[TheClimate.Vote] September 9, 2019 - Daily Global Warming News Digest..

[Richard Pauli]

/September 9, 2019/

[it's back - water 5 degrees warmer]
*Marine heatwave hits Pacific, raising fears of a new hot 'blob'*
Phenomenon could be as damaging as 'the blob' that caused algae blooms 
and killed sea lions several years ago
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/sep/08/pacific-ocean-marine-heatwave-blog
- -
A giant mass of warm water off the Pacific Coast could rival 'the blob' 
of 2014-15
https://www.latimes.com/environment/story/2019-09-05/second-blob-may-be-coming


[Amazon is the biggest]
*Amazon Employees Will Walk Out Over the Company's Climate Change Inaction*
The planned event will mark the first time in Amazon's 25-year history 
that workers at the company's Seattle headquarters have participated in 
a strike.
https://www.wired.com/story/amazon-walkout-climate-change/


[Water in regenerative agriculture]
*How much water is in my steak?!?*
Just Have a Think - video 13 min
Published on Sep 8, 2019
Water is not not something you expect to ooze out of your nice juicy 
rare rib eye. But the amount of water that goes into producing that slab 
of beef may surprise you. This week we take a look at how climate change 
and over consumption are conspiring to brew up a major problem that'll 
hit us sooner than we think.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UnOlB93bIho



Twitter presentation
https://twitter.com/Jumpsteady/status/1163728382963716096
- - -
Professor Will Steffen full lecture on YouTube:
*The Big U-Turn Ahead: Calling Australia to Action on Climate Change*
Published on Feb 11, 2019
This presentation by Professor Will Steffen was made at an event called 
'THE BIG U TURN AHEAD; Calling Australia to Action on Climate Change', 
held in Byron Bay, NSW on 27 June 2018.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OzQsjuzr3_M


[from Science News for Students]
*Today's global warming is unlike the last 2,000 years of climate shifts*
Previous cooldowns and warm-ups were regional and driven by natural forces
Carolyn Gramling
Sep 6, 2019

Temperatures across 98 percent of Earth's surface were hotter at the end 
of the 20th century than at any time in the previous 2,000 years.

Such nearly universal warming occurred in lockstep across the planet. 
And it is unique to this current era, scientists report. There were 
other well-known cold and warm snaps in the past. They include the 
Little Ice Age and the Medieval Warm Period. Some people have cited 
these episodes as evidence that modern warming is nothing out of the 
ordinary. But those past periods were only regional, not worldwide, new 
research shows.

Today's warming is truly global. And nothing like it has been seen in 
the past 2,000 years. What's more, temperatures are increasing now much 
faster than at any time in the last 2,000 years. These conclusions come 
from a trio of new papers. They examined temperature trends over the 
last 20 centuries years. The papers were published online July 24 in 
Nature and Nature Geoscience.
Scientists Say: Climate

Previous climate ups and downs were mainly driven by natural causes, 
such as powerful volcanic eruptions, the research shows. Modern warming 
is due to human-caused emissions of greenhouse gases. These mostly come 
from the burning of fossil fuels.

The findings are based on newly available global paleoclimate data. 
(Paleoclimate is another way of saying ancient climate.) They reinforce 
an inescapable conclusion, says Michael Mann. He is a climate scientist 
at Penn State University in State College, Penn. He was not involved in 
the new studies. "The current period of warmth is unprecedented in its 
global scope in the last 2,000 years," he says.
Data, data and more data

Raphael Neukom led the team behind the Nature study. He's a climate 
scientist at the University of Bern in Switzerland. His team started 
with many different types of temperature records from around the world.
Scientists Say: Stalactite and Stalagmite

Modern temp records usually are taken directly with a thermometer or 
other instrument. To get ancient records, a stand-in -- or proxy -- for 
temperature is needed. The new study used proxies derived from tree 
rings, glacier ice cores, and lake and ocean sediments. Other proxies 
came from cave deposits such as stalactites and stalagmites. There were 
other sources of data, too. These included records in historical 
documents. There were direct temperature measurements collected in some 
places since the 1800s. And there were also some climate simulations 
made using computers.

