[TheClimate.Vote] May 26, 2020 - Daily Global Warming News Digest

[Richard Pauli]

/*May 26, 2020*/

[Map of heatwave]
*Red alert for northern Siberia as heat shocks threaten life on tundra*
New temperature maps for the endless stretches of Russian Arctic lands 
bear witness of unprecedented warming.
https://thebarentsobserver.com/sites/default/files/temperature.jan-april2020.jpg
https://thebarentsobserver.com/en/arctic-ecology/2020/05/red-alert-northern-siberia-heat-shocks-threaten-life-tundra


[disinformation wars]
*Michael Moore film Planet of the Humans removed from YouTube*
British environmental photographer's copyright claim prompts website to 
remove film that has been condemned by climate scientists

Jonathan Watts - Mon 25 May 2020

YouTube has taken down the controversial Michael Moore-produced 
documentary Planet of the Humans in response to a copyright infringement 
claim by a British environmental photographer.

The movie, which has been condemned as inaccurate and misleading by 
climate scientists and activists, allegedly includes a clip used without 
the permission of the owner Toby Smith, who does not approve of the 
context in which his material is being used.

In response, the filmmakers denied violating fair usage rules and 
accused their critics of politically motivated censorship.

Smith filed the complaint to YouTube on 23 May after discovering Planet 
of the Humans used several seconds of footage from his Rare Earthenware 
project detailing the journey of rare earth minerals from Inner Mongolia.

Smith, who has previously worked on energy and environmental issues, 
said he did not want his work associated with something he disagreed 
with. "I went directly to YouTube rather than approaching the filmmakers 
because I wasn't interested in negotiation. I don't support the 
documentary, I don't agree with its message and I don't like the 
misleading use of facts in its narrative."

Planet of the Humans director Jeff Gibbs said he was working with 
YouTube to resolve the issue and have the film back up as soon as possible.

He said in a statement: "This attempt to take down our film and prevent 
the public from seeing it is a blatant act of censorship by political 
critics of Planet of the Humans. It is a misuse of copyright law to shut 
down a film that has opened a serious conversation about how parts of 
the environmental movement have gotten into bed with Wall Street and 
so-called "green capitalists." There is absolutely no copyright 
violation in my film. This is just another attempt by the film's 
opponents to subvert the right to free speech."
Planet of the Humans, which has been seen by more than 8 million people 
since it was launched online last month, describes itself as a 
"full-frontal assault" on the sacred cows of the environmental movement.

Veteran climate campaigners and thinkers, such as Bill McKibben and 
George Monbiot, have pointed out factual errors, outdated footage and 
promotion of myths about renewable energy propagated by the fossil fuel 
industry. Many are dismayed that Moore - who built his reputation as a 
left-wing filmmaker and supporter of civil rights - should produce a 
work endorsed by climate sceptics and right-wing thinktanks.

Several have signed a letter urging the removal of what they called a 
"shockingly misleading and absurd" documentary. Climate scientist 
Michael Mann said the filmmakers "have done a grave disservice to us and 
the planet" with distortions, half-truths and lies.

On Moore's official YouTube channel, the usual link to the film has been 
replaced by a page noting "Video unavailable. This video is no longer 
available due to a copyright claim by a third party." On the Planet of 
the Humans website, the link to the full movie is also dead, though the 
trailers and other video material are functioning as normal.
https://www.theguardian.com/film/2020/may/26/michael-moore-film-planet-of-the-humans-removed-from-youtube



[North West of Washington State]
*How the Blob Is Warming British Columbia's Fjords*
Waters are warming faster than the global average.
by Nicola Jones
May 25, 2020
For those who have braved swimming in British Columbia's spectacular, 
glacier-fed fjords, "warm" is probably not a word that springs to mind. 
But at least four of British Columbia's fjords are real hotspots for 
climate change. Since the 1950s, they've warmed up to six times faster 
than the rest of the ocean, according to new data.

Oceanographer Jennifer Jackson of the Hakai Institute* is preparing the 
data for publication and has been presenting it in a lecture tour for 
the Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society that started this 
January.

One cause of the rampant warming is a marine heatwave known as the Blob 
that hit the northeast Pacific starting in 2013. About 3 ˚C warmer than 
usual, this patch of water stretched all the way from Alaska to 
California. No one knows exactly what caused the Blob to form, though it 
had something to do with higher air pressures, lower winds, and calm 
conditions that didn't mix and cool waters as usual. Climate change is 
making marine heatwaves like the Blob more likely and more frequent.

In 2016, researchers declared the Blob dead. But the data Jackson 
analyzed suggests this was premature. The Blob actually sank, she says: 
the mass of warm water dropped more than a hundred meters below the 
surface. At depth, the warmth of the Blob lingered until at least March 
2018. And that deep, warm water has seeped into the fjords.

