[✔️] April 23, 2023- Global Warming News Digest | Poll, Earth Day, Malm - "Blow up a Pipeline". Sunfish eat jellies, Paltering, Rock flour, John McCain
Richard Pauli
Richard at CredoandScreed.com
Sun Apr 23 07:30:48 EDT 2023
/*April*//*23, 2023*/
/[ AP- Associated Press - Poll taken ]/
*Attitudes toward climate change continue to be divisive*
While a majority of the public report personal impacts from extreme
weather, attitudes and behaviors related to climate change continue to
be highly partisan.
April 22, 2023
A majority of the public report personal impacts from extreme weather in
the last five years, and most think climate change was the reason. Half
of adults have become more concerned about climate change in the last
year. In discussing climate change, many adults learn or teach new
information, though fewer report changing opinions.
Seventy-one percent of the public believes climate change is happening,
12% believe climate change is not happening, and 16% are not sure,
numbers that have not changed much in the last seven years of AP-NORC
polling. Democrats are more likely to believe climate change is
happening (91%) compared to independents (62%) and Republicans (52%).
Of those who believe climate change is happening, 63% think it is the
result of human activity. Just 7% believe it is caused by natural
changes in the environment, while 30% say believe it is caused by both
equally. Democrats are more likely to believe climate change stems from
human activity (78%) compared to independents (52%) and Republicans (38%).
Forty-eight percent of adults have become more concerned about climate
change in the last year. Just 9% have become less concerned and 43% say
there has been no change. Democrats are more likely to be more concerned
(68%) compared to independents (45%) and Republicans (24%).
Seventy-nine percent of adults report being personally affected by at
least one extreme weather event in the last five years. Of those
personally impacted by extreme weather, 69% believe climate change was a
cause, at least in part. Thirty percent do not think climate change was
a cause. Democrats who were personally affected by extreme weather
events are more likely to believe it was caused by climate change (91%)
compared to independents (62%) and Republicans (42%)...
- -
The nationwide poll was conducted April 13-17, 2023, using the
AmeriSpeak® Panel, the probability-based panel of NORC at the University
of Chicago. Online and telephone interviews using landlines and cell
phones were conducted with 1,230 adults. The margin of sampling error is
+/- 3.9 percentage points.
https://apnorc.org/projects/attitudes-toward-climate-change-continue-to-be-divisive/?doing_wp_cron=1682199494.5701050758361816406250
/[ Clips from the NewYorker article -- and Elizabeth Kolbert ]/
*It’s Earth Day—and the News Isn’t Good*
New reports show that ice sheets in Greenland and Antarctica are melting
faster than anticipated, and other disasters loom.
By Elizabeth Kolbert
April 22, 2023
The Greenland ice sheet is, quite literally, a relic of the last ice
age. It consists of snow that fell year after year, century after
century, and never melted; at the very bottom, there are flakes that
fell more than a hundred thousand years ago. The ice sheet is so
enormous—at its center, it’s more than ten thousand feet tall—that it
creates its own weather, which is one of the reasons it survives and
also one of the reasons it’s so vulnerable. As the world warms, the ice
sheet is shrinking, and, as it shrinks, it’s losing elevation. At lower
elevations, the air is warmer, so it shrinks more, and the cycle
continues...
- -
I could go on here—global sea-surface temperatures recently hit a record
high; a study released earlier this month reported that sea levels along
the southeast coast of the United States have been rising at the
astonishing rate of half an inch a year—but I won’t, since I’m sure that
you get the picture. The world is on track for disasters on a scale that
humans have never before experienced. Scientists keep warning us to get
off this track, and yet we seem unable—or, at least, unwilling—to do so.
“Greenhouse gases continued to increase rapidly in 2022,” the National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration announced earlier this month.
