[✔️] November 16, 2021 - Daily Global Warming News Digest

[👀 Richard Pauli]

/*November 16, 2021*/

/[BBC has this story covered - listen to 18 min audio]/
*4. From Covid conspiracy to climate change denial*
The Denial Files
Covid conspiracists are now shifting focus to climate change. An online 
movement infected with extreme pandemic conspiracies is looking for new 
territory as debates over lockdowns and vaccines subside in many richer 
countries.

We hear from Matthew in New Zealand. His family is really worried about 
the future of the planet, but he’s involved in groups where people 
believe that climate change is a “hoax” designed to limit our personal 
freedoms. They’ve swapped in “climate science” for “Covid” in their 
viral online conspiracy theories. Matthew found himself drawn into this 
conspiratorial belief system through a global anti-lockdown movement 
called The White Rose. The White Rose has local channels around the 
world, and researchers at the Institute for Strategic Dialogue think 
tank say the local group dedicated to New Zealand is where climate 
change conspiracies have taken off the most. Researchers point out that 
a ready-made network of people who have fallen for misleading claims 
about global Covid-19 plots has created a receptive audience for lies 
about climate change.

And in Germany, we hear about how members of the Covid-denying 
Querdenken group travelled to a region devastated by floods, 
intimidating helpers and spreading confusion about what had taken place. 
Locals were mystified and insulted, but it was another sign that climate 
change has become the new front line in the fight against online 
misinformation.

Presenter: Marianna Spring
Reporter: Jessica Bateman
Producer: Ant Adeane
https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/w3ct2yqm



/[ opinion in a Dave Roberts commentary  - text and audio ]/
*Don't get too bummed out about COP26*
Things are moving quickly now.
David Roberts - Nov 15, 2021
- -
The good news is, we’re making progress. A decade ago, we were on track 
for 4° to 6° Celsius average warming by the end of the century, which 
would have been species-threatening.

As this report from Climate Action Tracker shows, thanks to actions 
taken by national governments since then, we have “bent the curve” on 
climate change, as it were, and brought the average expected warming 
down to 2.7°C.

That would still be devastating. But we’re not going to stop there. 
Progress is only accelerating. If every country that has submitted a 
2030 carbon target in the Paris process — an NDC, or nationally 
determined contribution — hits that target, average warming will be 2.4°C.

If all short- and long-term targets submitted thus far are achieved, 
it’s down to 2.1°C. In CAT’s “optimistic scenario” — in which all 
targets announced by anyone anywhere are met — the average is 1.8°C...
- -
Another thing I said on Pod Save America is that national governments 
are often going to be in the caboose of this train — civic groups, the 
private sector, and subnational governments are leading the way. That’s 
distributed all over the world, less easy to see and sum up, but it 
shows that the caution and intransigence of national governments are not 
the whole story.

COP26 was a snapshot of a world — agonizingly slowly but with gathering 
speed — moving to address a crisis. There’s no reason for anyone to stop 
pushing, but there’s also nothing wrong with acknowledging and 
celebrating the progress that’s been achieved by all the pushing so far.

Things are moving!
https://www.volts.wtf/p/dont-get-too-bummed-out-about-cop26?token=eyJ1c2VyX2lkIjoyMzY4NzE5OSwicG9zdF9pZCI6NDQwNDkxOTYsIl8iOiJyNzJObSIsImlhdCI6MTYzNzAwOTA2NywiZXhwIjoxNjM3MDEyNjY3LCJpc3MiOiJwdWItMTkzMDI0Iiwic3ViIjoicG9zdC1yZWFjdGlvbiJ9.QPUA0iITRhpLd2FdeHU6Rj2wTWaqvXWg6p4A140HC3Q