Jackson has data from four of the more than 50 fjords that cut into the 
BC mainland. These four--Rivers Inlet, Knight Inlet, Bute Inlet, and 
Douglas Channel (see map)--are among the best-studied fjords in the 
world. From 1951 to 2019, the deep water (at a depth of more than 200 
meters) warmed by around 0.18 ˚C per decade, a rate six times higher 
than the global average for water at that depth.
https://www.hakaimagazine.com/wp-content/uploads/map-tale-4-fjords.png
Unfortunately, that accumulated heat is unlikely to go away anytime 
soon. Though winter storms typically cause water to mix, which brings 
the heat trapped in deeper water up to the surface, the warm masses in 
these fjords are lurking too deep for storms to reach, Jackson says. 
This is bad news for the salmon that swim through the fjords because it 
means their food supply may shift to smaller, less nutritious 
zooplankton that thrive in warmer water. "Those are like junk food for 
salmon," she says.

Warm waters are a challenge for salmon off the BC coast, confirms 
William Cheung, a marine ecologist at the University of British 
Columbia; they can't tolerate too much heat, he says. Cheung's recent 
modeling work shows that in a marine heatwave year, the mass of sockeye 
salmon off the coast of Alaska and British Columbia is expected to 
decline by 10 percent.

Jackson says forces other than marine heatwaves are making life 
difficult for salmon. She has as-yet unpublished data showing that some 
of these fjords also suffer from having layers of water with basically 
no oxygen, probably because of spring algae blooms. "Some of it is 
really alarming," says Jackson.

Fjords around the world are vulnerable to the effects of climate change 
given their intimate connections to the ocean, their long fingers 
inland, and the glaciers at their heads. In Greenland, for example, 
melting ice has made fjord water much fresher, creating a cap that 
prevents deep water from being refreshed. In Patagonia, an increase in 
organic matter flowing down rivers into fjords seems to have lowered the 
oxygen content in the water. In British Columbia, the Blob added a 
particular twist to the tale.

In the summer of 2019, researchers noted another "blob" off the west 
coast. It was actually even warmer than the Blob, though the warm layer 
was relatively thin and didn't last nearly as long, says climatologist 
Nick Bond of the University of Washington.

Bond, who gave the warming phenomenon its nickname, says he suspects 
we'll be seeing a lot more marine heatwaves like the Blob in the future. 
Bond applauds Jackson's team for keeping tabs on what's going on at 
depth because while changes in ocean surface temperatures are easier to 
spot, he says, "the deeper effects can last longer."
https://www.hakaimagazine.com/news/how-the-blob-is-warming-british-columbias-fjords/ 




[Paul Beckwith video]
*World Meteorological Organization (WMO) Report: The Global Climate in 
2015 - 2019*
May 25, 2020
Paul Beckwith
Recently the World Meteorological Organization published their 5 year 
update: "The Global Climate in 2015 - 2019", comparing this period with 
the previous 5 year period and historical records. Clearly, key climate 
change elements including greenhouse gas levels, atmospheric and ocean 
temperatures, Greenland, Antarctica, and alpine glacier ice mass loss, 
heatwaves, droughts, wildfires and extreme events including tropical 
cyclones, floods, tornadoes, etc. are rapidly worsening. I chat on the 
main findings of this report by focusing on the figures, both in this 
video and the next.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gzdxUH3gEhY
- -
[Source matter Press Release]
*Global Climate in 2015-2019: Climate change accelerates*
https://public.wmo.int/en/media/press-release/global-climate-2015-2019-climate-change-accelerates 




[Classic rants]
*Can meaningful hope spring from revealing the depth of our climate 
failure? Kevin Anderson*
Jan 29, 2020
Extinction Rebellion
Peel away the layers of dangerously naïve hope and unfounded optimism 
and the mitigation challenge posed by the Paris Agreement now demands 
the rapid and profound re-shaping of contemporary society. Whilst the 
models dominating the mitigation agenda employ evermore exotic and 
speculative technologies to remain 'politically palatable', the 
arithmetic of emissions increasingly embeds equity at the heart of any 
mathematically cogent strategy. Dress it up however we may like, the 
Parisian mitigation agenda is ultimately a rationing issue. Until we are 
prepared to acknowledge this, we will continue our reckless pathway 
towards a 3-5°C future.

Against such a depressing backdrop, do the rapid emergence of new and 
vociferous constituencies and the heightened profile of climate change 
suggest early cracks and the prospect of new light?

