[✔️] September 6, 2023- Global Warming News Digest | Sarcasm Juice Media. Chris Hayes asks GOP, Atom scientists warn, Beckwith warns, Future fiery opinion, Education, 2011 Koch

[Richard Pauli]

/*September *//*6, 2023*/

/[ 4 mins video of sharp sarcasm packed with true facts - from The Juice 
Media  ]/
*Honest Government Ad | Visit Canada! 🇨🇦*
thejuicemedia
Sep 5, 2023
The Canadian Government has made a new tourism ad and it’s surprisingly 
honest and informative!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u7s-BgfcFXw



/[ MSNBC's  Chris Hayes opinion - text and video 
https://www.msnbc.com/all-in/all-in/gop-climate-change-denialism-florida-hurricane-rcna102952 
]/
*The GOP's climate strategy? Hurl ourselves into the fire.*
Their position is not even within the realm of a reasonable policy debate.
Sept. 4, 2023
By Chris Hayes, host of “All In with Chris Hayes”
You don't have to be a climate scientist to understand what's happening. 
The basic mechanics are not complicated. As we burn fossil fuels, we 
pump more and more carbon into the atmosphere. The carbon causes the 
atmosphere to trap more heat, warming the planet and warming the oceans. 
Those warmer oceans hold more energy, fueling storms that get stronger 
and faster. In fact, the extra heat increases the likelihood and 
severity of all kinds of extreme weather events.

Before climate change, Florida was already uniquely exposed to extreme 
weather. It is a peninsula jutting out into warm waters directly in the 
path of hurricanes that form every year. Now as the threat of severe 
weather increases, so does the threat of harm to this beautiful place 
that millions of people call home. Extreme weather aside, Florida is a 
marvel of human engineering. 150 years ago, much of Florida was an 
uninhabitable, pestilential swamp. We drained and developed millions of 
acres and turned Florida into, literally, Disney World. It is a great 
civilizational achievement of man over nature, and it is at great risk 
of being undone by the greatest civilizational threat we have ever faced.

So you would think that the people who represent that uniquely 
precarious slice of land, jutting out into the ocean, in the path of 
increasingly severe storms would be fervently trying to mitigate the 
risk and reduce the enormous amounts of energy we are pumping into the 
atmosphere. But the reality is literally the opposite. Florida’s 
Republican leaders are actually trying to make it worse. Gov. Ron 
DeSantis is refusing to accept $350 million in energy efficiency 
incentives that Florida is eligible for under the Inflation Reduction 
Act. He is saying "no, thanks" to hundreds of millions of dollars to 
help people retrofit their homes with energy efficient appliances, a 
simple way to help tackle carbon emissions and climate change. It is 
just insane nihilism.

His position on climate change is essentially vaccine denialism at 
civilizational scale.

On one level, it is hard to even believe that he would do this. But of 
course Ron DeSantis also turned against the Covid vaccines, an equally 
obvious benefit for his constituents. It is so rare in life and in 
policy that you are handed something so simple that provides so much 
benefit. And Ron DeSantis turned it away for political expedience. His 
position on climate change is essentially vaccine denialism at 
civilizational scale. To DeSantis, the existential threat to the 
peninsula he represents is just another political debate.
- -
And it is not just DeSantis; it is the whole Republican Party. The 
Heritage Foundation, a right-wing think tank, has put together a 
conservative strategy they are calling “Project 2025.” According to the 
New York Times, “the plan calls for shredding regulations to curb 
greenhouse gas pollution from cars, oil and gas wells and power plants, 
dismantling almost every clean energy program in the federal government 
and boosting the production of fossil fuels.”

They are not even within the realm of a reasonable policy debate. This 
is not a difference of opinion about how quickly or how best to meet 
targets on curbing emissions. The strategy is literally to hurl 
ourselves into the fire. Let a thousand hurricanes bloom. It is 
deranged, and it is the consensus view of the Republican Party, whose 
nominee will have a 50-50 chance of winning the presidency next year.

