[✔️] Feb 4 2024 Global Warming News | California Deluge, Clouds heat faster, 60 min segment, 1963 meeting about carbon, 1992 Rush and Al Gore debate

[Richard Pauli]

/*February*//*4, 2024*/

/[ California deluge this Sunday ]/
Damaging Winds Likely
*This BIG Storm Will Cuase Serious Problems...*
David Schlotthauer
Feb 3, 2024
A powerful storm will slam into California tonight, lasting through 
Tuesday. This storm is very likely to bring very heavy rain that will 
lead to significant flooding on creeks & rivers. The deepening storm 
system will bring a period of dangerous winds of 35-50 mph with gusts 
over 60-80 mph, wind gusts of 75-90 mph are likely along the Big Sur 
coast. Should a sting jet develop on the southeastern quadrant of the 
low-pressure center, then a 1 or 2-hour period of extreme wind damage is 
a possibility, especially in the higher elevations. Rain totals look 
very concerning but how concerning? And how much snow could you see for 
the Sierra mountains with this storm? Find out more in the video.

Video Chapters:
0:00 - Intro
0:36 - Impressive Sattlite Images
1:30 - Latest Weather Alerts
3:07 - Storm Timing & Magnitude
6:10 - High Risk For Flooding Issued
8:36 - Rain & Snow Totals
10:41 - Damaging Winds Likely
13:08 - How Deep Will The Low Get?
14:49 - A Look at NWS Offices
18:07 - Outro/Promotion
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P43gxlhtmhc/
/

/
/

/
/

/[ Yes it is possible that you have noticed clouds are changing - 
reading aloud one paper - but our atmosphere does hold more that 7% more 
moisture than at cooler times  ]/
*Study on the Role and Distribution of Clouds in Climate Change Models*
Paul Beckwith
Feb 3, 2024
Tim Garrett of “Earth as a heat engine” fame is a co-author in a new 
study on clouds and climate, which I chat about in this video.
“Climatologically invariant scale invariance seen in distributions of 
cloud horizontal sizes”: 
https://acp.copernicus.org/articles/24/109/2024/acp-24-109-2024.pdf
"Abstract.
Cloud area distributions are a defining feature of Earth’s radiative 
exchanged with outer space.

Cloud perimeter distributions n(p) are also interesting because the 
shared interface between clouds and clear sky determines exchanges of 
buoyant energy and air. Here, we test using detailed model output and a 
wide range of satellite datasets a first-principles prediction that 
perimeter distributions follow a scale-invariant power law n(p) ∝ 
p−(1+β), where the exponent β = 1 is evaluated for perimeters within 
moist isentropic atmospheric layers.

In model analyses, the value of β is closely reproduced. In satellite 
data, β is remarkably robust to latitude, season, and land–ocean 
contrasts, which suggests that, at least statistically speaking, cloud 
perimeter distributions are determined more by atmospheric stability 
than Coriolis forces, surface temperature, or contrasts in aerosol 
loading between continental and marine environments. However, the 
satellite-measured value of β is found to be 1.26 ± 0.06 rather than β = 
1. The reason for the discrepancy is unclear, but comparison with a 
model reproduction of the satellite perspective suggests that it may owe 
to cloud overlap. Satellite observations also show that scale invariance 
governs cloud areas for a range at least as large as ∼ 3 to ∼ 3 × 105 
km2, and notably with a corresponding power law exponent close to unity. 
Many prior studies observed a much smaller range for power law behavior, 
and we argue this difference is due to inappropriate treatments of the 
statistics of clouds that are truncated by the edge of the measurement 
domain.”

Basically, we need to know more about clouds to get better computer 
simulations of the planet.

“Since the first numerical global climate models (GCMs) were developed 
in the 1960s, there have been exponential advances in computational 
capabilities that have led to spectacular simulations of cloud 
structures. The next generation of climate models is expected to resolve 
individual clouds at kilometer scales. The strategy behind this 
“bottom-up” approach to representing the role of clouds in climate is 
that pursuing ever finer spatial resolution and improved model physics 
will lead to more accurate predictions, accepting the necessary evil of 
increased computational expense. Yet, perhaps alarmingly, it has not 
been clear that this approach has been successful in its goal given that 
the spread in GCM predictions of the climate sensitivity to greenhouse 
gases has, if anything, only increased.”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q72aL2jd-UA