Professor Kevin Anderson - University of Manchester (UK) and Uppsala 
University (Sweden) - speaking at St. Mary's Church Welcome Centre 
Walthamstow hosted by XR Waltham Forest. Tuesday 21st January 2020.
- - -
*Kevin Anderson discusses negative emissions at UNFCCC*
Nov 21, 2017
Nick Breeze
Find more on http://climateseries.com & http://envisionation.co.uk
Youba Sokona (Chair), University College London, UK and South Centre, 
Switzerland
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UqjRk8pDnzY



[a mystery of glacier science]
*Say Hello to 'Glacier Mice,' a Herd of Mysterious Moving Moss Balls*
In some places around the world, you can find bright green balls of moss 
scattered across glaciers. That picture is incredible all by itself, but 
what is truly mind-boggling is that this colony of moss balls moves. All 
at about the same speeds and in the same directions.

The glacier moss balls are commonly referred to as "glacier mice," and 
were the subject of a recent study published online in Polar Biology 
this month. According to a report from NPR, each ball resembles a soft, 
wet and squishy pillow of moss. The study's authors believe that they 
develop from impurities on ice surfaces and represent a relatively rare 
phenomenon.

One of the authors, Tim Bartholomaus, a glaciologist at the University 
of Idaho, told NPR that he remembered thinking, "What the heck is this!" 
when he first stumbled upon the mice in 2006 around the Root Glacier in 
Alaska.

"They're not attached to anything and they're just resting there on 
ice," Bartholomaus said. "They're bright green in a world of white."
They don't stay at rest for long, though. Bartholomaus said that the 
glacier moss balls in the study moved about an inch per day on average. 
Sophie Gilbert, a wildlife ecologist at the University of Idaho and 
another one of the study's coauthors, noted that movement is a necessity 
for the glacier moss balls because the entire surface of the ball must 
periodically get exposed to the sun.

"These things must actually roll around or else that moss on the bottom 
would die," Gilbert said.

If you're like me and also wanted to see these mice moving, you can 
check out a video of glacier mice from the Root Glacier below. The video 
is not related to the study but is still very cool to watch. It also 
shows glacier mice in some pretty funny (and inappropriate) positions. 
Make your own conclusions.
Glacier mice aren't new and have been spotted in Alaska, Iceland, 
Svalbard and South America. Scientists have known about them since at 
least the 1950s. However, despite knowing that these mysterious glacier 
moss balls exist, scientists still have a lot to learn about them.

One of the biggest questions is why the mice, which can live for at 
least six years, move the way they do. Some scientists believed the key 
could be in ice pedestals, which could form because the ball protects 
the ice underneath it and prevents it from melting as fast as the 
surrounding ice. According to this theory, the ball would eventually 
fall off the ice pedestal and roll away.

To try to get to the bottom of this, the researchers decided to track 30 
glacier moss balls in Alaska and tagged each ball with a small loop of 
wire with colored beads. Per NPR, they tracked the location of each ball 
for 54 days in 2009 and then returned to check on them in 2010, 2011 and 
2012. Although they expected that the balls would be in random places 
from rolling off ice pedestals, this was not the case.
The glacier moss balls moved together. Bartholomaus compared this to a 
herd of wildebeest stampeding the Serengeti, a school of fish, or a 
flock of birds. The researchers tried to explain this strange finding in 
many ways. First, they thought the balls had rolled downhill, but later 
found that they weren't going down a slope. Then, they thought the wind 
was blowing them in consistent directions. But when they measured the 
dominant direction of the wind, that didn't explain it either.

And finally, they considered the sun, which melts the ice and makes the 
glacier moss balls move, but the direction of incoming solar radiation 
didn't align with the direction the balls were going in. The researchers 
still don't know why the glacier moss balls move the way they do.

"It's always kind of exciting, though, when things don't comply with 
your hypothesis, with the way you think things work," Gilbert said.