This is an adapted excerpt from the August 30 episode of “All In with 
Chris Hayes.” It has been edited for clarity and length.
https://www.msnbc.com/all-in/all-in/gop-climate-change-denialism-florida-hurricane-rcna102952



/[ advice from the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists - think of it as 
making a giant A-bomb ]/
*Betting against worst-case climate scenarios is risky business*
By David Spratt | September 4, 2023
        David Spratt is research director for the Melbourne-based 
Breakthrough National Centre for Climate Restoration and coauthor of the 
book Climate Code Red
Would you live in a building, cross a bridge, or trust a dam wall if 
there were a 10 percent chance of it collapsing? Or five percent? Or one 
percent? Of course not! In civil engineering, acceptable probabilities 
of failure generally range from one-in-10,000 to one-in-10-million.

So why, when it comes to climate action, are policies like carbon 
budgets accepted when they have success rates of just 50 to 66 percent? 
That’s hardly better than a coin toss.

Policy-relevant scientific publications, such as those produced by the 
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, focus on the 
probabilities—the most likely outcomes. But, according to atmospheric 
physicist and climatologist Hans Joachim Schellnhuber, “calculating 
probabilities makes little sense in the most critical instances” because 
“when the issue is the survival of civilization is at stake, 
conventional means of analysis may become useless.”
Have scientists and policy makers given too much weight to 
middle-of-the-road probabilities, instead of plausible-worst 
possibilities? If so, it’s an appalling gamble with risk. Humanity could 
end up the loser.

*Understanding risk*. A key approach to climate “risk” is estimating how 
much damage will be caused by a climate event, and how likely that event 
is to occur. These two key factors combine to give the size of the risk 
in dollar terms by multiplying the probability (likelihood) of an event 
happening by the monetary damage (impact) caused should it happen. The 
higher those figures, the greater the risk. Policy makers faced with a 
number of choices should rationally pick the option with the lowest 
overall monetary risk.

In everyday life, events may have a relatively high probability—for 
example, light rainfall—but cause little damage; these are low risk 
events. But very heavy storms made more intense by climate warming can 
result in widespread flooding and loss of property and life, and are 
considered a high risk because the potential damage is so large, even 
though these storms happen rarely. It is the high-end possibilities that 
matter most.
*Tipping points*. One of the big things that make climate projections 
difficult is non-linear change. Although complex systems like the Earth 
system and its components generally exist in well-defined stable states, 
shifts from one stable state to another are often sudden and disruptive, 
as when huge areas of polar sea-ice disappear in just one season.

Generally, systems are stable in their ability to return to the same 
equilibrium state after a temporary disturbance, and resilient in their 
ability to absorb change and disturbance and still maintain the same 
basic relationships. Ecosystems are a good example. But too big a 
disturbance, and positive feedback (or amplifying) processes internal to 
the system may destabilize it. The events that precipitate these 
non-linear shifts are called tipping points. The change may be abrupt 
and irreversible on relevant human time frames, and this can start a 
chain reaction impacting other systems.

*For example,* a cyclist can maintain stability on a bike, even as it 
tilts or wobbles to some degree. But one big enough disturbance—a 
pothole, for example—and stability is lost and the system quickly 
transitions to a new state, with bike and rider horizontal on the road. 
Other nearby bikes, such as in a race peloton, may also be affected in a 
cascade of non-linear changes.
This matters because many large climate systems—polar ice sheets, 
ecosystems, atmospheric and oceanic circulation—can be stable through a 
certain amount of warming or cooling, but once a threshold is breached, 
non-linear change fundamentally alters the system.

Jonathan Donges of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research 
says that “to effectively prevent all tipping risks, the global mean 
temperature increase would need to be limited to no more than one degree 
– we are currently already at about 1.2°C.”

*Faster than forecast. *As I previously wrote in the Bulletin, 
scientific observations and data from around the globe show that many of 
the changes that scientists thought would occur later this century are 
already here, ahead of schedule.