An international group of researchers, the PAGES 2k Consortium, combined 
all of these data. They produced more than 15,000 different climate 
reconstructions of the last 2,000 years of global temperatures. 
Specifically, they looked at A.D. 1 to 2000. Then, they took a close 
look at the precise timing of warming or cooling within four "climate 
epochs." The Roman Warm Period lasted from about A.D. 1 to 300. The Dark 
Ages Cold Period occurred from 400 to 800. The Medieval Warm Period 
happened from about 800 to 1200. And the Little Ice Age was from 1300 to 
1850.

The same datasets were put into the climate reproductions. But the team 
then used different methods to process the data and calculate past 
temperatures. Some methods were simple. Others were complex. Regardless 
of which was used, the story was the same, the researchers found. None 
of those past climate epochs were simultaneous, global events.

The Little Ice Age, for example, was a cold snap. It is thought to have 
lasted from roughly 1350 to 1850. But the deep freezes didn't occur 
everywhere at the same time, the new research shows. Northwestern Europe 
and southeastern North America got their coldest temps during the 17th 
century. Meanwhile, the central and eastern Pacific Ocean were coldest 
200 years earlier, during the 15th century, the team found.
a photo of Mount Tambora
A series of powerful volcanic eruptions, including the 1815 eruption of 
Mount Tambora (shown here), powered the end of the cold period known as 
the Little Ice Age, which spanned from about 1350 to 1850. Such climate 
fluctuations were once thought to span the entire globe but are now 
known to be regional.
JialiangGao/Wikimedia commons (CC BY-SA 3.0)

The Medieval Warm Period showed the warmest temps in northwestern Europe 
and eastern North America during the 11th century. But peak warmth 
occurred several hundred years later in central South America. And it 
was several hundred years earlier in the eastern and central Pacific Ocean.

"The traditional understanding is that these [climate epochs, like the 
Little Ice Age] were global-scale phenomena," says Nathan Steiger. He's 
a climate scientist at Columbia University in New York City. In fact, 
the data now show, "That's not the case."

This finding stands in stark contrast to the team's conclusions about 
the current era of warming. Today's warming is occurring concurrently 
around the globe. And the hottest temperatures in the study were found 
to be right at the end of the 20th century. "It is coherent in a way we 
didn't experience over the last 2,000 years," Steiger says.

Because the study's temperature data go only to 2000, the last two 
decades weren't included. But NASA and the National Oceanic and 
Atmospheric Administration reported in February that nine of the 10 
warmest years on record have occurred since 2005. Plus, the last five 
years were the five hottest on record. Human activities have been 
repeatedly cited by scientists as the cause of these ongoing 
record-breaking temps.

Steiger spoke at a news conference on July 22. He noted that the Nature 
study didn't specifically mention that the current warming is due to 
human activities. That was in part because so many previous studies have 
repeatedly and clearly shown that link. "We don't need to look at 
paleoclimate to know that."

A second study appeared in Nature Geoscience. It does address the 
question of modern warming more explicitly. That study was authored by 
Neukom and other members of the PAGES 2k Consortium. It used the same 
temperature proxies as the Nature study. The team looked at the average 
global temperature through time.

This revealed that the current rate of warming is much faster than 
anything observed in the last 2,000 years that can be attributed to 
natural variability. "It's another angle to look at the extraordinary 
nature of current warming," Neukom said at the news conference.
Volcanoes and greenhouse gases

A third study also appeared in Nature Geoscience. It added another layer 
of context to the trends. This study looked at what natural forces may 
have been behind large regional temperature ups and downs, such as the 
Little Ice Age.

This study was led by University of Bern climate scientist Stefan 
Bronnimann. In it, the researchers found that powerful volcanic 
eruptions were the main engine behind large-scale temperature changes in 
the past.

For instance, there were five powerful eruptions -- including the 1815 
eruption of Mount Tambora -- that occurred toward the end of the Little 
Ice Age. The eruptions initially led to cooling and climate upheaval. 
That was followed by a period of recovery. The planet warmed up again. 
That recovery coincides with the onset of the Industrial Revolution. 
That's when people began burning fossil fuels in large amounts. And it's 
when greenhouse gases became the primary driver for warming, the 
researchers note.