Bartholomaus said that he hopes that one day, future generations will 
"get to the bottom of these great mysteries." As for him, he's eager to 
know why glacier moss balls move in herd motions and how old they are
https://earther.gizmodo.com/say-hello-to-glacier-mice-a-herd-of-mysterious-moving-1843646913
- - -
[source material]
*Rolling stones gather moss: movement and longevity of moss balls on an 
Alaskan glacier*
Scott Hotaling, Timothy C.Bartholomaus, Sophie L. Gilbert
29 April 2020  Springer Nature
*Abstract*
Glaciers support diverse ecosystems that are largely comprised of 
microbial life. However, at larger, macroscopic scales, glacier moss 
balls (sometimes called "glacier mice") can develop from impurities on 
ice surfaces and represent a relatively rare biological phenomenon. 
These ovoid-shaped conglomerations of dirt and moss are only found on 
some glacier surfaces and provide key habitats for invertebrate 
colonization. Yet, despite their development and presence being widely 
reported, no studies of their movement and persistence across years have 
been conducted. This knowledge gap is particularly important when 
considering the degree to which glacier moss balls may represent viable, 
long-term biotic habitats on glaciers, perhaps complete with their own 
ecological succession dynamics. Here, we describe the movement and 
persistence of glacier moss balls on the Root Glacier in southcentral 
Alaska, USA. We show that glacier moss balls move an average of 2.5 cm 
per day in herd-like fashion initially to the south and later towards 
the southwest, and their movements are positively correlated with 
glacier ablation. Surprisingly, the dominant moss ball movement 
direction does not align with the prevailing wind or downslope 
directions, nor with the dominant direction of solar radiation. After 
attaining a mature size, glacier moss balls persist for many years, 
likely in excess of years. Finally, we observed moss ball formation on 
the Root Glacier to occur within a narrow, low albedo stripe downwind of 
a nunatak, a potential key source of moss spores and/or fine-grained 
sedi-ment that interact to promote their formation..
- -
*Conclusion *
In this study, we extended previous research on glacier moss balls to 
quantify their movement and persistence on an Alaskan glacier. We showed 
that glacier moss balls move relatively quickly, at a rate of 
centimeters per day, in herdlike fashion. However, we could not explain 
the direction of moss ball movement by considering the physical surface 
of the glacier (i.e., the downslope direction), the intensity of glacier 
ice ablation, and patterns of solar radiation. Thus, it appears a still 
unknown external force influences glacier moss ball movement on the Root 
Glacier.
https://link.springer.com/epdf/10.1007/s00300-020-02675-6?sharing_token=HN75pdcTvlF-_qsfv-ejJPe4RwlQNchNByi7wbcMAY5WBKeqwPhH-J_RhmuMGX2k3CByeg6kB7QTeIlLQSOoB6DjLsODKdvpBOXYhu0izw-R4ZZso2efOF9pMLeCch14qWcomyhamEEkykx_VMBcm4ktfWg4Zvv0uPCad7ye94s%3D
[perhaps related to dust bunnies?]



[Two books - one question]
*Book Review: Why Science Denialism Persists*
REPUBLISH
Two new books explore what motivates people to reject science -- and why 
it's so hard to shake deep-seated beliefs.
BY ELIZABETH SVOBODA
05.22.2020

TO HEAR SOME EXPERTS tell it, science denial is mostly a contemporary 
phenomenon, with climate change deniers and vaccine skeptics at the 
vanguard. Yet the story of Galileo Galilei reveals just how far back 
denial's lineage stretches.

BOOK REVIEW -- "Galileo and the Science Deniers," by Mario Livio (Simon 
& Schuster, 304 pages).

Years of astronomical sightings and calculations had convinced Galileo 
that the Earth, rather than sitting at the center of things, revolved 
around a larger body, the sun. But when he laid out his findings in 
widely shared texts, as astrophysicist Mario Livio writes in "Galileo 
and the Science Deniers," the ossified Catholic Church leadership -- 
heavily invested in older Earth-centric theories -- aimed its ire in his 
direction.

Rather than revise their own maps of reality to include his discoveries, 
clerics labeled him a heretic and banned his writings. He spent the last 
years of his life under house arrest, hemmed in by his own insistence on 
the expansiveness of the cosmos.

Nearly 400 years later, the legacy of denial remains intact in some 
respects. Scientists who publish research about climate change or the 
safety of genetically modified crops still encounter the same kind of 
pushback from deniers that Galileo did. Yet denialism has also sprouted 
some distinctly modern features: As Alan Levinovitz points out in 
"Natural: How Faith in Nature's Goodness Leads to Harmful Fads, Unjust 
Laws, and Flawed Science," sometimes we ourselves can become unwitting 
purveyors of denial, falling prey to flawed or false beliefs we may not 
realize we're holding.

Levinovitz passionately protests the common assumption that natural 
things are inherently better than unnatural ones. Not only do people 
automatically tend to conclude organic foods are healthier, many choose 
"natural" or "alternative" methods of cancer treatment over proven 
chemotherapy regimens. Medication-free childbirth, meanwhile, is now 
considered the gold standard in many societies, despite mixed evidence 
of its health benefits for mothers and babies...
- -
"The art of celebrating humanity and nature," he concludes, depends on 
"having the courage to embrace paradox." His quest to puncture the myth 
of the natural turns out to have been dogmatic in its own way.

In acknowledging this, Levinovitz hits on something important. When 
deniers take up arms, it's tempting to follow their lead: to use science 
to build an open-and-shut case that strikes with the finality of a 
courtroom witness pointing out a killer.

But as Galileo knew -- and as Levinovitz ultimately concedes -- science, 
in its endlessly unspooling grandeur, tends to resist any conclusion 
that smacks of the absolute. "What only science can promise," Livio 
writes, "is a continuous, midcourse self-correction, as additional 
experimental and observational evidence accumulates, and new theoretical 
ideas emerge."