- -

/[ Clouds ]/
*Climatologically invariant scale invariance seen in distributions of 
cloud horizontal sizes*
Thomas D. DeWitt, Timothy J. Garrett, Karlie N. Rees, Corey Bois, Steven 
K. Krueger, and Nicolas Ferlay
...Department of Atmospheric Sciences, University of Utah, 135 S 1460 E, 
Salt Lake City, UT 84112, USA
...LOA – Laboratoire d’Optique Atmosphérique, UMR 8518, CNRS, University 
of Lille, 59000 Lille, France
Correspondence: Timothy J. Garrett (tim.garrett at utah.edu)
Received: 9 May 2023 – Discussion started: 14 June 2023
Published: 5 January 2024

    *Abstract*. Cloud area distributions are a defining feature of
    Earth’s radiative exchanges with outer space. Cloud perimeter
    distributions n(p) are also interesting because the shared interface
    between clouds and clear sky determines exchanges of buoyant energy
    and air. Here, we test using detailed model output and a wide range
    of satellite datasets a first-principles prediction that perimeter
    distributions follow a scale-invariant power law n(p) ∝ p−(1+β) ,
    where the exponent β = 1 is evaluated for perimeters within moist
    isentropic atmospheric layers. In model analyses, the value of β is
    closely reproduced. In satellite data, β is remarkably robust to
    latitude, season, and land–ocean contrasts, which suggests that, at
    least statistically speaking, cloud perimeter distributions are
    determined more by atmospheric stability than Coriolis forces,
    surface temperature, or contrasts in aerosol loading between
    continental and marine environments. However, the satellite-measured
    value of β is found to be 1.26 ± 0.06 rather than β = 1. The reason
    for the discrepancy is unclear, but comparison with a model
    reproduction of the satellite perspective suggests that it may owe
    to cloud overlap. Satellite observations also show that scale
    invariance governs cloud areas for a range at least as large as ∼ 3
    to ∼ 3 × 105 km2, and notably with a corresponding power law
    exponent close to unity. Many prior studies observed a much smaller
    range for power law behavior, and we argue this difference is due to
    inappropriate treatments of the statistics of clouds that are
    truncated by the edge of the measurement domain.

https://acp.copernicus.org/articles/24/109/2024/acp-24-109-2024.pdf

- -

/[ older academic presentation,  "Warm clouds persist longer than cold 
clouds" , "least warming in summer - most warming in colder times"]/
*How do clouds affect global warming?*
UT Physics Colloquium
2021
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kE1VBCt8GLc


/
/

/[ a 60 Minutes segment - is clear speaking on our extinction crisis ]/
*Mass Extinction; American Prairie; Gorongosa; Wild Horses | 60 Minutes 
Full Episodes*
60 Minutes
Jan 27, 2024  Full Episodes | 60 Minutes
 From January of last year, Scott Pelley's report on the mass extinction 
event scientists say Earth is currently experiencing. From October 2022, 
Bill Whitaker's story on efforts to create the largest nature reserve in 
the contiguous United States. From December 2022, Pelley's dispatch from 
Mozambique's Gorongosa National Park. And from November 2022, Sharyn 
Alfonsi's piece on the Wyoming Honor Farm, where prisoners have the 
chance to care for wild horses.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_cfqQllZbr4


/[ Some real history - DeSmog reports on a 1963 meeting ]/
*1963 Conference Put Carbon Dioxide and Climate Change in the Spotlight*
New documents show Big Oil funded the first known meeting on CO2 and 
climate change, bringing risks of burning fossil fuels to national 
attention.
Rebecca John
Jan 30, 2024
At 9:30 am on March 12, 1963, in Room 1-B of Manhattan’s Rockefeller 
Institute, six experts gathered to discuss the implications of a newly 
identified atmospheric phenomenon: the rising level of carbon dioxide 
(CO2) caused by the burning of fossil fuels.

Hosted by the Conservation Foundation, a philanthropic organization, 
this small but vitally important symposium would help to bring a 
practically unknown area of scientific inquiry to national awareness.

“Man is altering the balance of a relatively stable system by his 
pollution of the atmosphere with smoke, fumes and particles from . . . 
fossil fuels” and by “the increasing quantities of carbon dioxide an 
industrial society releases to the atmosphere” wrote the foundation’s 
president, Samuel H. Ordway, Jr., in the foreword to the group’s 1962 
Annual Report. Concerned by potential climatic consequences, the 
foundation had proposed a conference on the “Carbon Dioxide Content of 
the Atmosphere” — an informal symposium that would allow a selected 
panel of experts to clarify their thinking and crystallize their ideas 
for “future scientific research” on the topic.