The original Earth Day, in 1970, was an exuberant, urgent, and
bipartisan event. Some twenty million Americans participated—roughly ten
per cent of the country’s population. Representative Pete McCloskey, a
California Republican, helped organize the day; Senator Bob Packwood,
Republican of Oregon, spoke at American University; and Senator Charles
H. Percy, Republican of Illinois, spoke in Chicago. “Considering the
immense problem we are faced with, we have to come up with some new,
bold, different ideas,” Percy said. By the end of that year, the
Republican President, Richard Nixon, had created the Environmental
Protection Agency and signed the Clean Air Act. Two years later, with
overwhelming support from both parties, Congress passed the Clean Water
Act.. .
- -
At a certain point, lurching from crisis to crisis, Americans will wish
that they had heeded all those scientific warnings and taken action
sooner. There is still, perhaps, a chance to avoid melting most of the
Greenland ice sheet and shutting down major ocean currents. But only if
Americans of both parties—and, indeed, people around the globe—heed the
message of Earth Day. Considering the immense problem we are faced with,
we truly have to come up with new, bold, different ideas.
https://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/its-earth-day-and-the-news-isnt-good
/[ Fox misunderstands Malm ]/
*'How to Blow Up a Pipeline' takes on the thrilling question of climate
sabotage*
The movie focused on sabotage against Big Oil has been blasted by the
right, but it's also sparked debate among people on the left.
April 21, 2023,
By Zeeshan Aleem, MSNBC Opinion Writer/Editor
The new indie film “How to Blow Up a Pipeline,” out in theaters Friday,
can be seen as a kind of heist movie, complete with tension, twists and
a precarious conspiracy to get an illicit job done. But instead of being
driven by a desire for cash, the characters are motivated by a desire
for social change.
That theory of change is outlined in a 2021 book that inspired the movie
and shares its name. Swedish scholar Adreas Malm wrote the book to
persuade climate activists to consider embracing property destruction
and sabotage as an activist tactic. Malm makes the case by elucidating
how traditional peaceful protest has grown enormously in recent years
yet failed to achieve results that have any hope of warding off
catastrophic climate change. Sabotaging the fossil fuel industry, Malm
argues, will make it less profitable and will make mainstream climate
advocacy look moderate by comparison.
The movie dramatizes Malm’s argument by following eight people who come
together to try to blow up an oil pipeline. On the surface, the tension
is about whether they’ll be thwarted or even kill themselves in the
process. But underneath, tension also lies in the audience’s receptivity
to the characters’ plan: Is this a justifiable course of action?
Naturally, the book and the movie have sparked spirited discussion and
criticism across the political spectrum — Fox News held a panel slamming
the movie as violent propaganda. But it has also sparked internal debate
on the left. When I discussed the movie with a group of progressive
friends in a bar after a screening, people were split over what the
movie was trying to say and whether it was defensible.
I called up Daniel Goldhaber, the film’s director and one of its three
co-writers, to discuss how the movie came into being, what it means and
what he thinks of Fox’s tirades.
Our conversation, edited for length and clarity, follows:
*Zeeshan Aleem:* So to start us off, can you just tell me about how
you landed on the idea to make this movie?
*Daniel Goldhaber: *It came on the heels of about a year of Covid
lockdown and Black Lives Matter protests in 2020, the insurrection
on Jan. 6, the apocalyptic fires in L.A. in the winter of 2020.
There’s a moment where I was feeling extremely politically powerless
and also having not really actively worked for a year trying to
figure out if I’m going to keep being a filmmaker and what’s the
purpose in that.
One of my co-writers, Jordan Sjol, is an academic, and he’s always
talked about wanting to adapt a work of academic theory for film.
Jordan sent the book “How to Blow Up a Pipeline” to me and co-writer
Ariela Barer, and we read it. I think this idea of adapting
something that delivered literally on the title was an immediate
point of inspiration. And part of it was this idea of living in a
moment in which there is so much injustice and so many problems in
the world and yet fixing them has never felt slower or more
logjammed. Especially when it comes to the question of climate
change, in which there is no time to afford a logjam, we felt there
was an ample opportunity to make a film and tell a story that wasn’t
just an exciting thriller but that also could really beg this
question about what kind of tactics are going to be necessary to
actually solve the climate crisis...