Many current changes are at the upper limit of scientific projections, 
and sometimes beyond them. This year, heat records have been smashed, 
and global ocean surface temperatures are at the top of the projected 
range. Other events, including sea-surface warming in the North Atlantic 
and the eye-watering decline of sea-ice around Antarctica, have simply 
astounded scientists.

“On the one hand, we knew these things were going to happen. These have 
been the predictions for a long time,” Claudia Tebaldi, a scientist at 
the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, told the Washington Post 
earlier this year. “[But] this year, in particular, has seemed so 
extreme.… The size of the anomalies is surprising.”

In 2007, Richard Alley, a paleoclimatologist at Penn State University, 
said the dramatic loss of Arctic sea ice in the northern summer was “100 
years ahead of schedule.” And in 2014, when Eric Rignot, a glaciologist 
at NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory, wrote that “the retreat of ice in 
the Amundsen sea sector was unstoppable [and] will likely trigger the 
collapse of the rest of the West Antarctic ice sheet,” Australian 
researcher Malte Meinshausen called it “a game changer” and a “tipping 
point that none of us thought would pass so quickly.”This year, the 
Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation, or AMOC, has become a 
flashpoint for debating how to express and explain climate risk. This 
phenomenon refers to the complex web of ocean currents covering the 
breadth and length of the Atlantic, from the Southern Ocean to the 
Arctic, which help regulate global weather patterns. Its collapse, or 
cessation, would result in much colder weather in parts of Europe by 3 
to 6 degrees Celsius (5.4 to 10.8 degrees Fahrenheit), a shifting of the 
tropical monsoon that billions of people rely upon for food production, 
and more rapid sea level rises in parts of the United States and Europe.
This system has already slowed by 15 percent since the mid-20th century, 
and in 2021 researchers concluded there is “strong evidence that the 
AMOC is indeed approaching a critical, bifurcation-induced transition” 
(in other words, a tipping point) but the timing was unclear. Then, in 
July, a study again drew headlines and surprise when it estimated “a 
collapse of the AMOC to occur around mid-century under the current 
scenario of future emissions,” with a high confidence (95 percent 
probability) of it occurring between 2025 and 2095. This finding is 
contested, but eminent scientists have said it cannot be easily dismissed.

This is starkly different from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate 
Change projection that the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation 
would weaken in the 21st century but “a collapse is very unlikely,” with 
only a 50/50 chance of collapse by 2300 in a high-emission scenarios.

Stefan Rahmsdorf, a professor of physics of the oceans at Potsdam 
University in Germany, said that while there is still “large uncertainty 
where the tipping point of the AMOC is… the scientific evidence now is 
that we can’t even rule out crossing a tipping point already in the next 
decade or two,” and “the conservative IPCC estimate, based on climate 
models which are too stable… is in my view outdated now.”

“However, ‘very unlikely’ in IPCC jargon only means less than ten 
percent,” Rahmsdorf added, and “this is only of limited reassurance in 
the case of a major risk that you want to rule out with a probability of 
99.9 percent.”

*Facing uncertainty. *One of the main policy-making tools for the IPCC’s 
emissions-reduction analysis and the creation of carbon budgets are 
climate–energy–economy models known as Integrated Assessment Models. How 
Integrated Assessment Models deal with risk and uncertainty is a key 
question because of their political centrality.

While the word “model” suggests some technocratic neutrality, Integrated 
Assessment Models are in fact social constructs, where “the very 
structure of a model depends on the modeller’s beliefs about the 
functioning of society.” They have the power to privilege particular 
policy pathways and entice policy makers into thinking that the 
forecasts the models generate and the way they deal with risk have some 
kind of scientific legitimacy.