By sounding the alarm over CO2-induced climate change, and attempting to 
propel the issue out of the lab and into the limelight, this 
long-overlooked conference essentially inaugurated what would become the 
global climate action movement. Almost a half century before Al Gore’s 
seminal film and book, “An Inconvenient Truth,” the conference 
organizers produced what appears to be the first publication devoted 
entirely to the subject of CO2 and climate change. They distributed 700 
free copies of the document to raise awareness of the issue and 
stimulate planning for the prevention of future catastrophe.

These never-before-seen documents recently discovered as part of DeSmog 
and Climate Investigation Center’s ongoing exploration of early public 
awareness of climate science, were found at the University of Wyoming’s 
American Heritage Center; the Charles David Keeling Papers at the 
University of California, San Diego; the U.S. National Archives; and the 
LBJ Presidential Library. They reveal that within a year of the 
conference the issue of CO2-caused climate change would be brought to 
the attention of policy makers inside the U.S. Government.
*
Early Example of Corporate Greenwashing*
The location chosen for the conference was New York’s Rockefeller 
Institute established in 1901 by John D. Rockefeller, the founder of 
Standard Oil (now ExxonMobil). The Rockefeller Foundation, which 
maintained a close association with the Rockefeller Institute, was a 
prominent sponsor of the Conservation Foundation, as was the Rockefeller 
Brothers Fund, giving a combined total of $35,000 (worth almost $350,000 
today) to the conservation group in 1962, the year in which the 
conference was organized.

According to the Conservation Foundation’s “Summary of Receipts” for 
that year, Laurance S. Rockefeller (the financier, philanthropist, and 
conservationist who was a grandson of John D. Rockefeller) made 
substantial donations. Three major oil companies also contributed 
smaller amounts — $2,500 from Standard Oil of New Jersey (ExxonMobil); 
$1,000 from Standard Oil of California (Chevron); and $1,000 from the 
Richfield Oil Corporation (BP).
A newly discovered internal document authored by Standard Oil of New 
Jersey (ExxonMobil) in 1966 suggests that its donation was made for PR 
purposes in an early example of corporate greenwashing. The document, 
found in the ExxonMobil Historical Collection in Austin, Texas, reveals 
that one of the company’s PR objectives “as approved by the Board in 
1962” was “to work for a climate of opinion at home and abroad that will 
encourage fair opportunity for its operations.”
*Team CO2*
The Conservation Foundation invited a handful of experts, mostly 
scientists interested in the Earth’s natural systems, to participate in 
the conference. Like the foundation itself, some of these scientists 
also had connections to the fossil fuel industry, highlighting the close 
relationship between the industry and climate science during this time.

First on the list was Edward Deevey, a Yale ecologist and 
paleontologist, who, funded by another Rockefeller Foundation grant, had 
used carbon dating to develop a global climate history.

Second was Erik Eriksson of the Swedish International Meteorological 
Institute, whose 1958 paper, “Changes in the Carbon Dioxide Content of 
the Atmosphere and Sea Due to Fossil Fuel Combustion,” demonstrated how 
fossil fuels were contributing CO2 pollution to the atmosphere.

Next up was Charles D. Keeling a geochemist from the Scripps Institution 
of Oceanography, whose measurements of atmospheric CO2 from the Mauna 
Loa Observatory revealed steadily rising levels of the gas that would 
come to be depicted in the iconic “Keeling Curve.” According to newly 
discovered documents, Keeling’s earliest CO2 research, measuring 
concentrations across the western United States in the mid 1950s, was 
funded by the Southern California Air Pollution Foundation. This 
foundation was formed to tackle the Los Angeles “smog problem,” and was 
sponsored by automobile manufacturers and oil producers.
After Keeling came Gilbert N. Plass from the Ford Motor Company. A 
former physics professor at Johns Hopkins University, Plass had 
published articles on carbon dioxide and climate in scientific journals, 
including American Scientist, Tellus, and the Annals of the New York 
Academy of Sciences. These articles contained evidence that burning 
fossil fuels was responsible for a documented rise in global 
temperatures over the 20th Century.

Finally, Lionel Walford of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s Atlantic 
Marine Laboratory, an expert on the impact of human activities on fish, 
joined the panel, along with William A. Garnett, a pioneer in aerial 
photography who had documented the effects of expanding human activities 
on the U.S. landscape.

The evening before the symposium, a cocktail reception was held for the 
participants at the apartment of Mr. and Mrs. Samuel Ordway, Jr., in 
Manhattan, not far from the Rockefeller Institute. The next morning, 
however, it was down to business with lunch provided and a stenographer 
present to record the discussions “for subsequent analysis.”