Mann notes that the studies' findings aren't exactly new ideas. In 1998, 
he and colleagues published a famous study in Nature. It's sometimes 
referred to as the "hockey stick" paper. It revealed a dramatic upward 
tick in temperatures at the end of the 20th century. This pattern, when 
plotted through time, takes the shape of a hockey stick. "It's 
gratifying that independent, international teams using entirely 
different approaches have come to virtually identical conclusions," Mann 
says.

Raymond Bradley is a climate scientist at the University of 
Massachusetts Amherst. He coauthored the hockey stick study. He also 
agrees with Mann. "In that paper, we were widely criticized for saying 
the last decade was the warmest in the last 1,000 years," he says. Now 
scientists can say that the last decade was the warmest in the last 
2,000 years.

Bradley adds that the new studies are a valuable addition to his and 
Mann's past research. "They've done everything right," he says of the 
PAGES 2k Consortium.

But the PAGES 2k database of temperature proxies still contains some 
glaring holes. They exist in places like tropical regions and the 
oceans. Such data won't change the underlying storyline. However, 
filling in the holes could help scientists see global temperature ups 
and downs even more clearly, Bradley says. Efforts to collect more 
temperature data from South America are already afoot. Researchers are 
looking in caves across Brazil and Argentina as well as at ancient trees 
in the Amazon forest. "That's exactly what's needed," Bradley says.
https://www.sciencenewsforstudents.org/article/todays-global-warming-unlike-last-2000-years-climate-shifts 



[3 min summary by authors]
*7 Climate Experts Each Give Three Minute Summation Of Current Climate 
Change Situation*
The Real Truth About Health
Published on Aug 18, 2019
7 Climate Experts Each Give Three Minute Summation Of Current Climate 
Change Situation with Mark Serreze, Danny Kennedy, James Hansen, Ph.D, 
Leah Parks, Janet Larsen, Katie Singer, Peter Carter, M.D.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r0yFqyXRhAw



[Science for scientists]
In Twitter, Michael Mann say he is
*troubled by some very misleading statements and claims made at this 
public-facing*
Using sound statistical methods, hurricane expert @JBElsner and 
collaborators have demonstrated a very clear, statistically-significant 
relationship between sea surface temperature and the intensity of the 
strongest storms (https://t.co/QLYm3KdLYX).
Michael E. Mann
‏Verified account @MichaelEMann
Sep 6
They find a roughly 7% increase in maximum hurricane intensity for each 
1C increase in sea surface temperature. Since destructive potential goes 
as the 3rd power of maximum wind speed, that corresponds to a roughly 
23% increase in destructive potential.
https://twitter.com/MichaelEMann/status/1170140378873376768
- - -
[from 2008]
*The increasing intensity of the strongest tropical cyclones*

We find significant upward trends for wind speed quantiles above the
70th percentile,... We note separate upward trends in the estimated
lifetime-maximum wind speeds of the very strongest tropical cyclones
(99th percentile) over each ocean basin, with the largest increase
at this quantile occurring over the North Atlantic,... Our results
are qualitatively consistent with the hypothesis that as the seas
warm, the ocean has more energy to convert to tropical cyclone wind.

https://www.nature.com/articles/nature07234


[huge shift - This should be a prologue for a greater essay]
Cultural Comment in the New Yorker
*What If We Stopped Pretending?*
The climate apocalypse is coming. To prepare for it, we need to admit 
that we can't prevent it.
By Jonathan Franzen
- - -
Today, the scientific evidence verges on irrefutable. If you're younger 
than sixty, you have a good chance of witnessing the radical 
destabilization of life on earth--massive crop failures, apocalyptic 
fires, imploding economies, epic flooding, hundreds of millions of 
refugees fleeing regions made uninhabitable by extreme heat or permanent 
drought. If you're under thirty, you're all but guaranteed to witness it.