In their skepticism of pat answers, these books bolster the case that 
science's strength is in its flexibility -- its willingness to leave 
room for iteration, for correction, for innovation. Science is an 
imperfect vehicle, as any truth-seeking discipline must be. And yet, as 
Galileo would have noted, it moves.
https://www.salon.com/2020/05/24/why-science-denialism-persists_partner/

- -

[forget that, here's what the Church says]
*The Galileo Controversy*
It is commonly believed that the Catholic Church persecuted Galileo for 
abandoning the geocentric (earth-at-the-center) view of the solar system 
for the heliocentric (sun-at-the-center) view.

The Galileo case, for many anti-Catholics, is thought to prove that the 
Church abhors science, refuses to abandon outdated teachings, and is not 
infallible. For Catholics, the episode is often an embarrassment. It 
shouldn't be.

This tract provides a brief explanation of what really happened to Galileo.

*Anti-scientific?*
The Church is not anti-scientific. It has supported scientific endeavors 
for centuries. During Galileo's time, the Jesuits had a highly respected 
group of astronomers and scientists in Rome. In addition, many notable 
scientists received encouragement and funding from the Church and from 
individual Church officials. Many of the scientific advances during this 
period were made either by clerics or as a result of Church funding.

Nicolaus Copernicus dedicated his most famous work, On the Revolution of 
the Celestial Orbs, in which he gave an excellent account of 
heliocentrism, to Pope Paul III. Copernicus entrusted a preface to 
Andreas Osiander, a Lutheran clergyman who knew that Protestant reaction 
to it would be negative, since Martin Luther seemed to have condemned 
the new theory. Ten years prior to Galileo, Johannes Kepler published a 
heliocentric work that expanded on Copernicus's work. As a result, 
Kepler also found opposition among his fellow Protestants for his 
heliocentric views and found a welcome reception among some Jesuits who 
were known for their scientific achievements.

*Clinging to Tradition?*
Anti-Catholics often cite the Galileo case as an example of the Church 
refusing to abandon outdated or incorrect teaching, and clinging to a 
"tradition." They fail to realize that the judges who presided over 
Galileo's case were not the only people who held to a geocentric view of 
the universe. It was the received view among scientists at the time.

Centuries earlier, Aristotle had refuted heliocentrism, and by Galileo's 
time, nearly every major thinker subscribed to a geocentric view. 
Copernicus refrained from publishing his heliocentric theory for some 
time, not out of fear of censure from the Church but out of fear of 
ridicule from his colleagues.

Many people wrongly believe Galileo proved heliocentrism. He could not 
answer the strongest argument against it, which had been made nearly two 
thousand years earlier by Aristotle: If heliocentrism were true, then 
there would be observable parallax shifts in the stars' positions as the 
earth moved in its orbit around the sun. However, given the technology 
of Galileo's time, no such shifts in their positions could be observed. 
It would require more sensitive measuring equipment than was available 
in Galileo's day to document the existence of these shifts, given the 
stars' great distance. Until then, the available evidence suggested that 
the stars were fixed in their positions relative to the earth, and, 
thus, that the earth and the stars were not moving in space--only the 
sun, moon, and planets were. Most astronomers in that day were not 
convinced of the great distance of the stars that the Copernican theory 
required to account for the absence of observable parallax shifts. This 
is one of the main reasons why the respected astronomer Tycho Brahe 
refused to adopt Copernicus fully.

Galileo could have safely proposed heliocentrism as a theory or a method 
to more simply account for the planets' motions. His problem arose when 
he stopped proposing it as a scientific theory and began proclaiming it 
as truth, though there was no conclusive proof of it at the time. Even 
so, Galileo would not have been in so much trouble if he had chosen to 
stay within the realm of science and out of the realm of theology.

In 1614, Galileo felt compelled to answer the charge that this "new 
science" was contrary to certain Scripture passages. His opponents 
pointed to Bible passages with statements like, "And the sun stood 
still, and the moon stayed . . ." (Josh. 10:13). This is not an isolated 
occurrence. Psalms 93 and 104 and Ecclesiastes 1:5 also speak of 
celestial motion and terrestrial stability. A literalistic reading of 
these passages would have to be abandoned if the heliocentric theory 
were adopted. Yet this should not have posed a problem. As Augustine put 
it, "One does not read in the Gospel that the Lord said: 'I will send 
you the Paraclete who will teach you about the course of the sun and 
moon.' For he willed to make them Christians, not mathematicians." 
Following Augustine's example, Galileo urged caution in not interpreting 
these biblical statements too literally.

Unfortunately, throughout Church history, there have been those who 
insist on reading the Bible in a more literal sense than it was 
intended. They fail to appreciate, for example, instances in which 
Scripture uses what is called "phenomenological" language--that is, the 
language of appearances. Just as we today speak of the sun rising and 
setting to cause day and night, rather than the earth turning, so did 
the ancients. From an earthbound perspective, the sun does appear to 
rise and appear to set, and the earth appears to be immobile. When we 
describe these things according to their appearances, we are using 
phenomenological language.