*CO2 Will Have Serious Consequences*
The product of the symposium was a farsighted, slim publication, 
“Implications of Rising Carbon Dioxide Content of the Atmosphere,” which 
contained a fateful synthesis of the views expressed by the conference’s 
participants.

“It is known that the carbon dioxide situation, as it has been observed 
within the last century, is one which might have considerable 
biological, geographical and economic consequences within the not too 
distant future,” the foreword stated. “What is important is that with 
the rise of carbon dioxide, by way of exhaust gases from engines and 
other sources, there is a rise in the temperature of the atmosphere and 
oceans.”

The authors hoped the publication would contribute to further 
examination of “the carbon dioxide situation,” which was described in 
the foreword as a subject of “considerable concern and controversy.”

Although the report acknowledged the uncertainties surrounding the 
emerging science of carbon dioxide and climate change, it also noted 
that these uncertainties were in themselves a cause for concern. “The 
most alarming thing about the increase of CO2 is how little is actually 
known about it,” the report declared, before warning that very little 
consideration had been given to “man’s manipulation of the environment.” 
While “the checks and balances are numerous, there are not enough data 
to evaluate them with certainty,” it continued. “The present liberation 
of such large amounts of fossil carbon in such a short time is unique in 
the history of the earth,” the report stated, “and there is no guarantee 
that past buffering mechanisms are really adequate.”

This rise in atmospheric CO2 was “worldwide,” the summary reported, and, 
while it did not present an immediate threat, would be significant “to 
the generations to follow.” The document went on to say, “The 
consumption of fossil fuels has increased to such a pitch within the 
last half century, that the total atmospheric consequences are matters 
of concern for the planet as a whole.” Relief was likely “only through 
the development of some new source of power.”
Moreover, foreshadowing events 50 years on, a consensus view prevailed 
among the authors that the continuing rise in the amount of atmospheric 
carbon dioxide was likely to be accompanied by a “significant warming of 
the surface of the earth, which by melting the polar ice caps would 
raise sea level.”

If all known reserves of fossil fuels were used within the next 500 
years, the report predicted that “the CO2 content of the atmosphere 
would be four times what it is at present and the average surface 
temperature of the earth would have risen by 7 degrees Centigrade.”

However, envisioning the climate scenario we are heading toward today, 
the report argued that “a change even half this great would be more than 
sufficient to cause vast changes in the climates of the earth; the polar 
ice caps would almost surely melt, inundating many densely settled 
coastal areas, including the cities of New York and London. If the 
temperature of the equatorial regions were to rise by this amount many 
life forms would be annihilated both on land and in the sea.”

https://www.desmog.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/005BodyImplicationsofRisingCarbonD.png.webp
The participants agreed that more structured research was needed and the 
lack of overall information was cited as a problem. However, in a 
statement that foreshadowed the impacts of climate denial in the decades 
to come, they noted that a more serious problem was that of “convincing 
people that there is a problem at all.”

In conclusion, the report underscored that it was “very important to 
alert more people, more scientists and more scholars in the social 
sciences as well as the pragmatical sciences, to the need for planning, 
and the realization that there is an obligation to provide for the 
future as well as the present.”

With this goal in mind, Ordway wrote to Keeling in September 1963, 
informing him that a summary of the transcript of the CO2 symposium was 
available for distribution. According to Ordway’s letter, 700 copies 
would be mailed to “persons selected” from the foundation’s regular 
mailing list and “a few others” who “might be particularly interested.”
A list of these 700 selected recipients has not yet been located. 
However, it is likely that all the Conservation Foundation’s 
contributors and benefactors — including its corporate sponsors Standard 
Oil of New Jersey, Standard Oil of California, and Richfield Oil — 
received a copy of the publication with its extensive discussion of “the 
carbon dioxide situation” and its declaration that “as long as we 
continue to rely heavily on fossil fuels for our increasing power needs, 
atmospheric CO2 will continue to rise and the earth will be changed, 
probably for the worse.”

It is not yet known if executives from these three oil companies read 
the Conservation Foundation’s “Implications of Rising Carbon Dioxide 
Content of the Atmosphere” or its 1962 Annual Report. But if they did, 
this information regarding CO2 and climate change would not have been 
entirely new to them. As historian Benjamin Franta has shown, three 
years earlier, in 1959, at an event organized by the American Petroleum 
Institute to commemorate the oil industry’s 100th birthday, physicist 
Edward Teller warned oilmen that CO2 from burning fossil fuels caused “a 
greenhouse effect,” which, if left unchecked, would result in a global 
temperature increase that was likely to melt the earth’s ice caps and 
raise sea levels.