If you care about the planet, and about the people and animals who live 
on it, there are two ways to think about this. You can keep on hoping 
that catastrophe is preventable, and feel ever more frustrated or 
enraged by the world's inaction. Or you can accept that disaster is 
coming, and begin to rethink what it means to have hope.

Even at this late date, expressions of unrealistic hope continue to 
abound...The facts have changed, but somehow the message stays the same.

Psychologically, this denial makes sense. Despite the outrageous fact 
that I'll soon be dead forever, I live in the present, not the future. 
Given a choice between an alarming abstraction (death) and the 
reassuring evidence of my senses (breakfast!), my mind prefers to focus 
on the latter. The planet, too, is still marvelously intact, still 
basically normal--seasons changing, another election year coming, new 
comedies on Netflix--and its impending collapse is even harder to wrap 
my mind around than death. Other kinds of apocalypse, whether religious 
or thermonuclear or asteroidal, at least have the binary neatness of 
dying: one moment the world is there, the next moment it's gone forever. 
Climate apocalypse, by contrast, is messy. It will take the form of 
increasingly severe crises compounding chaotically until civilization 
begins to fray. Things will get very bad, but maybe not too soon, and 
maybe not for everyone. Maybe not for me.

Some of the denial, however, is more willful. The evil of the Republican 
Party's position on climate science is well known, but denial is 
entrenched in progressive politics, too, or at least in its rhetoric. 
The Green New Deal, the blueprint for some of the most substantial 
proposals put forth on the issue, is still framed as our last chance to 
avert catastrophe and save the planet, by way of gargantuan 
renewable-energy projects. Many of the groups that support those 
proposals deploy the language of "stopping" climate change, or imply 
that there's still time to prevent it. Unlike the political right, the 
left prides itself on listening to climate scientists, who do indeed 
allow that catastrophe is theoretically avertable. But not everyone 
seems to be listening carefully. The stress falls on the word theoretically.

Our atmosphere and oceans can absorb only so much heat before climate 
change, intensified by various feedback loops, spins completely out of 
control. The consensus among scientists and policy-makers is that we'll 
pass this point of no return if the global mean temperature rises by 
more than two degrees Celsius (maybe a little more, but also maybe a 
little less). The I.P.C.C.--the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate 
Change--tells us that, to limit the rise to less than two degrees, we 
not only need to reverse the trend of the past three decades. We need to 
approach zero net emissions, globally, in the next three decades.

This is, to say the least, a tall order. It also assumes that you trust 
the I.P.C.C.'s calculations. New research, described last month in 
Scientific American, demonstrates that climate scientists, far from 
exaggerating the threat of climate change, have underestimated its pace 
and severity. To project the rise in the global mean temperature, 
scientists rely on complicated atmospheric modelling. They take a host 
of variables and run them through supercomputers to generate, say, ten 
thousand different simulations for the coming century, in order to make 
a "best" prediction of the rise in temperature. When a scientist 
predicts a rise of two degrees Celsius, she's merely naming a number 
about which she's very confident: the rise will be at least two degrees. 
The rise might, in fact, be far higher.
As a non-scientist, I do my own kind of modelling. I run various future 
scenarios through my brain, apply the constraints of human psychology 
and political reality, take note of the relentless rise in global energy 
consumption (thus far, the carbon savings provided by renewable energy 
have been more than offset by consumer demand), and count the scenarios 
in which collective action averts catastrophe. The scenarios, which I 
draw from the prescriptions of policy-makers and activists, share 
certain necessary conditions.

The first condition is that every one of the world's major polluting 
countries institute draconian conservation measures, shut down much of 
its energy and transportation infrastructure, and completely retool its 
economy. According to a recent paper in Nature, the carbon emissions 
from existing global infrastructure, if operated through its normal 
lifetime, will exceed our entire emissions "allowance"--the further 
gigatons of carbon that can be released without crossing the threshold 
of catastrophe. (This estimate does not include the thousands of new 
energy and transportation projects already planned or under 
construction.) To stay within that allowance, a top-down intervention 
needs to happen not only in every country but throughout every country. 
Making New York City a green utopia will not avail if Texans keep 
pumping oil and driving pickup trucks.
The actions taken by these countries must also be the right ones. Vast 
sums of government money must be spent without wasting it and without 
lining the wrong pockets. Here it's useful to recall the Kafkaesque joke 
of the European Union's biofuel mandate, which served to accelerate the 
deforestation of Indonesia for palm-oil plantations, and the American 
subsidy of ethanol fuel, which turned out to benefit no one but corn 
farmers.