But this is not the case. “What they are not, it is important to note, 
are forecasts or predictions for the future,” says Joeri Rogelj, 
director of research at the Grantham Institute on Climate Change and the 
Environment. “Therefore, the scenarios in the IPCC database have no 
inherent predictive power—and no amount of analysis, selection or 
staring at spaghetti plots will change that.”

Integrated Assessment Models deal with risk by providing cost-benefit 
risk analysis of various emission-reduction and energy choice scenarios, 
and depend on being able to quantify both the damages caused by climate 
disruption, and the probabilities of such events. But this is a 
deeply-flawed approach, because damages are essentially unquantifiable, 
and the likelihoods may be deeply uncertain.

*Unquantifiable damages. *We do not have realistic measures of the 
economic costs from future climate damages. Tom Kompas, a professor of 
environmental economics and biosecurity at the University of Melbourne, 
says projections for economic damages under different global warming 
scenarios “are difficult to come by, save for simple, highly aggregated 
measures drawn from basic computational models… which can often be very 
misleading given their extreme and implicit tendency to average effects.”

The International Monetary Fund notes a growing agreement between 
economists and scientists that “risk of catastrophic and irreversible 
disaster is rising, implying potentially infinite costs of unmitigated 
climate change, including, in the extreme, human extinction.” And a 2020 
report concludes that exceeding climate tipping points “could lead to 
catastrophic and irreversible impacts that would make quantifying 
financial damages impossible” (emphasis added).

In other words, we cannot put a dollar figure on how much damage climate 
disruption will cause at the levels of warming towards which we are now 
heading. It is a case of “deep uncertainty” which occurs when decision 
makers and stakeholders do not know or cannot agree on the likelihood of 
different future scenarios.

Adding to the uncertainty are system climate feedbacks and tipping 
points. Feedbacks occur when an initial change in a system, for example 
warming generated by carbon emissions, causes a secondary change which 
in turn magnifies the initial effect and becomes self-reinforcing. An 
example is Arctic sea-ice, which is retreating due to the burning of 
fossil fuels, but as the heat-reflecting white ice is replaced by dark 
ocean water, more heat is absorbed in this feedback loop.

In a complex system, second-order social impacts including armed 
conflict, state breakdown, and mass migration are deeply uncertain. 
Climate change is a “ruin” problem of irreversible harm and a risk of 
total failure, meaning negative outcomes are economically unquantifiable 
and may pose an existential threat to human civilization.

*Confronting the unknown. *Climate models are complex sets of 
mathematical equations that approximate the real world—in the 
atmosphere, in the oceans, and on land, and the carbon cycle, including 
human emissions—as best they can. Climate science is a relatively new 
field, and as knowledge has accumulated rapidly, models have become more 
accurate in describing what is likely to happen.

Models assume that all relevant processes can be quantified by way of a 
mathematical value, formula, or probability. Model projections are 
generally communicated as a most likely outcome, and a range to 
incorporate uncertainty; for example: “the projected warming is 2.4°C 
with a range of 1.6-3.2°C (95% probability).”

Models are good at linear processes, and have been right on-the-money at 
projecting future temperatures based on increasing emissions, for 
example. There is also a straightforward relationship between warming 
and how much moisture the air can carry: an extra seven percent for each 
1 degree Celsius rise and thus the capacity for more intense rainfall 
events. Warmer seas can also generate stronger cyclones.

But assigning probabilities to non-linear or sudden-change events and 
tipping points is very difficult.

The problem is not about a lack of knowledge that the system will change 
if it gets hot enough, but when. Current climate models are not 
capturing all the risks, and William Ripple and his co-researchers show 
that many positive feedbacks are not fully accounted for in models. This 
deficiency covers the cryosphere (the frozen parts of the Earth, like 
glaciers and sea ice) and changes in some oceans and atmospheric 
circulatory systems—including in the Southern Ocean, the Atlantic 
Meridional Overturning Circulation, the Arctic Jet Stream, and the 
Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets.

If the damages are deeply uncertain, and non-linearity restricts the 
ability to assign probabilities to future events, then the dependence on 
Integrated Assessment Models to provide action choices is a very bad 
policy-making choice.