- -

/[  delivering a sober presentation of the current situation ]/
*The Climate Action Tracker*
The Climate Action Tracker is an independent scientific analysis that 
tracks government climate action and measures it against the globally 
agreed Paris Agreement aim of "holding warming well below 2°C, and 
pursuing efforts to limit warming to 1.5°C." A collaboration of two 
organisations, Climate Analytics and NewClimate Institute, the CAT has 
been providing this independent analysis to policymakers since 2009.
- -
In Paris, all governments solemnly promised to come to COP26 with more 
ambitious 2030 commitments to close the massive 2030 emissions gap that 
was already evident in 2015. Three years later the IPCC Special Report 
on 1.5°C reinforced the scientific imperative, and earlier this year it 
called a climate “code red.” Now, at the midpoint of Glasgow, it is 
clear there is a massive credibility, action and commitment gap that 
casts a long and dark shadow of doubt over the net zero goals put 
forward by more than 140 countries, covering 90% of global emissions.

https://climateactiontracker.org/media/images/CAT-Thermometer-2021.11-4Bars-Annotation.width-1000.png
https://climateactiontracker.org/publications/glasgows-2030-credibility-gap-net-zeros-lip-service-to-climate-action/
https://climateactiontracker.org/



/[ Top opinion ]/
*Stop Trying to Find Magic Words to Convince Climate Opponents*
Enemies of climate action don’t need to be convinced. They need to be 
removed from power.
By Mary Annaïse Heglar  -  OCTOBER 31, 2021
- -
Furthermore, so long as we focus on what we want to destroy and spend 
precious little time on what we want to build, the fossil fuel companies 
remain in control of the narratives. So many of the words about climate 
action are couched in the negative: “decarbonization” and “dismantling” 
and “emissions reduction.” All things we need to do, all things we need 
to talk about, but there’s just as much to create as there is to 
destroy, and I think we’d do better to find some equilibrium.

I understand that language is always evolving, and of course we should 
evolve with it. I just want us to remember who we’re in this for: each 
other, not the fossil fuel companies and cronies. It’s time to de-center 
them from the conversation. All the scolding we do of one another for 
not hitting the exact right note can make people not want to talk about 
this at all. But climate change is hard to talk about because it’s hard 
to face, so I’d like to see people give a little more grace to the 
people who are trying.

Mary Annaïse Heglar is a climate writer and cohost of the podcast Hot Take.
https://www.thenation.com/article/environment/climate-change-language/



/[Important preparation]/
*Disinformation is stifling conversation about climate change, new 
research says — these 4 tips can help*
Nov 16 2021
Brandon Gomez - @BGOMEZREPORTS
When you’re talking about climate change, facts alone may not be enough 
to make a compelling argument.

“It’s not only what you say, but how you say it that’s important,” 
Arunima Krishna, an assistant communications professor at Boston 
University, tells CNBC Make It.

Krishna studies the spread of climate science disinformation, among 
other topics — and after conducting a recent survey, she found that 40% 
of respondents were “disinformation receptive,” meaning they’d already 
accepted some type of falsehood about climate change.

What’s more, she says, disinformation might be stifling conversation on 
the important topic: If you don’t believe in climate change or doubt 
humans’ role in accelerating it, you’re less likely to want to discuss 
it, according to Krishna’s survey.

That means you’ll need to find enough common ground to set the stage for 
a productive talk. These four conversational strategies, Krishna says, 
can help.

*Know who you’re talking to*
People fall into one of four categories, according to Krishna. You can 
be immune, vulnerable or receptive to disinformation — or, you can 
actively amplify it.

People who are “receptive” already believe some form of disinformation, 
and those who are “vulnerable” could potentially believe false 
information in the future. But, Krishna says, people in both categories 
will probably still be open to conversations.
When you start those conversations, use the first minute or two to 
figure out which type they are. Their phrasings should make it pretty 
clear, Krishna says: There’s a big difference between “Why bother doing 
any of this, climate change isn’t caused by humans” and “Are you sure 
any of this really works?”

The first response, Krishna says, indicates a negative predisposition 
toward climate change. The second one is more circumspect, and indicates 
that the person might be open to talking.