Finally, overwhelming numbers of human beings, including millions of 
government-hating Americans, need to accept high taxes and severe 
curtailment of their familiar life styles without revolting. They must 
accept the reality of climate change and have faith in the extreme 
measures taken to combat it. They can't dismiss news they dislike as 
fake. They have to set aside nationalism and class and racial 
resentments. They have to make sacrifices for distant threatened nations 
and distant future generations. They have to be permanently terrified by 
hotter summers and more frequent natural disasters, rather than just 
getting used to them. Every day, instead of thinking about breakfast, 
they have to think about death.

Call me a pessimist or call me a humanist, but I don't see human nature 
fundamentally changing anytime soon. I can run ten thousand scenarios 
through my model, and in not one of them do I see the two-degree target 
being met.

To judge from recent opinion polls, which show that a majority of 
Americans (many of them Republican) are pessimistic about the planet's 
future, and from the success of a book like David Wallace-Wells's 
harrowing "The Uninhabitable Earth," which was released this year, I'm 
not alone in having reached this conclusion. But there continues to be a 
reluctance to broadcast it. Some climate activists argue that if we 
publicly admit that the problem can't be solved, it will discourage 
people from taking any ameliorative action at all. This seems to me not 
only a patronizing calculation but an ineffectual one, given how little 
progress we have to show for it to date. The activists who make it 
remind me of the religious leaders who fear that, without the promise of 
eternal salvation, people won't bother to behave well. In my experience, 
nonbelievers are no less loving of their neighbors than believers. And 
so I wonder what might happen if, instead of denying reality, we told 
ourselves the truth.

First of all, even if we can no longer hope to be saved from two degrees 
of warming, there's still a strong practical and ethical case for 
reducing carbon emissions. In the long run, it probably makes no 
difference how badly we overshoot two degrees; once the point of no 
return is passed, the world will become self-transforming. In the 
shorter term, however, half measures are better than no measures. 
Halfway cutting our emissions would make the immediate effects of 
warming somewhat less severe, and it would somewhat postpone the point 
of no return. The most terrifying thing about climate change is the 
speed at which it's advancing, the almost monthly shattering of 
temperature records. If collective action resulted in just one fewer 
devastating hurricane, just a few extra years of relative stability, it 
would be a goal worth pursuing.

In fact, it would be worth pursuing even if it had no effect at all. To 
fail to conserve a finite resource when conservation measures are 
available, to needlessly add carbon to the atmosphere when we know very 
well what carbon is doing to it, is simply wrong. Although the actions 
of one individual have zero effect on the climate, this doesn't mean 
that they're meaningless. Each of us has an ethical choice to make. 
During the Protestant Reformation, when "end times" was merely an idea, 
not the horribly concrete thing it is today, a key doctrinal question 
was whether you should perform good works because it will get you into 
Heaven, or whether you should perform them simply because they're 
good--because, while Heaven is a question mark, you know that this world 
would be better if everyone performed them. I can respect the planet, 
and care about the people with whom I share it, without believing that 
it will save me.

More than that, a false hope of salvation can be actively harmful. If 
you persist in believing that catastrophe can be averted, you commit 
yourself to tackling a problem so immense that it needs to be everyone's 
overriding priority forever. One result, weirdly, is a kind of 
complacency: by voting for green candidates, riding a bicycle to work, 
avoiding air travel, you might feel that you've done everything you can 
for the only thing worth doing. Whereas, if you accept the reality that 
the planet will soon overheat to the point of threatening civilization, 
there's a whole lot more you should be doing.