- -
*Aleem: *Did you talk to Malm about the movie, and how did you aim
to be true to a book that was of a fundamentally different genre, in
that the book was nonfiction and the film was fiction?
*Goldhaber:* Our approach is very much predicated on this idea that
stories are just ideas structured into narrative and that there is a
political identity at the heart of any story. That’s just the nature
of the beast. And half the time when you’re making a movie, a huge
part of the writing process is trying to figure out what the heck
you’re trying to say.
With this, it was like somebody handed us the argument and then we
just had to figure out how to dramatize it. And that process was all
about finding these stories in the real world, doing the research to
figure out what kinds of people have been radicalized toward acts
like this and then figuring out a way to create a diverse enough
array of those stories and people that we felt like the film could
kind of capture a kaleidoscopic array of the different kinds of
people who were involved in the climate fight...
- -
You’re not just illustrating Andreas’ point by showing the different
kinds of things that radicalized people, but also you’re giving
audiences a firsthand experience of the different kinds of lives
that have been destroyed by the fossil fuel industry. We very much
presented that to Andreas, that this is going to be a movie that is
going to be dramatizing his ideas but that it’s also going to be
pushing back on them more. We wanted to include some of the
criticism to the book, because that’s where drama comes from. And he
was very excited about that — he immediately sent us some of his
favorite articles critical of the book and said, “I think you should
be thinking about these.”
I think that the problem in leftist spaces to an extent is that
these texts only exist for a somewhat niche and limited audience.
And the whole point of this movie was to bring this conversation
into the mainstream.
*Aleem:* Do you or the movie take a position on whether or not
property destruction and sabotage in the name of fighting climate
change is justifiable or desirable?...
*Goldhaber: *I think that the movie takes the position that these
eight characters see this as an act of self-defense. And I think
that there’s a difference between the position the movie is taking
and what the movie hopes to provoke as a conversation.
There is a widespread understanding that if somebody is holding a
gun at you with an intent to kill you, you have a right to take that
gun away and disassemble it. And I think that when you look at not
just what science is predicting for the climate crisis but that the
crisis as we have already experienced it — the drought, the fires,
the extreme weather, the famine, the loss of life that we’ve already
seen — due to climate change has been significant. And that’s only
going to escalate. So on some level, the fossil fuel industry has a
gun to the head of the world. And the question the movie is asking
is: Do we have a right to take that away from them and disassemble
it to prevent more harm? That is fundamentally the moral question of
our time.
*Aleem: *I assume you saw that Fox News held a segment on your
story, worrying that Gen Z is being spoon-fed propaganda and that
people are using the movie to champion violence in the climate
movement. What’s your response?...
*Goldhaber:* I think that my response is to question the use of the
word “violence.” And I would question whether or not an oil refinery
that exists in a community, that destroys that community, that gives
the people in that community cancer, that poisons the water, that
blights the land is an act of violence. That’s the question the
movie is posing. It’s not trying to radicalize people toward
violence. It’s trying to ask people to recognize the violence that
exists in the world due to the existence of fossil fuels.
*Aleem:* Some of the characters in the film envision their actions
as justified out of rationale of self-defense and even hope that it
will serve as a legal defense. It’s hard to imagine that passing
muster in a court today to shield oneself from being charged with
destruction of property. But there is an ideological and moral
coherence to it. Are these characters naive or knowingly hoping to
will a new kind of world into existence?
*Goldhaber: *Every revolutionary has been called naive at the
beginning of a revolution. One of the foundational arguments of the
book is that virtually every social justice movement in history has
engaged in property destruction, sabotage, the disruption of civil
society. You can look at how the suffragettes burned buildings and
destroyed paintings. The gay rights movement was started by a riot.
I think it’s less of whether or not these characters are being naive
and more about these characters looking to the historical record and
looking at the need for change and asking whether or not an act like
this is simply necessary...
