracker data reveals where and how the Trump 
administration is focusing its efforts to silence science. The largest 
number of entries pertain to actions taken at the Environmental 
Protection Agency (EPA), constituting 24 percent of federal entries and 
the Department of Interior (DOI) at 19 percent.

But other agencies are not immune to attacks on science. The Department 
of Health and Human Services (HHS), Department of Agriculture (USDA), 
and Department of Commerce (DOC)--the parent agency of the National 
Oceanographic and Atmospheric Agency (NOAA)--are also well-represented 
in the Tracker.

This is a continuation of the trend we reported in January 2019, with 
different agencies represented at roughly the same rates as they were 
earlier in the year. It is worth noting actions to silence science are 
increasingly spread across a variety of smaller agencies or agencies 
typically less focused on scientific research, such as the Department of 
Transportation and the Federal Communications Commission.

Climate science also remains the type of science most under attack, at 
72 percent of Tracker entries. Other types of science affected include 
nutrition research, children's health research, and endangered species 
listings.

What's new is that the types of government efforts to silence science 
have shifted considerably since the beginning of 2019. Reports of 
government censorship have risen to 39 percent of all entries, up from 
26 percent in January. In fact, 65 percent of entries over the past 
three months--or 13 out of 20 entries--involve government censorship.

Reports of self-censorship have also risen to 7 percent, up from 5 
percent. Reports of research hindrance and budget cuts have also each 
risen slightly since January; comparatively, personnel changes and bias 
and misrepresentation have fallen as a percentage of total entries.

The reasons for these shifts are not clear but we believe, as others 
have observed, federal treatment of science and research has reached a 
"crisis point."

While all administrations are guilty of politicizing science to some 
degree, government attempts to silence science now happen more 
frequently and egregiously than ever, from the doctoring of hurricane 
maps to broadly dismantling federal scientific advisory boards.

The impacts of government attacks on science are dire and concerning. 
Public health is endangered when scientists are prohibited from speaking 
to the public; environmental resources are imperiled when scientific 
research is ignored, and sound policymaking is jeopardized when access 
to data is restricted.

If you're a scientist who has experienced or witnessed attempts to 
silence science, or if you have legal questions related to your work, 
please contact us to arrange a free, confidential consultation with one 
of our attorneys.
https://www.csldf.org/2019/10/17/heres-how-science-has-suffered-during-the-first-1000-days-of-trump/

*
*

*This Day in Climate History - October 25, 2014- from D.R. Tucker*

The New York Times reports:

    "While politicians are increasingly willing to include environmental
    messages in their campaigns, many at the national level still steer
    clear of the politically charged topic of climate change. But in
    communities across the country where the effects are lapping at the
    doorsteps of residents, pragmatism often trumps politics, and
    candidates as well as elected officials across the political
    spectrum are embracing the issue.

    "Some local Republican officials in Florida and elsewhere say they
    can no longer follow the lead of state and national party leaders
    like Senator Marco Rubio and Gov. Rick Scott, who have publicly
    questioned whether human activity has had an effect on climate
    change. (Though both have recently taken a more vague 'I’m not a
    scientist' stance.) The Center for American Progress Action Fund, a
    left-leaning advocacy group in Washington, tracks the statements of
    American political figures on climate change and reports that more
    than 58 percent of Republicans in Congress have denied a link
    between human activity and global warming.

    "But in the Florida Keys, George Neugent, a Republican county
    commissioner, said that while people might disagree about what to do
    about climate change, the effects of flooding and hurricanes were
    less ambiguous. 'Clearly rising tides are going to affect us,' he said."

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/25/science/pragmatism-on-climate-change-trumps-politics-at-local-level-across-us.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.