*Reassessing risk management. *When the very foundation of modern human 
societies and the complex and fragile, globalized network within which 
they co-exist are threatened, the normal approach to risk management is 
not appropriate given current model deficiencies, the largely 
unquantifiable nature of climate damages, and the deep uncertainties.

Yet a key feature of Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change reports 
on the physical science has been the elevation of climate models to the 
center of the process, relegating to a secondary position the bigger 
picture understandings that come from climate history 
(paleoclimatology). Paleoclimatology teaches that in the long run each 
one degree of warming will raise the oceans by 10 to 20 meters, or 
roughly about 30 to 65 feet. Models, unable to properly include 
cryosphere processes, suggest sea-rises by the year 2100 to be so small 
that the projections are not credible, a process of scientific reticence 
highlighted by NASA science chief James Hansen as far back as 2007.

In such circumstances, how can scientists and policy makers deal with 
the questions of risk and deep uncertainty?

Firstly, they should recognize the limitations of both Earth system and 
climate-economy models and not assign them an exalted position for which 
they are ill-suited. Other forms of knowledge drawn from past climate 
history should be given more weight, as should expert opinion. Asking a 
group of climate experts what they think is likely to happen given their 
knowledge and experience will produce a more frank picture than those 
drawn strictly from peer-reviewed literature where conclusions must be 
“beyond reasonable doubt.”

Secondly, they should recognize that the high-end possibilities have by 
far the greatest overall risks, and they should receive special 
attention. Because climate change represents an existential risk to 
human society, particular focus must be given to one question above all 
others: “What is the plausible worst-case scenario and what do we have 
to do to avoid it?”

Writing about the “climate endgame,” Luke Kemp from Cambridge’s Centre 
for the Study of Existential Risk and his colleagues agree that “prudent 
risk management requires consideration of the bad-to-worst-case 
scenarios” because low-probability, high-impact extreme outcomes have 
damages so large as to perhaps be unquantifiable. They say that large 
uncertainties about dangerous surprises “are reasons to prioritize 
rather than neglect them.”

But this is what the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and 
climate research and risk managers in the financial system have 
overwhelmingly not done. New analysis shows that the potential to end 
humanity is “dangerously underexplored” by the Intergovernmental Panel 
on Climate Change, with textual analysis finding that their assessments 
have shifted away from high-end warming to increasingly focus on lower 
temperature rises, even as “global heating could become ‘catastrophic’ 
for humanity if temperature rises are worse than many predict or cause 
cascades of events we have yet to consider, or indeed both” as noted by 
a paper published in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of 
Sciences. “We know least about the scenarios that matter most,” Kemp says.

Policy makers and global leaders seem not to recognize that when risks 
are existential, a bad outcome means the future is unrecognizably 
different from before. By downplaying the high-risk possibilities, the 
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and others are foolishly 
conducting a dangerously unprecedented experiment: how much heat—how 
much change—can human systems tolerate before society collapses?
https://thebulletin.org/2023/09/betting-against-worst-case-climate-scenarios-is-risky-business/



/[ From a few academic papers - conjecture and speculation ] /
*Fossil Fuel Emissions on track to kill one billion people over century*
Paul Beckwith
Sep 1, 2023
A crucial new peer reviewed scientific paper shows that our society 
today, with accelerating fossil fuel emissions driving abrupt climate 
change is conservatively on track to kill one billion people.

Worst case, is to kill 10 billion people, or in other words essentially 
everybody expected on the planet in 2100 (population projection assuming 
no climate change).

Basically:

    1) Multiple approaches converge to the “1000-ton rule”, which is
    that 1000 tons of C emitted today will kill one future person (this
    is an order of magnitude estimate; namely the range is to kill from
    0.1 people to 10 people, with 1 person being the central estimate).
    Note that 1000 tons of C would be 3700 tons of CO2. Also, 1 ton of C
    emitted could be said to kill 1/1000 of a person or 1 millilife.