Part of what the movie recognizes is that, whether or not the
characters are naive, that if we are going to see a successful
necessity defense [argument], that’s only going to be because the
social and political will exists for that change to happen in our
judiciary. To an extent, part of what the movie is also aiming to do
is create a social and political will and understanding of where
necessity defense would even come from, what that would even be.
That’s the same thing that characters in the film are trying to do —
to lay the groundwork for a shift in the way that we think and the
way that we do things.
*Aleem: *I’m sure you saw how a wave of climate activists
vandalizing famous paintings was very polarizing and received some
backlash — some critics focused more on collateral damage than their
message. This movie focuses more on the act than the response. How
did you come to the conclusion to zoom in like that, and what are
the implications for how the movie is received?...
*Goldhaber:* I think we focused on the act because we didn’t want to
send the message that there’s some sort of silver bullet to solving
climate change. And that’s also not even the argument that Andreas
makes in the book; the point he makes is that there’s always a
radical flank. And to empathize and understand the radical flank is
to understand and allow space for it to exist inside of a movement.
Once you start getting into, like, “They blow up the pipeline, and
then X, Y, or Z happens,” the movie becomes about the effect of the
action, not about the justification of the action. And the movie is
all about the last line of the film: “This was an act of
self-defense.” That’s what the film is asking people to recognize:
the defensibility of what has occurred. And while also recognizing
that there are likely to be positive and negative consequences of
something like this, but that’s immaterial, to an extent. Because
there are often consequences to any act of self-defense. But that’s
why we’ve carved out such a legal and moral framework around it —
because we recognize its necessity...
- -
*Aleem:* In recent years, we’ve seen an uptick in more overtly
political and ideologically inspired movies that tackle various
forms of injustice and exploitation, often from an increasingly
left-wing perspective. How do you think about the balancing act
between good politics and good art or the way that there can be a
tension between didacticism and the kind of ambiguity and complexity
to make art that really moves people?
*Goldhaber:* I think that there shouldn’t be a significant
difference. I think that every film is political. Whether it’s
explicitly political or not, there is a political core to telling a
story. And there are some great stories out there that are leftist,
and there are some great stories out there that are very
conservative. You know, the quality of the storytelling does not
necessarily reflect on the quality of the politics, but the quality
of the politics reflects on the quality of the politics. Now, I will
say that “How to Blow Up a Pipeline” is a movie that is more
explicitly didactic and discursive than some leftist films. And it’s
also significantly less didactic and discursive than other leftist
films. But it’s a movie that’s adapted from a work of academic
theory — it means to be a bit didactic; it means to be a bit
discursive; the structure of the movie is fundamentally rhetorically
constructed. That’s the nature of the adaptation and the nature of
the collaboration that we have with the book.
https://www.msnbc.com/opinion/msnbc-opinion/fox-news-how-to-blow-up-pipeline-rcna79138
- -
/[ Malm is not calm ]/
*Climate diplomacy is hopeless, says author of How to Blow Up a Pipeline*
Andreas Malm says he has no hope in ‘dominant classes’, and urges more
radical approach to climate activism
Damien Gayle
@damiengayle
Fri 21 Apr 2023
International climate diplomacy is hopeless, the author of How to Blow
Up a Pipeline has said, as the film adaptation of the radical
environmentalist book is released.
As activists around the world take increasingly desperate actions
against destructive projects, Andreas Malm told the Guardian he had not
“a shred of hope” elites were prepared to take the urgent action needed
to avert catastrophic climate change.
“If we let the dominant classes take care of this problem, they’re going
to drive at top speed into absolute inferno,” Malm said. “Nothing
suggests that they have any capacity of doing anything else of their own
accord because of how enmeshed they are with the process of capital
accumulation...
- -
“And the Cops [Conference of the parties climate summits] are the
ultimate proof of this. Yes, there’s more intention to them, but the
Cops themselves have degenerated into kind of an annual theatre for
pretending that we’re doing something about global warming while, in
fact, we’re just letting fuel be poured on the fire.”