The phenomenological language concerning the motion of the heavens and 
the non-motion of the earth is obvious to us today but was less so in 
previous centuries. Scripture scholars of the past were willing to 
consider whether particular statements were to be taken literally or 
phenomenologically, but they did not like being told by a non-Scripture 
scholar, such as Galileo, that the words of the sacred page must be 
taken in a particular sense.

During this period, personal interpretation of Scripture was a sensitive 
subject. In the early 1600s, the Church had just been through the 
Reformation experience, and one of the chief quarrels with Protestants 
was over individual interpretation of the Bible.

Theologians were not prepared to entertain the heliocentric theory based 
on a layman's interpretation. There is little question that if Galileo 
had kept the discussion within the accepted boundaries of astronomy 
(i.e., predicting planetary motions) and had not claimed physical truth 
for the heliocentric theory, the issue would not have escalated to the 
point it did. After all, he had not proved the new theory beyond 
reasonable doubt.

*Galileo "Confronts" Rome*
Galileo came to Rome to see Pope Paul V (r. 1605-1621). The pope turned 
the matter over to the Holy Office, which issued a condemnation of 
Galileo's theory in 1616. Things returned to relative quiet for a time, 
until Galileo forced another showdown.

At Galileo's request, Cardinal Robert Bellarmine, a Jesuit--one of the 
most important Catholic theologians of the day--issued a certificate 
that, although it forbade Galileo to hold or defend the heliocentric 
theory, did not prevent him from conjecturing it. When Galileo met with 
the new pope, Urban VIII, in 1623, he received permission from his 
longtime friend to write a work on heliocentrism, but the new pontiff 
cautioned him not to advocate the new position, only to present 
arguments for and against it. When Galileo wrote the Dialogue on the Two 
World Systems, he used an argument the pope had offered and placed it in 
the mouth of his character Simplicio. Galileo had mocked the very person 
he needed as a benefactor. He also alienated his long-time supporters, 
the Jesuits, with attacks on one of their astronomers. The result was 
the infamous trial, which is still heralded as the final separation of 
science and religion.

*Tortured for His Beliefs?*
In the end, Galileo recanted his heliocentric teachings, but it was 
not--as is commonly supposed--under torture, nor after a harsh 
imprisonment. Galileo was, in fact, treated surprisingly well.

As historian Giorgio de Santillana, who is not overly fond of the 
Catholic Church, noted, "We must, if anything, admire the cautiousness 
and legal scruples of the Roman authorities." Galileo was offered every 
convenience possible to make his imprisonment in his home bearable.

Galileo's friend Nicolini, Tuscan ambassador to the Vatican, sent 
regular reports to the court regarding affairs in Rome. Nicolini 
revealed the circumstances surrounding Galileo's "imprisonment" when he 
reported to the Tuscan king: "The pope told me that he had shown Galileo 
a favor never accorded to another" (letter dated Feb. 13, 1633); "he has 
a servant and every convenience" (letter, April 16); and "the pope says 
that after the publication of the sentence he will consider with me as 
to what can be done to afflict him as little as possible" (letter, June 18).

While instruments of torture may have been present during Galileo's 
recantation (this was the custom of the legal system in Europe at that 
time), they definitely were not used. The records demonstrate that 
Galileo could not be tortured because of regulations laid down in The 
Directory for Inquisitors (Nicholas Eymeric, 1595). This was the 
official guide of the Holy Office, the Church office charged with 
dealing with such matters, and was followed to the letter.

As noted scientist and philosopher Alfred North Whitehead remarked, in 
an age that saw a large number of "witches" subjected to torture and 
execution by Protestants in New England, "the worst that happened to the 
men of science was that Galileo suffered an honorable detention and a 
mild reproof."

*Infallibility*
Although three of the ten cardinals who judged Galileo refused to sign 
the verdict, his works were eventually condemned. Anti-Catholics often 
assert that his conviction and later rehabilitation somehow disproves 
the doctrine of papal infallibility, but this is not the case, for the 
pope never tried to make an infallible ruling concerning Galileo's views.

The Church has never claimed ordinary tribunals, such as the one that 
judged Galileo, to be infallible. Church tribunals have disciplinary and 
juridical authority only; neither they nor their decisions are infallible.

No ecumenical council met concerning Galileo, and the pope was not at 
the center of the discussions, which were handled by the Holy Office. 
When the Holy Office finished its work, Urban VIII ratified its verdict 
but did not attempt to engage infallibility.

Three conditions must be met for a pope to exercise the charism of 
infallibility: (1) he must speak in his official capacity as the 
successor of Peter; (2) he must speak on a matter of faith or morals; 
and (3) he must solemnly define the doctrine as one that must be held by 
all the faithful.