    2) One degree C of temperature rise beyond today is expected to kill
    1 billion people. Thus, 0.1 C of temperature rise kills 100 million
    people, and thus 0.001 C of temperature rise kills 1 million people.

    3) One trillion tons of C emitted kills 1 billion people. Thus, the
    “1000-ton rule”.

    4) These calculations do not account for tipping points and thus are
    extremely conservative calculations. We can expect reality to be
    much worse.
    Putting global temperature rise, and C emissions in terms of future
    people killed needs to be widely done by scientists, the media, and
    politicians so that the general public understands what is actually
    happening on our planet with Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Kcm7mXNZ5s

/
/


/[ from the International Association of Wildland Fire (IAWF) - a look 
into the future ]/
*OUR FIERY FUTURE**
**HOW WE CAN WE FACE AND CHANGE OUR FUTURE WITH WILDFIRE*
BY LUCIAN DEATON
- -
At Fire & Climate 2022 Conference in Pasadena, Kate Dargan – founder of 
Intterra, former California state fire marshal, and former assistant 
director for disaster preparedness and response in The White House 
Office of Science and Technology Policy, posed a question to a packed 
hall: What is our fiery future and what can you do today to impact our 
future to come?

Dargan said fire stewardship is at the core of the IAWF and noted that 
the audience was positioned at the tip of the spear for the required 
effort.

Setting the scene, Dargan explained that we are entering a dynamic fire 
environment, and illustrated this as a “J curve” that is quickly leaving 
the relatively stable and comparatively flat environment of the past to 
the sharp upturn we are seeing now and face in the future as well. She 
used this to also show what actions we should take now to confront this 
developing risk with similar vigor.

Dargan leveled with the audience early, explaining that she would talk 
about the real stuff, and that it would be “dark.” Yet, the presentation 
illuminated both the future and the choices we have to confront the 
darkness.

Dargan framed this changing environment in four distinct periods 
spanning from the present to beyond 2050; she challenged the audience to 
consider not only how to approach these times, but also how their 
actions would need to keep up to achieve the future they most wanted. 
Providing perspective to the audience, Dargan thoughtfully explained, 
“You need to plan for the fire you are going to have.”

*2020-2030: SHOCK AND PLANNING *

Dargan explained that our near future will be a time of recognition and 
initial steps; this is when wildfire will become “an official problem.” 
Dargan challenged the audience to appreciate that our collective 
relationship with fire will have to change as tinder-dry landscapes burn 
and our response system is overwhelmed. The current reality of large 
fires, community destruction and ever-toppling records will set the tone 
for this period.

*2030-2040: THE ANGRY YEARS*

This not-too-distant future is when climate change “will sit in 
everybody’s house” becoming a communal reality and will require 
adaptation and mitigation. Dargan suggested this time period may be one 
of stricter land use regulations, home development guidelines, and even 
community rebuilding considerations. It will also be a period when the 
forests of the Northern California watersheds will reburn. When such 
valuable landscapes are impacted, Dargan noted that the challenging 
future will be as much about wildfire as it is about water availability.

*2040-2050: THE SAD YEARS*

Building upon this progression of wildfire and its impacts, Dargan 
explained that we will find ourselves stuck in a future during which 
mega fires are normal.  No longer will the fires be “unprecedented” or 
the stuff of shocked media headlines. Dargan also suggested that a 
rural-urban divide about the risk and response to wildfire would become 
extreme. The debate about costs and who should pay will dominate the 
discussion, Dargan said. While home insurability has a built-in system 
elasticity, Dargan said that during the sad years, this insurability 
challenge will find itself in true crisis.

*2050 AND BEYOND: IT’S UP TO US*

As this future arrives, Dargan said, water issues will dominate the 
discussion. There will be winners and losers in communities across the 
western United States, Dargan said, and we will face a social tipping 
point in need of positive attention. Hard decisions will have to be made 
on climate choices to save our future beyond this period.