Published at the beginning of 2021, How to Blow Up a Pipeline sent shock
waves through the climate movement, less than a year after the
coronavirus pandemic lockdowns brought an abrupt end to its biggest ever
mass mobilisation.
From 2018 onwards, Extinction Rebellion and the climate strike movement
brought tens of thousands on to the streets. But even as public opinion
swung behind their calls for radical change, emissions and investments
in fossil fuels continued to grow.
The problem, said Malm, was their absolute commitment to non-violent
civil disobedience – the most stringent rule of XR, in particular –
which left fossil capital nothing to fear from public opinion in
bourgeois states where “capitalist property has the status of the
ultimate sacred realm”.
Instead of disruptive protests and mass rallies, Malm called for a
campaign of sabotage of fossil fuel infrastructure, to break the taboo
against targeting property. Or, he contended in one of the book’s
epigrams, “property will cost us the earth”.
“I think the reason for the sort of success of the book is not that the
book itself has such amazing qualities,” Malm told the Guardian. “It’s
because it happened to come out precisely at the moment when the climate
movement was starting to think along these lines...
- -
Since its publication, experiments have begun, starting gently and
becoming ever more radical. Over the past year, across Europe and North
America, in a campaign directly inspired by Malm, climate activists have
gone on night-time raids in their cities’ wealthier districts, pushing
lentils into the tyre valves of SUVs to deflate them by morning.
Since then, things have accelerated. In Cambridge, England, clandestine
activists have graffitied and smashed the windows of buildings linked to
fossil fuel extraction companies. In Hampshire, others sabotaged the
site of construction of a new pipeline to siphon jet fuel from
Portsmouth to London’s airports.
In Lutzerath, Germany, protesters in overalls recently fought riot
police trying to clear a condemned village for the expansion of an
opencast mine, which was needed to supply the dirty coal to keep power
stations burning to feed industries starved of energy from embargoed
Russian coal.
But the most exciting development in environmental protest, says Malm,
has been in France, where activists under the banner of Les Soulèvements
de la Terre have begun sabotage campaigns against environmentally
destructive targets. Last month, thousands fought with police in
Sainte-Soline in western France, in an attempt to sabotage a new
mega-project to harvest groundwater for industrial agriculture.
“The scale of that clash and protest puts everything else in the shade
when it comes to radical tactics in the UK or Germany or anything like
that,” Malm said. “It’s so many people doing so radical things.”
But Malm does not believe a new cycle of climate activism has begun. “My
maybe too optimistic take on that would be that we are in between waves,
in between cycles, because at no point since 2019 have we yet come back
to the numbers and the scale of activity that we saw in that year,” he said.
The movement’s suspension of activities during Covid was “in retrospect
a mistake … a political error”, said Malm. “Since then, there’s been an
attempt to kind of regain the momentum. But that attempt hasn’t worked.
We haven’t come anywhere near to the momentum that we had in late 2019.
“What has happened since then is that you’ve had a diversification of
the movement, and in a sense kind of fragmentation, with the UK being
one case with XR continuing to produce these offshoots, Insulate
Britain, Just Stop Oil, these various groups more or less masterminded
by Roger Hallam.
“And it’s similar in Germany, where you have the Last Generation playing
a sort of analogous role, and, you know, different groups of committed
activists trying out different kinds of tactics.”...
- -
Any new cycle would have to match the numbers of 2019 – but it would
also have to contain a new more radical edge, said Malm. “And what’s
going on right now is that you have an accumulation of experience, where
people in the movement are learning how to do things in a more radical
way. And sort of, you know, building up a bank of skills and thoughts
about more militant kinds of tactics.”
Just Stop Oil initially appeared to promise the kind of new approach
Malm had argued for. When they began their campaign in spring last year,
supporters told the Guardian they intended to move from civil
disobedience, the kinds of disruptive protests carried out by XR and its
offshoot Insulate Britain, and into “civil resistance”.