In Galileo's case, the second and third conditions were not present, and 
possibly not even the first. Catholic theology has never claimed that a 
mere papal ratification of a tribunal decree is an exercise of 
infallibility. It is a straw man argument to represent the Catholic 
Church as having infallibly defined a scientific theory that turned out 
to be false. The strongest claim that can be made is that the Church of 
Galileo's day issued a non-infallible disciplinary ruling concerning a 
scientist who was advocating a new and still-unproven theory and 
demanding that the Church change its understanding of Scripture to fit his.

It is a good thing that the Church did not rush to embrace Galileo's 
views, because it turned out that his ideas were not entirely correct, 
either. Galileo believed that the sun was not just the fixed center of 
the solar system but the fixed center of the universe. We now know that 
the sun is not the center of the universe and that it does move--it 
simply orbits the center of the galaxy rather than the earth.

Had the Catholic Church rushed to endorse Galileo's views--and there 
were many in the Church who were quite favorable to them--the Church 
would have embraced what modern science has disproved.

NIHIL OBSTAT: I have concluded that the materials
presented in this work are free of doctrinal or moral errors.
Bernadeane Carr, STL, Censor Librorum, August 10, 2004

IMPRIMATUR: In accord with 1983 CIC 827
permission to publish this work is hereby granted.
+Robert H. Brom, Bishop of San Diego, August 10, 2004
https://www.catholic.com/tract/the-galileo-controversy



[The Guardian article from 2019 still important]*
**Climate Change Is Making Us Sicker, And We Need to Talk About It*

EMILY HOLDEN IN WASHINGTON, THE GUARDIAN 22 SEPTEMBER 2019
The climate crisis is making people sicker - worsening illnesses ranging 
from seasonal allergies to heart and lung disease.

Children, pregnant people and the elderly are the most at risk from 
extreme weather and rising heat. But the impact of the climate crisis - 
for patients, doctors and researchers - is already being felt across 
every specialty of medicine, with worse feared to come.

"There's research suggesting that our prescription medications may be 
causing harm because of changing heat patterns," said Aaron Bernstein, a 
pediatric hospitalist who is the co-director of the Center for Climate, 
Health and the Global Environment at Harvard University.

"There's evidence that extreme weather events are affecting critical 
medical supplies so we can't do things as we normally would do because 
IV fluids aren't available.

"And there's evidence that extreme weather events are knocking out power 
more and more, and that is a huge issue for providing care in healthcare 
facilities."

In a recent example, a study in the Journal of the American Medical 
Association found that lung cancer patients undergoing radiation were 
less likely to survive when hurricane disasters disrupted their treatments.

An August article in the New England Journal of Medicine lays out dozens 
of similar studies to show how the climate crisis affects each practice 
of medicine.

Renee Salas, a co-author of the report, who teaches emergency medicine 
at Harvard Medical School said: "The climate crisis is impacting not 
only health for our patients but the way we deliver care and our ability 
to do our jobs. And that's happening today."

Allergies
Climate change makes allergies worse.

As temperatures increase, plants produce more pollen for longer periods 
of time, intensifying the allergy seasons. Increased concentrations of 
carbon dioxide in the atmosphere can make plants grow more and cause 
more grass pollen, which causes allergies in about 20 percent of people. 
Carbon dioxide can also increase the allergy-causing effects of pollen.

Neelu Tummala, an ear, nose and throat specialist at the George 
Washington Medical Faculty Associates in Washington DC, said she sees 
many patients with allergic rhinitis, or inflammation of the nasal 
cavity, congestion and post-nasal drip.

"It used to be that tree pollens were only in spring, grasses were just 
in summer, ragweed was just in fall," Tummala said. "But the timing of 
those is starting to overlap more."

One of Tummala's patients, Kelly Kenney, had minor seasonal allergies as 
a child but now suffers from year-round from sinus pains, ear pressure 
and congestion.

"The last four years, my symptoms have gotten increasingly worse," 
Kenney said.

Pregnancy and newborn complications
Pregnant people are more vulnerable to heat and the air pollution that 
is being made worse by climate change.

Bruce Bekkar, a San Diego-based obstetrician gynaecologist who stopped 
practising six years ago to spend more time as a climate activist, has 
compiled 68 studies from the continental US on the association between 
heat, smog and the tiny particles of pollution that come from fossil 
fuels and how they are connected with premature birth, low birth weight 
and stillbirth.

More smog forms when it is hot, and some research suggests particulate 
matter also increases with the climate crisis, although the data is less 
robust.

Bekkar said he and his co-authors found a significant association in 58 
of the 68 studies. The body of research covers 30 million births in the US.

Bekkar said doctors should talk to their patients about how heat waves 
could lead to premature births and how staying away from air pollution 
can help them keep their children healthy.

"We're finding that we have increasing numbers of children born already 
in a weakened state from heat and air pollution. That's a totally 
different story than thinking about climate change as the cause of 
hurricanes over Florida … It's a much more pervasive and ongoing impact."