Turning from the dark, Dargan stressed that we need will to help each 
other more in this distant future and be part of the necessary change. A 
major lesson to the audience was in Dargan’s explanation that urgency 
and humility are needed to make the future better. Collaboration among 
agencies and companies on grants and available data will be needed to 
approach the issue holistically. Unified command in federal agency land 
management will be required to muster the focus needed, Dargan said.  
And a national consensus will be necessary to address the challenge and 
win the hearts and minds of a skeptical public for such dramatic but 
necessary change

Dargan explained that we are the lighthouses who can guide change and 
encouraged everyone to find consensus and build consortiums today. And, 
in a nod to the current reality, Dargan applauded the work of Oregon 
state agencies and local groups positively tackling their wildfire risk 
saying that “they are nailing it!”

Dargan closed by offering a proposal: a 50-year plan, an approach that 
sets goals, objectives, and uses clear messaging to develop a vision of 
where we all want to be in a world of wildfires. Dargan said such a 
plan’s first 25 years should be broken into five-year cycles, and that 
the first 10 years must be strongly funded. Dargen felt the plan 
requires a non-pyramidal approach, and maybe even new national 
institutions to guide its success; and requires international 
associations to build the change and lay it in front of governments.

While Dargan stressed that we are not yet at the new normal that is 
coming, every moment of our present counts along this path and she 
wanted the audience in Pasadena – and everyone else – to know that we 
are the change that is needed.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Lucian Deaton
Lucian Deaton is a program and policy strategist who has worked for the 
last 20 years on community safety and advocacy. He is the senior digital 
marketing manager for Technoslyva, which focuses on operationalizing 
wildfire science. Previously, Lucian managed the Firewise USA® Program 
and its international outreach for adaptation by valued international 
partners. He also managed NFPA’s Outthink Wildfire initiative, advancing 
domestic policy for community risk reduction. Formerly, Lucian managed 
the IAFC Ready, Set, Go! Program and was a lobbyist representing public 
safety issues before the U.S. Congress and federal agencies. Lucian 
holds a Masters of Urban and Regional Planning and a Masters of Natural 
Resources degrees from Virginia Tech and lives in Denver, CO.
https://www.iawfonline.org/article/our-fiery-future-how-we-can-we-face-and-change-our-future-with-wildfire/


/[ Probable Futures ]/
*Acting Now for a Better Future | HGSE Convening: Education and Climate 
Action*
Harvard Graduate School of Education
Nov 1, 2022
The Education Sector Can Drive Impact — with Innovation, Urgency, and 
Leadership.
"Education Leaders Driving Climate Action" is part of the convening 
called Education and Climate Action, held at the Harvard Graduate School 
of Education on October 27, 2022.
We’ll look broadly at how education systems can begin to grapple with 
their own climate footprint and nurture learning communities that can 
drive solutions.

This session features: Bridget Long, HGSE
Spencer Glendon, Founder of Probable Futures and Senior Fellow of the 
Woodwell Climate Research Center
Jim Stock, Harvard University Vice Provost for Climate and 
Sustainability; Director, The Salata Institute for Climate and 
Sustainability
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cuYV6KnKBS0

/
/


/[The news archive - looking back information battle planning ]/
/*September 6, 2011*/
September 6, 2011: On MotherJones.com, investigative journalist Brad 
Friedman posts audio from a secretive June 2011 conference in Colorado 
hosted by climate-change-denying libertarian billionaires Charles and 
David Koch. In one clip, Charles Koch compares President Obama to Saddam 
Hussein. That evening, Friedman discusses the conference on MSNBC's "The 
Ed Show."

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2011/09/exclusive-audio-koch-brothers-seminar-tapes/ 



=======================================
*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 -- and carries no images 
or attachments which may originate from remote servers. Text-only 
messages 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/20230906/cc332d11/attachment.htm>