If someone has yet to accept or believe any disinformation, Krishna 
says, they’re probably “immune” and unlikely to fall victim to it going 
forward. And if someone is regularly amplifying disinformation, trying 
to change their mind could be downright impossible.

*Come prepared — and ready to listen*
Krishna’s first step is to understand the other person’s beliefs, 
especially if some of those beliefs have been shaped by disinformation.

“There are so many different pieces of falsehoods that have been 
popularized by concerted disinformation campaigns, that it’s important 
to disentangle the arguments that skeptics have accepted,” Krishna says.

Once you understand the “facts” that disinformation campaigns are 
promoting, she says, you can use science-based facts to directly rebut them.

“Parallel examples are always useful,” says Krishna. “Appeal to people’s 
logic.”

Say, for example, that you’re talking with a climate skeptic who 
believes climate science is “shaky” or unreliable — a viewpoint Krishna 
says is encouraged by some big oil and gas companies.

You could dispute that idea by pointing the other person to NASA’s 
global climate change research, which shows consensus in the scientific 
community based on decades of research that the earth is warming due to 
human activity.

*Have a one-on-one conversation*
Social media might be the worst possible place to have these kinds of 
conversations. After all, it’s where a lot of disinformation happens — 
especially on topics like climate change.

A November 2021 report from independent watchdog group Real Facebook 
Oversight Board and environmental nonprofit Stop Funding Heat analyzed 
more than 195 Facebook pages and groups “dedicated” to climate 
misinformation.

Over the course of eight months, it found an estimated 45,000 posts 
downplaying or denying the climate crisis, receiving between 818,000 and 
1.36 million total daily views.

According to the report, people tend to believe catchy headlines from 
unverified sources on social media more than they would elsewhere. 
Krishna’s solution: Have conversations in person, or at least in direct 
messages, and rely primarily on primary scientific sources like the U.S. 
Environmental Protection Agency or NASA.

“Research tells us that one-on-one interaction can often be more 
effective than mass media messages,” Krishna says. “Perhaps that’s the 
best way to [elevate] voices.”

*Bring it into their backyard*
Topics like climate change don’t always feel urgent or imminent. People 
tend to separate themselves from the crisis, especially when some of the 
solutions are uncomfortable — like using less plastic or conserving 
electricity more consciously.

So, the more you can connect the topic to someone’s actual life, the better.

“Many people have noticed and perhaps even commented on how weather 
patterns have changed over the course of their lives,” Krishna says. 
“Pointing out that climate change has exacerbated the changes in these 
weather patterns may help place the problem in their backyard.”

In California, for example, climate change has helped droughts become 
more extreme over the last two decades, according to the Public Policy 
Institute of California. And climate change is helping make hurricanes 
across the world stronger, according to an August study from the 
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

“Climate change is not something that’s 20 years away,” says Krishna. 
“It’s something that we’re seeing the impact of right now.”
https://www.cnbc.com/2021/11/16/research-disinformation-stifles-climate-change-talk-tips-to-help.html



/[BBC analysis]/
*Covid denial to climate denial: How conspiracists are shifting focus*
By Marianna Spring
Specialist disinformation reporter, BBC News...
- -
*The White Rose network*
It's part of a larger pattern. Anti-lockdown and anti-vaccine Telegram 
groups, which once focused exclusively on the pandemic, are now 
injecting the climate change debate with the same conspiratorial 
narratives they use to explain the pandemic.

The posts go far beyond political criticism and debate - they're full of 
incorrect information, fake stories and pseudoscience.

According to researchers at the Institute for Strategic Dialogue (ISD), 
a think tank that researches global disinformation trends, some 
anti-lockdown groups have become polluted by misleading posts about 
climate change being overplayed, or even a so-called "hoax" designed to 
control people.

"Increasingly, terminology around Covid-19 measures is being used to 
stoke fear and mobilise against climate action," says the ISD's Jennie King.

She says this isn't really about climate as a policy issue.

"It's the fact that these are really neat vectors to get themes like 
power, personal freedom, agency, citizen against state, loss of 
traditional lifestyles - to get all of those ideas to a much broader 
audience."