In the developing world pregnant people can also suffer from food and 
water scarcity. Insect-borne illnesses - such as the Zika virus, which 
was spread by mosquitoes - are also a hazard to developing fetuses.

Heart and lung disease
Air pollution gets worse as temperatures rise, stressing both the heart 
and lungs. The fossil fuel pollution that causes the climate crisis also 
is linked with increased hospitalisations and deaths from cardiovascular 
disease, and it is connected with more asthma attacks and other 
breathing problems.

More intense wildfires spew dangerous smoke into the air, as documented 
in the western US this year. And hotter days make more smog, which the 
American Lung Association describes as acting "like a sunburn on your 
lungs which may trigger an asthma attack".

Risks for children
Children under the age of five experience the majority of the health 
burden from climate change, according to Salas' report.

Samantha Ahdoot, a paediatrician in Alexandria, Virginia, treated an 
11-year-old and a 13-year-old who moved from Florida after a hurricane 
destroyed their community and their medical records at their doctor's 
office.

One needed surgery for a heart condition and had to start from scratch 
with a new cardiologist. Both had attention-deficit/hyperactivity 
disorder (ADHD) that was harder to treat amid the major life disruption 
and without records on adjustments to medication dosages.

Ahdoot, who also founded the group Virginia Clinicians for Climate 
Action, said she has seen an influx of families moving because of 
weather disasters.

Dehydration and kidney problems
Much hotter days make it harder to stay hydrated. They are linked with 
electrolyte imbalances, kidney stones and kidney failure. Patients who 
need dialysis as their kidneys fail can have trouble getting treatment 
during extreme weather events.

Skin disease
Higher temperatures and the depletion of the ozone layer increase the 
risk of skin cancer. The same refrigerants and gases that damage the 
ozone layer contribute to climate change.

Digestive illnesses
Heat is linked with higher risks for salmonella and campylobacter 
outbreaks. Extreme rains can contaminate drinking water. Harmful algae 
blooms that thrive in higher temperatures can cause gastrointestinal 
problems, too.

Infectious disease
Changing temperature and rainfall patterns allow some insects spread 
farther and transmit malaria, dengue, Lyme disease and West Nile virus. 
Waterborne cholera and cryptosporidiosis increase with drought and flooding.

Mental health conditions
The American Psychological Association created a 69-page guide on how 
climate change can induce stress, depression and anxiety. The group says 
"the connections with mental health are often not part" of the 
climate-health discussion.

People exposed to or displaced by extreme weather or violent conflict 
are at higher risk for mental health challenges. Extreme heat can also 
make some mental illnesses worse.

The University of Maryland's Howard Center for Investigative Journalism 
found emergency calls relating to psychiatric conditions increased about 
40 percent in Baltimore in summer 2018, when the heat index surged above 
103 F (39 C), as reported on NPR.

And some psychotropic medications interfere with the body's ability to 
regulate temperature - increasing vulnerability to heat.

Neurologic disease
Fossil fuel pollution can increase the risk of stroke. Coal combustion 
also produces mercury - a neurotoxin for fetuses. Diseases spread by 
mosquitoes and ticks increase the chance of neurological problems.

Extreme heat is also linked with cerebrovascular disease, a disorder 
that affects blood supply to the brain.

Nutrition
Carbon dioxide emissions are lowering the nutritional density of food 
crops, reducing plant levels of protein, zinc and iron and leading to 
more nutritional deficiencies. Food supplies are also disrupted by 
drought, societal instability and inequity linked with climate change.

Trauma
Extreme weather events, including hurricanes, floods and wildfires, 
often cause physical injuries. Doctors see minor fractures, crush 
injuries and smoke inhalation.

Extreme heat is also linked with aggression and violence, and the 
climate crisis globally is connected with violent conflict and forced 
migration.
https://www.sciencealert.com/climate-change-is-making-us-sicker-and-we-need-to-talk-about-it



[Digging back into the internet news archive]
*On this day in the history of global warming - May 26, 1990 *

The New York Times covers the release of the First Intergovernmental 
Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report:

"A panel of scientists warned today that unless emissions of carbon 
dioxide and other harmful gases were immediately cut by more than 60 
percent, global temperatures would rise sharply over the next century, 
with unforeseeable consequences for humanity.

"While much of the substance of the report has already been disclosed, 
the report had immediate political consequences. Prime Minister Margaret 
Thatcher of Britain, breaking with the Bush Administration's skepticism 
over the need for immediate action, said today that if other countries 
did their part, Britain would reduce the projected growth of its carbon 
dioxide emissions enough to stabilize them at 1990 levels by the year 2005."

http://www.nytimes.com/1990/05/26/world/scientists-urge-rapid-action-on-global-warming.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.


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://pairlist10.pair.net/pipermail/theclimate.vote/attachments/20200526/5ed39ac3/attachment.html>