“What that means is stopping pointing out what the government should or
shouldn’t be doing [and instead] actively stopping the government doing
what they shouldn’t be,” they said, in a direct echo of Malm’s rhetoric
– rhetoric he, in turn, had directly quoted from no less radical a
figure than Ulrike Meinhof: “Protest is when I say I don’t like this.
Resistance is when I put an end to what I don’t like.”
The campaign had begun with an audacious effort to paralyse the supply
of fossil fuels to south-east England. But Malm was critical of an
apparent turn since then towards symbolic protest, of a kind exemplified
by protesters hurling tomato soup at Van Gogh’s Sunflowers in the
National Gallery in London, and most recently by an action in which an
activist threw orange powder paint on a snooker table.
Now in France, Les Soulèvements de la Terre have developed the tactic of
the climate camp first invented in the UK and fully elaborated in
Germany with Ende Gelände, the German movement against coalmining, and
combined it with the longstanding Gallic tradition of political struggle
and confrontation.
“Les Soulèvements de la Terre really has as its tactical agenda to
engage in sabotage,” said Malm. “That was the purpose of this action,
that they wanted to sabotage this water reservoir, which they have done
on previous occasions,” he said.
“So yeah, that’s a sign of these ideas catching on; I do not take any
personal credit for it whatsoever. It grows organically out of the
concrete political situation on the ground, and of course, a very deep
French tradition – I mean, the very word sabotage comes from French.”
The popularity of his book catapulted Malm, an associate professor of
human ecology at the University of Lund in Sweden, to movement stardom.
He is as surprised as anyone that such radical ideas have become
mainstream. The very fact of the funding, filming and release of the How
to Blow Up a Pipeline movie, a tense and tightly made thriller, suggests
a radical change in public attitudes towards potentially violent activism.
“Things have shifted, in the sense that, if you know something about the
climate crisis, you know that the situation is extremely dire,” he said.
“And that gives you a kind of sympathy for the idea that some people
might want to take things into their own hands, or at least a measure of
understanding of the frustration. And that, I mean, that’s feeling is
going mainstream. And I think this is what the film is showing as well.
“Clearly, not everyone is blowing up pipelines – I don’t know if anyone
is doing it. But the idea that the big crime is to build a pipeline, and
not potentially blow it up – that idea has a very broad appeal.”
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/apr/21/climate-diplomacy-is-hopeless-says-author-of-how-to-blow-up-a-pipeline-andreas-malm
/[ TED talks bring specific audiences to specific advertisers. They seem
to have my interests in mind as they have one related to global warming
Video ( contains commercials about traveling) ]/
*Swim with the giant sunfish*
Marine biologist Tierney Thys asks us to step into the water to visit
the world of the Mola mola, or giant ocean sunfish. Basking, eating
jellyfish and getting massages, this behemoth offers clues to life in
the open sea.
https://www.ted.com/talks/tierney_thys_swim_with_the_giant_sunfish
Read transcript -- Available Clips:
I'd like to start tonight by something completely different, asking
you to join me by stepping off the land and jumping into the open
ocean for a moment. 90 percent of the living space on the planet is
in the open ocean, and it's where life -- the title of our seminar
tonight -- it's where life began. And it's a lively and a lovely
place, but we're rapidly changing the oceans with our -- not only
with our overfishing, our irresponsible fishing, our adding of
pollutants like fertilizer from our cropland, but also, most
recently, with climate change, and Steve Schneider, I'm sure, will
be going into greater detail on this. Now, as we continue to tinker
with the oceans, more and more reports are predicting that the kinds
of seas that we're creating will be conducive to low-energy type of
animals, like jellyfish and bacteria. And this might be the kind of
seas we're headed for.
01:01
Now jellyfish are strangely hypnotic and beautiful, and you'll see
lots of gorgeous ones at the aquarium on Friday, but they sting like
hell, and jellyfish sushi and sashimi is just not going to fill you
up. About 100 grams of jellyfish equals four calories. So it may be
good for the waistline, but it probably won't keep you satiated for
very long.