Our resources aren't infinite. Even if we invest much of them in a 
longest-shot gamble, reducing carbon emissions in the hope that it will 
save us, it's unwise to invest all of them. Every billion dollars spent 
on high-speed trains, which may or may not be suitable for North 
America, is a billion not banked for disaster preparedness, reparations 
to inundated countries, or future humanitarian relief. Every 
renewable-energy mega-project that destroys a living ecosystem--the 
"green" energy development now occurring in Kenya's national parks, the 
giant hydroelectric projects in Brazil, the construction of solar farms 
in open spaces, rather than in settled areas--erodes the resilience of a 
natural world already fighting for its life. Soil and water depletion, 
overuse of pesticides, the devastation of world fisheries--collective 
will is needed for these problems, too, and, unlike the problem of 
carbon, they're within our power to solve. As a bonus, many low-tech 
conservation actions (restoring forests, preserving grasslands, eating 
less meat) can reduce our carbon footprint as effectively as massive 
industrial changes.

All-out war on climate change made sense only as long as it was 
winnable. Once you accept that we've lost it, other kinds of action take 
on greater meaning. Preparing for fires and floods and refugees is a 
directly pertinent example. But the impending catastrophe heightens the 
urgency of almost any world-improving action. In times of increasing 
chaos, people seek protection in tribalism and armed force, rather than 
in the rule of law, and our best defense against this kind of dystopia 
is to maintain functioning democracies, functioning legal systems, 
functioning communities. In this respect, any movement toward a more 
just and civil society can now be considered a meaningful climate 
action. Securing fair elections is a climate action. Combatting extreme 
wealth inequality is a climate action. Shutting down the hate machines 
on social media is a climate action. Instituting humane immigration 
policy, advocating for racial and gender equality, promoting respect for 
laws and their enforcement, supporting a free and independent press, 
ridding the country of assault weapons--these are all meaningful climate 
actions. To survive rising temperatures, every system, whether of the 
natural world or of the human world, will need to be as strong and 
healthy as we can make it.

And then there's the matter of hope. If your hope for the future depends 
on a wildly optimistic scenario, what will you do ten years from now, 
when the scenario becomes unworkable even in theory? Give up on the 
planet entirely? To borrow from the advice of financial planners, I 
might suggest a more balanced portfolio of hopes, some of them 
longer-term, most of them shorter. It's fine to struggle against the 
constraints of human nature, hoping to mitigate the worst of what's to 
come, but it's just as important to fight smaller, more local battles 
that you have some realistic hope of winning. Keep doing the right thing 
for the planet, yes, but also keep trying to save what you love 
specifically--a community, an institution, a wild place, a species 
that's in trouble--and take heart in your small successes. Any good 
thing you do now is arguably a hedge against the hotter future, but the 
really meaningful thing is that it's good today. As long as you have 
something to love, you have something to hope for...
- - -
Jonathan Franzen is a frequent contributor to The New Yorker and the 
author of, most recently, the novel "Purity."
[more at:] - 
https://www.newyorker.com/culture/cultural-comment/what-if-we-stopped-pretending



[It's called Soylent Green, "it's people"and it's a 1974 movie, and was 
Edward G. Robinson's last]
*Swedish scientist advocates eating humans to combat climate change*
A scientist in Sweden makes a controversial presentation at a future of 
food conference.
PAUL RATNER - 08 September, 2019

-- A behavioral scientist from Sweden thinks cannibalism of corpses
will become necessary due to effects of climate change.
-- He made the controversial presentation to Swedish TV during a
"Future of Food" conference in Stockholm.
-- The scientist acknowledges the many taboos this idea would have
to overcome.

A behavioral scientist from Sweden thinks cannibalism of corpses will 
become necessary due to effects of climate change.
He made the controversial presentation to Swedish TV during a "Future of 
Food" conference in Stockholm.
The scientist acknowledges the many taboos this idea would have to overcome.

Is it Halloween already? A Swedish scientist has caused a stir by 
advocating that in order to stem the ill effects of climate changes, 
humans need to start eating each other. Of course, he's not calling for 
all-out cannibalism like it used to be practiced throughout history. 
Rather he thinks that if we just get over some very obvious taboos, we 
might consider eating human corpses.