*Corridors of Power*
By May of 1964, records show that at least one of the 700 copies of the 
Conservation Foundation’s report made its way to the Air Pollution 
Division of the U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare (HEW), 
which, prior to the establishment of the Environmental Protection Agency 
in 1970, was responsible for matters related to national air pollution.

HEW produced a draft report that same month outlining “National 
Objectives for Atmospheric Science Research” which contained a section 
summarizing the effects of air pollution on “Weather and Climate.”

The draft report stated that the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere was 
increasing “as a consequence of human activities,” emphasizing that this 
increase was raising the temperature of the earth’s atmosphere, and 
would lead to “more violent air circulation and thus to more destructive 
storms.”
https://www.desmog.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/Screenshot-2024-01-29-at-6.34.36%E2%80%AFPM.png.webp
Citing the “recent report by the Conservation Foundation,” HEW’s draft 
showed that fuel combustion by all industrialized nations was currently 
adding about 1.6 parts per million of CO2 to the atmosphere each year. 
Anticipating warnings from climate scientists and activists today, the 
draft goes on to state, “If this continues unabated, it threatens in the 
not too distant future (as history measures time) to increase the 
average surface temperature of the earth by as much as 7 degrees 
Centigrade.”
https://www.desmog.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/Screenshot-2024-01-29-at-6.36.36%E2%80%AFPM.png.webp
“A change even half this great would be more than sufficient to cause 
vast changes in the climate of the earth,” according to HEW’s summary, 
lifting sections of the text from the Conservation Foundation’s report 
verbatim. The prescient summary went on to say, “The polar ice caps 
would almost surely melt, inundating many densely settled coastal areas 
… and many life forms would be annihilated both on land and in the sea. 
Air pollution’s effects on the weather, therefore, can be significant on 
a large scale as well as locally.”

Although the reference to “more destructive storms” was removed from the 
final version of the report, the minutes of a HEW meeting in June 1964 
record discussions that the next draft should “expand and revise 
discussion of CO2.”

When did a U.S. President first learn about the link between CO2 and 
climate change? Read Part 3 to find out.

These documents show that by May 1964, earlier than previously 
documented by climate historians, members of the federal government 
department responsible for air pollution were aware of the latest 
developments in the science of carbon-dioxide-induced climate change and 
were actively working to make further investigations a national priority.

The final HEW report, dated October 16, 1964, echoed the Conservation 
Foundation report’s key conclusions, stating that the potential effects 
of pollution on the heat balance of the earth posed “a serious 
question.” Levels of CO2 in the atmosphere responsible for the 
“greenhouse” effect were steadily increasing, while “only about half the 
CO2” produced by the combustion of fossil fuels were being removed from 
the atmosphere by natural processes, the agency stated. The final report 
also referred to the suggestion that increased atmospheric CO2 was 
causing a parallel increase in average air temperatures, particularly in 
northern latitudes. It emphasized that, because small changes in average 
temperatures could make a dramatic impact on the polar ice caps, the 
significance of potential climatic influences was “far greater than our 
existing knowledge of these influences.”
https://www.desmog.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/006HewReport.png.webp
Despite this fact, HEW’s report optimistically concluded that “the same 
scientific and technological know-how which created the wonders of 
modern living” would also probably develop a way of controlling the 
unwanted by-products of air pollution. An all-important proviso was 
added: The air pollution problem was likely to be solved, argued HEW, 
“once everybody concerned is fully aware of the need.” However, fossil 
fuel industry campaigns against climate science in subsequent decades 
obstructed this potential solution.

The following year, in 1965, the Conservation Foundation’s report — 
along with the individual work of Eriksson, Keeling, Plass, and other 
renowned climate scientists such as Roger Revelle — would provide key 
evidence for a landmark report on environmental pollution by the 
President’s Science Advisory Committee, bringing the “carbon dioxide 
situation” one step closer to the heart of government.
https://www.desmog.com/2024/01/30/conservation-foundation-conference-1963-big-oil-co2-climate-change/



/[The news archive -  Rush meets Al Gore - students of media and debate 
will be thrilled  ]/
/*February 4, 1992 */
February 4, 1992: In one of the worst examples of mainstream media 
false-balance in US history, Ted Koppel hosts a “debate” on ABC's 
"Nightline" between Sen. Al Gore (D-TN) and Rush Limbaugh on global 
warming and other environmental issues.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N9rZKJt4ZC4 (Part 1)
http://youtu.be/WbC-yWycHfM (Part 2)



=== Other climate news sources ===========================================
**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/20240204/7edda09f/attachment.htm>