But also what's important is that they're not slacker, lazy fish.
They're super industrious. And this is a day in the life of a Mola,
and if we -- they're up and down, and up and down, and up and down,
and up and up and down, up to 40 times a day. As the sun comes up,
you see in the blue, they start their dive. Down -- and as the sun
gets brighter they go a little deeper, little deeper. They plumb the
depths down to 600 meters, in temperatures to one degree centigrade,
and this is why you see them on the surface -- it's so cold down
there. They've got to come up, warm, get that solar power, and then
plunge back into the depths, and go up and down and up and down. And
they're hitting a layer down there; it's called the deep scattering
layer -- which a whole variety of food's in that layer. So rather
than just being some sunbathing slacker, they're really very
industrious fish that dance this wild dance between the surface and
the bottom and through temperature...
- -
14:27
We see the same pattern -- now with these tags we're seeing a
similar pattern for swordfishes, manta rays, tunas, a real
three-dimensional play. This is part of a much larger program called
the Census of Marine Life, where they're going to be tagging all
over the world and the Mola's going to enter into that. And what's
exciting -- you all travel, and you know the best thing about
traveling is to be able to find the locals, and to find the great
places by getting the local knowledge. Well now with the Census of
Marine Life, we'll be able to sidle up to all the locals and explore
90 percent of our living space, with local knowledge. It's never --
it's really never been a more exciting, or a vital time, to be a
biologist.
- -
Which brings me to my last point, and what I think is kind of the
most fun. I set up a website because I was getting so many questions
about Molas and sunfish. And so I just figured I'd have the
questions answered, and I'd be able to thank my funders, like
National Geographic and Lindbergh. But people would write into the
site with all sorts of, all sorts of stories about these animals and
wanting to help me get samples for genetic analysis. And what I
found most exciting is that everyone had a shared -- a shared love
and an interest in the oceans. I was getting reports from Catholic
nuns, Jewish Rabbis, Muslims, Christians -- everybody writing in,
united by their love of life. And to me that -- I don't think I
could say it any better than the immortal Bard himself: "One touch
of nature makes the whole world kin." And sure, it may be just one
big old silly fish, but it's helping. If it's helping to unite the
world, I think it's definitely the fish of the future.
https://www.ted.com/talks/tierney_thys_swim_with_the_giant_sunfish
/[ For discussion of disinformation and misinformation. We live in the
age of paltering ]/
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
*Paltering is the active use of selective truthful statements to mislead*
The term as applied in psychology and mediation studies was developed by
researchers at the John F. Kennedy School of Government in the late
2000s.[5][6][7] The first known use of palter to describe acting
insincerely or deceitfully was in the 1580s.[8]
Paltering is considered both more serious and more common than a lie of
omission (a passive failure to correct a wrong statement).[3] Paltering
differs from a lie of omission in the following way, as described by
Todd Rogers of the Kennedy School: When selling a used car with engine
trouble, a lie of omission would be a silent failure to correct a buyer
who said, "I presume the car is in excellent shape and the engine runs
well", while paltering would involve deceiving the buyer with a
statement such as "I drove it yesterday in 10-below temperatures and it
drove well".[3]
People who palter often believe it is less unethical than outright lying.[9]
Usage
Paltering appears to be common in negotiations. More than half of 184
business executives surveyed in a study by the Kennedy School admitted
that they had paltered. Among those who did, most told the researchers
they paltered to get a better deal. But the practice is risky, because
when it is caught, it causes conflict, reduces trust and undermines
relationships
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paltering
/[ Wikipedia ]/
*Rock flour*
Rock flour, or glacial flour, consists of fine-grained, silt-sized
particles of rock, generated by mechanical grinding of bedrock by
glacial erosion or by artificial grinding to a similar size. Because the
material is very small, it becomes suspended in meltwater making the
water appear cloudy, which is sometimes known as glacial milk.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rock_flour
- -
/[ geology lesson -- how rock flour is ground ]/
*Glacial "Rock Flour" at Issunguata Sermia, Greenland*