While talking about the Gastro Summit focused on "food on the future" on 
Swedish TV, the behavioral scientist and marketing strategist Magnus 
Soderlund from the Stockholm School of Economics proposed that in order 
to truly take on the effects of climate change, we must "awake the idea" 
that eating human flesh should be discussed as an option in the future.

Soderlund used his tv interview on the State Swedish Television channel 
TV4 to give a powerpoint presentation entitled "Can you Imagine Eating 
Human Flesh?" It included such topics as "Is Cannibalism the solution to 
food sustainability in the future?" and "Are we humans too selfish to 
live sustainably?"

The scientist acknowledged the "conservative" taboos that exist from 
ancient times against consuming human flesh and sees that as the main 
impediment to the spread of this idea. On the other hand, Soderlund 
argued our future food sources would likely be getting more and more 
scarce. So people would have to think outside the box to get their 
sustenance, considering pets, insects like grasshoppers and worms. 
That's also where humans come in. The scientist thinks that if people 
were introduced to human flesh little by little, there'd be enough takers.

The resistance that humans have to overcome in order to consider other 
humans food is linked to selfishness, according to the scientist. But as 
an expert in behaviors, he thinks that people can ultimately be 
"tricked" into "making the right decisions".

Indeed, after Soderlund's presentation, 8% of the audience raised their 
hands when asked if they would be willing to try human flesh. The 
scientist himself is also open to "at least tasting it."

And if you're still not squeamish enough about this whole enterprise, 
there is a term to take out of this article, called "mannisko-kotts 
branschen". That means "the human flesh industry". Let's hope it's not 
really coming.
In the meantime, Soderlund plans to hold more seminars on his idea.
https://bigthink.com/surprising-science/swedish-scientist-eating-humans-climate-change
- - -
[Movie made in 1973 - set in the year 2022]
*Soylent Green movie review*
- - -
"Soylent Green's" real achievement is to create a 21st Century world 
that's convincing as reality; we somehow don't feel we're in a s-f 
picture. What director Fleischer and his technicians have done is to 
assume a very basic (and depressing) probability: that by the year 2022, 
New York will look essentially as it does now, only 49 years older and 
more run-down.
- - -
https://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/soylent-green-1973
- - -
[See the movie trailer]
Soylent Green (1973) Official Trailer - Charlton Heston, Edward G 
Robinson Movie HD
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=4&v=N_jGOKYHxaQ


*This Day in Climate History - September 9, 2005 - from D.R. Tucker*
September 9, 2005: At the National Sierra Club Convention in San 
Francisco, Al Gore declares:

"There are scientific warnings now of another onrushing catastrophe.
We were warned of an imminent attack by Al Qaeda; we didn't respond.
We were warned the levees would break in New Orleans; we didn't
respond. Now, the scientific community is warning us that the
average hurricane will continue to get stronger because of global
warming. A scientist at MIT has published a study well before this
tragedy showing that since the 1970s, hurricanes in both the
Atlantic and the Pacific have increased in duration, and in
intensity, by about 50%. The newscasters told us after Hurricane
Katrina went over the southern tip of Florida that there was a
particular danger for the Gulf Coast of the hurricanes becoming much
stronger because it was passing over unusually warm waters in the
gulf. The waters in the gulf have been unusually warm. The oceans
generally have been getting warmer. And the pattern is exactly
consistent with what scientists have predicted for twenty years. Two
thousand scientists, in a hundred countries, engaged in the most
elaborate, well organized scientific collaboration in the history of
humankind, have produced long-since a consensus that we will face a
string of terrible catastrophes unless we act to prepare ourselves
and deal with the underlying causes of global warming. It is
important to learn the lessons of what happens when scientific
evidence and clear authoritative warnings are ignored in order to
induce our leaders not to do it again and not to ignore the
scientists again and not to leave us unprotected in the face of
those threats that are facing us right now."

http://web.archive.org/web/20050924210135/http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0912-32.htm
/-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------/

/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.