One group which has adopted such ideas is the White Rose - a network 
with locally-run subgroups around the world, from the UK to the US, 
Germany and New Zealand - where Matthew came across it.

"It's not run by any one or two people," Matthew explains. "It's kind of 
a decentralised community organisation, so you obtain stickers and then 
post them on lampposts and things like that."

These stickers bear slogans with anti-vaccine, anti-mask and 
conspiratorial content, including slogans such as "Resist the New 
Normal", "Real Men Don't Wear Masks", and false statements such as 
"There Is No Pandemic". Matthew first joined his local White Rose 
channel after seeing it advertised on a sticker - and he now puts up the 
same slogans on lamp posts around his home near Auckland...
- -
*The new conspiracy frontline*
As the pandemic progresses, vaccines take effect and many countries - 
particularly rich ones - inch closer to normality, this pivot from Covid 
towards climate change is something researchers have observed across a 
number of online spaces.

One way that ISD has seen this play out is around the term "climate 
lockdown". It's used to refer to the completely unfounded idea that in 
the future we might have Covid-style lockdowns to counteract climate change.
The term has found popularity with YouTubers who peddle conspiracy 
theories - but climate scientists say lockdowns would not be a serious 
climate change mitigation strategy. Covid lockdowns, for instance, only 
marginally reduced greenhouse gas emissions.

However, the distress caused by Covid and lockdowns - and the falsehoods 
that have sprung up around them - have laid the groundwork for yet more 
conspiracies to spread. A mindset has gripped a group of people who 
blame all bad news on shady plots by powerful people - rather than 
accepting the reality about the future of the planet.
https://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-trending-59255165



/[  Hardware almost ready for the road ]/
*Wireless FULL EV charging has arrived! Exciting new tech breakthrough.*
Nov 14, 2021
Just Have a Think
Wireless charging is something that many of us have become used to for 
things like phones and electric toothbrushes. But it hasn't yet broken 
through into the world of electric vehicles, mainly because of the 
difficulty in sending power wirelessly over larger distances. That's all 
set to change now though, with the launch of the world's first fully 
electric wirelessly chargeable car, and several competing technologies 
aiming to gain global supremacy in electrifying our urban roads.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W3hVLG5iDec



/[ News archive reports on an event 20 years ago.]/
*On this day in the history of global warming November 16, 2005*
November 16, 2005:
*Document Says Oil Chiefs Met With Cheney Task Force*
By Dana Milbank and Justin Blum
Washington Post Staff Writers
November 16, 2005
A White House document shows that executives from big oil companies met 
with Vice President Cheney's energy task force in 2001 -- something long 
suspected by environmentalists but denied as recently as last week by 
industry officials testifying before Congress.

The document, obtained this week by The Washington Post, shows that 
officials from Exxon Mobil Corp., Conoco (before its merger with 
Phillips), Shell Oil Co. and BP America Inc. met in the White House 
complex with the Cheney aides who were developing a national energy 
policy, parts of which became law and parts of which are still being 
debated.

In a joint hearing last week of the Senate Energy and Commerce 
committees, the chief executives of Exxon Mobil Corp., Chevron Corp. and 
ConocoPhillips said their firms did not participate in the 2001 task 
force. The president of Shell Oil said his company did not participate 
"to my knowledge," and the chief of BP America Inc. said he did not know.

Chevron was not named in the White House document, but the Government 
Accountability Office has found that Chevron was one of several 
companies that "gave detailed energy policy recommendations" to the task 
force. In addition, Cheney had a separate meeting with John Browne, BP's 
chief executive, according to a person familiar with the task force's 
work; that meeting is not noted in the document.

The task force's activities attracted complaints from environmentalists, 
who said they were shut out of the task force discussions while 
corporate interests were present. The meetings were held in secret and 
the White House refused to release a list of participants. The task 
force was made up primarily of Cabinet-level officials. Judicial Watch 
and the Sierra Club unsuccessfully sued to obtain the records.

Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.), who posed the question about the task 
force, said he will ask the Justice Department today to investigate. 
"The White House went to great lengths to keep these meetings secret, 
and now oil executives may be lying to Congress about their role in the 
Cheney task force," Lautenberg said.

Lea Anne McBride, a spokeswoman for Cheney, declined to comment on the 
document. She said that the courts have upheld "the constitutional right 
of the president and vice president to obtain information in 
confidentiality."

The executives were not under oath when they testified, so they are not 
vulnerable to charges of perjury; committee Democrats had protested the 
decision by Commerce Chairman Ted Stevens (R-Alaska) not to swear in the 
executives. But a person can be fined or imprisoned for up to five years 
for making "any materially false, fictitious or fraudulent statement or 
representation" to Congress.

Alan Huffman, who was a Conoco manager until the 2002 merger with 
Phillips, confirmed meeting with the task force staff. "We met in the 
Executive Office Building, if I remember correctly," he said.

A spokesman for ConocoPhillips said the chief executive, James J. Mulva, 
had been unaware that Conoco officials met with task force staff when he 
testified at the hearing. The spokesman said that Mulva was chief 
executive of Phillips in 2001 before the merger and that nobody from 
Phillips met with the task force.

Exxon spokesman Russ Roberts said the company stood by chief executive 
Lee R. Raymond's statement in the hearing. In a brief phone interview, 
former Exxon vice president James Rouse, the official named in the White 
House document, denied the meeting took place. "That must be inaccurate 
and I don't have any comment beyond that," said Rouse, now retired.

Ronnie Chappell, a spokesman for BP, declined to comment on the task 
force meetings. Darci Sinclair, a spokeswoman for Shell, said she did 
not know whether Shell officials met with the task force, but they often 
meet members of the administration. Chevron said its executives did not 
meet with the task force but confirmed that it sent President Bush 
recommendations in a letter.

The person familiar with the task force's work, who requested anonymity 
out of concern about retribution, said the document was based on records 
kept by the Secret Service of people admitted to the White House 
complex. This person said most meetings were with Andrew Lundquist, the 
task force's executive director, and Cheney aide Karen Y. Knutson.

According to the White House document, Rouse met with task force staff 
members on Feb. 14, 2001. On March 21, they met with Archie Dunham, who 
was chairman of Conoco. On April 12, according to the document, task 
force staff members met with Conoco official Huffman and two officials 
from the U.S. Oil and Gas Association, Wayne Gibbens and Alby Modiano.

On April 17, task force staff members met with Royal Dutch/Shell Group's 
chairman, Sir Mark Moody-Stuart, Shell Oil chairman Steven Miller and 
two others. On March 22, staff members met with BP regional president 
Bob Malone, chief economist Peter Davies and company employees Graham 
Barr and Deb Beaubien.

Toward the end of the hearing, Lautenberg asked the five executives: 
"Did your company or any representatives of your companies participate 
in Vice President Cheney's energy task force in 2001?" When there was no 
response, Lautenberg added: "The meeting . . . "

"No," said Raymond.

"No," said Chevron Chairman David J. O'Reilly.

"We did not, no," Mulva said.

"To be honest, I don't know," said BP America chief executive Ross 
Pillari, who came to the job in August 2001. "I wasn't here then."

"But your company was here," Lautenberg replied.

"Yes," Pillari said.

Shell Oil president John Hofmeister, who has held his job since earlier 
this year, answered last. "Not to my knowledge," he said.
Research editor Lucy Shackelford contributed to this report.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/15/AR2005111501842.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 mailing is text-only.  It does not carry 
images or attachments which may originate from remote servers.  A 
text-only message can provide greater privacy to the receiver and 
sender. This is a hobby production curated by Richard Pauli
By regulation, the .VOTE top-level domain cannot be used for commercial 
purposes. Messages have no tracking software.
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/20211116/3fe017f0/attachment.htm>