greenmanbucket
Apr 21, 2023
There's a lot of fine powdered rock in Greenland, and more every year as
glaciers retreat. Scientists say it may have uses for the wider world.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZOy7yGULgeU
/[The news archive - looking back]/
/*April 23, 2007*/
April 23, 2007:
• In a speech on climate change and energy at the Center for Strategic
and International Studies in Washington, D.C., Senator John McCain
(R-AZ) notes:
"The burning of oil and other fossil fuels is contributing to the
dangerous accumulation of greenhouse gases in the earth's
atmosphere, altering our climate with the potential for major
social, economic and political upheaval. The world is already
feeling the powerful effects of global warming, and far more dire
consequences are predicted if we let the growing deluge of
greenhouse gas emissions continue, and wreak havoc with God's
creation. A group of senior retired military officers recently
warned about the potential upheaval caused by conflicts over water,
arable land and other natural resources under strain from a warming
planet. The problem isn't a Hollywood invention nor is doing
something about it a vanity of Cassandra like hysterics. It is a
serious and urgent economic, environmental and national security
challenge.
"National security depends on energy security, which we cannot
achieve if we remain dependent on imported oil from Middle Eastern
governments who support or foment by their own inattention and
inequities the rise of terrorists or on swaggering demagogues and
would be dictators in our hemisphere.
"There's no doubt it's an enormous challenge. But is it too big a
challenge for America to tackle; this great country that has never
before confronted a problem it couldn't solve? No, it is not. No
people have ever been better innovators and problem solvers than
Americans. It is in our national DNA to see challenges as
opportunities; to conquer problems beyond the expectation of an
admiring world. America, relying as always on the industry and
imagination of a free people, and the power and innovation of free
markets, is capable of overcoming any challenge from within and
without our borders. Our enemies believe we're too weak to overcome
our dependence on foreign oil. Even some of our allies think we're
no longer the world's most visionary, most capable country or
committed to the advancement of mankind. I think we know better than
that. I think we know who we are and what we can do. Now, let's
remind the world."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ca-82G-mEvs
http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=77106
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/23/AR2007042301763.html
• Katie Couric's CBSNews.com "Notebook" segment covers the calamity of
climate change.
http://youtu.be/CGJMyei2iQM
=======================================
*Mass media is lacking, many daily summariesdeliver global warming news
- a few are email delivered*
=========================================================
**Inside Climate News*
Newsletters
We deliver climate news to your inbox like nobody else. Every day or
once a week, our original stories and digest of the web’s top headlines
deliver the full story, for free.
https://insideclimatenews.org/
---------------------------------------
**Climate Nexus* https://climatenexus.org/hot-news/*
Delivered straight to your inbox every morning, Hot News summarizes the
most important climate and energy news of the day, delivering an
unmatched aggregation of timely, relevant reporting. It also provides
original reporting and commentary on climate denial and pro-polluter
activity that would otherwise remain largely unexposed. 5 weekday
=================================
*Carbon Brief Daily https://www.carbonbrief.org/newsletter-sign-up*
Every weekday morning, in time for your morning coffee, Carbon Brief
sends out a free email known as the “Daily Briefing” to thousands of
subscribers around the world. The email is a digest of the past 24 hours
of media coverage related to climate change and energy, as well as our
pick of the key studies published in the peer-reviewed journals.
more at https://www.getrevue.co/publisher/carbon-brief
==================================
*T*he Daily Climate *Subscribe https://ehsciences.activehosted.com/f/61*
Get The Daily Climate in your inbox - FREE! Top news on climate impacts,
solutions, politics, drivers. Delivered week days. Better than coffee.
Other newsletters at https://www.dailyclimate.org/originals/
/-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------/
/Archive of Daily Global Warming News
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 personal 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/20230423/d1057ff4/attachment.htm>
More information about the theClimate.Vote
mailing list