<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<font size="+1"><i>Stay well-informed about global warming - Please
forward this email. February 7, 2017</i></font><font size="+1"><i>
</i></font><br>
<font color="#666666" size="-1"><br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2017/02/science_tv_shows_for_kids_on_nickelodeon_disney_and_pbs_ignore_climate_change.html">http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2017/02/science_tv_shows_for_kids_on_nickelodeon_disney_and_pbs_ignore_climate_change.html</a></font><br>
<font color="#000099" size="+1"><b><a
href="http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2017/02/science_tv_shows_for_kids_on_nickelodeon_disney_and_pbs_ignore_climate_change.html">Kids<font
color="#000099">'</font> TV Is Ignoring Climate Change</a></b></font><br>
<blockquote><font size="-1">Shows like Nature Cat and Sid the
Science Kid teach children everything about wildlife and the
environment—with one glaring exception.</font><br>
<font size="-1">By Melinda Wenner Moyer -- .. from my 5-year-old
.... when I mentioned climate change and he said: "What's that?"</font><br>
<font size="-1">After a few more questions, I discovered that he's
never heard any of his favorite science shows mention climate
change or global warming. Which is strange, because according to
overwhelming scientific consensus, climate change is one of the
most important environmental issues of our time....</font><br>
<font size="-1">After asking Nickelodeon spokeswoman Leslie Byxbee
via e-mail whether the network has ever covered climate change,
she replied that its nature- and science -themed shows, which
include Dora the Explorer and Blaze and the Monster Machines,
have discussed deforestation, alternative energy, ocean garbage,
endangered animals, oil spills, and littering. Noticing that
climate change was missing from this list, I followed up by
asking: "Am I correct to infer from your answer that climate
change has not specifically been addressed in any of your shows,
although other environmental issues have?" Her reply suggested
that my questions touched a sensitive button. "Actually no,
that's not the inference I meant as your takeaway. All of the
examples I gave are about the environment, which is related to
climate change," she wrote. She added that one episode of Dora
the Explorer was about melting snow, which is evidence that
"concepts of changes to the environment have been used in
plots." Hmm...</font><br>
<font size="-1">...it's because the network feels that focusing on
"foundational science concepts" is "the most age-appropriate way
to serve our audience." I don't know about you, but I'd rather
my kid learn a little about the melting polar ice caps than
accumulate yet another piece of trivia about colossal squids....</font><br>
<font size="-1">My guess is that the networks are afraid that
promoting the (extremely solid) science on a politically
controversial issue will lead them to lose viewers or
advertisers. But if that's true, and they're choosing their
bottom line over the education of America's children, that's a
real shame. Kids need to learn about the issue that threatens
their planet if they're ever going to feel inspired to save it.</font><br>
</blockquote>
<font color="#666666" size="-1"><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://thinkprogress.org/once-cautious-climate-economist-warns-against-the-cost-of-trump-era-inaction-c19ff36ff964#.1nl0342mb">https://thinkprogress.org/once-cautious-climate-economist-warns-against-the-cost-of-trump-era-inaction-c19ff36ff964#.1nl0342mb</a></font><br>
<font size="+1"><a
href="https://thinkprogress.org/once-cautious-climate-economist-warns-against-the-cost-of-trump-era-inaction-c19ff36ff964#.1nl0342mb">Once-cautious
climate economist reverses course, issues warning against the
cost of inaction</a></font><br>
<blockquote><font size="-1">William Nordhaus says social cost of CO2
much higher than he thought, while team Trump says it is zero.<br>
Leading climate economist William Nordhaus — who had been an
advocate of a “go slow” approach on climate policy — now says
carbon pollution is much more damaging to the economy than he
previously estimated.<br>
While the Yale economics professor has previously advocated for
a very low carbon tax, his new analysis examining our “era of
minimal climate policies” has changed his mind. Now Nordhaus
says our dawdling has been costly — nearly doubling his
calculation of the so-called social cost of carbon (SCC), which
is the long-term damage caused by an additional ton of CO2
emissions (or, the benefit of a ton of CO2 reduction).<br>
Nordhaus warns that further inaction will lead to rapid climate
change and incur increasingly greater costs.</font><br>
<font color="#666666" size="-1"><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2017-01-31/a-climate-change-economist-sounds-the-alarm">https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2017-01-31/a-climate-change-economist-sounds-the-alarm</a></font><br>
<a
href="https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2017-01-31/a-climate-change-economist-sounds-the-alarm">A
Climate Change Economist Sounds the Alarm</a><br>
<font size="-1">In the early 1990s, Yale's William Nordhaus was
among the first to examine the economics of reducing carbon
emissions. Since then, he and colleagues have mixed climate
physics with economic modeling to explore how various policies
might play out both for global temperatures and growth. The
approach attempts to weigh, in present-value terms, the costs of
preventative measures against the future benefit of avoiding
disaster.<br>
n his latest analysis, though, Nordhaus comes to a very
different conclusion. Using a more accurate treatment of how
carbon dioxide may affect temperatures, and how remaining
uncertainties affect the likely economic outcomes, he finds that
our current response to global warming is probably inadequate to
prevent temperatures from rising more than 2 degrees Celsius
above their pre-industrial levels, a stated goal of the Paris
accords.<br>
Worse, the analysis suggests that the required carbon-dioxide
reductions are beyond what's politically possible...</font><br>
<font color="#000099"><a
href="http://cowles.yale.edu/sites/default/files/files/pub/d20/d2057.pdf"><b>Nordhaus
Study documen</b>t</a> <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="http://cowles.yale.edu/sites/default/files/files/pub/d20/d2057.pdf">http://cowles.yale.edu/sites/default/files/files/pub/d20/d2057.pdf</a></font>
December 2016<br>
<font size="-1">"The study confirms past estimates of likely rapid
climate change over the next century if there are not major
climate-change policies. It suggests that it will be extremely
difficult to achieve the 2°C target of international agreements
even if ambitious policies are introduced in the near term. The
required carbon price needed to achieve current targets has
risen over time as policies have been delayed."</font><br>
</blockquote>
<br>
<font color="#666666" size="-1"><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://www.cdp.net/en/cities">https://www.cdp.net/en/cities</a></font><br>
<span style="font-family:helvetica
neue,helvetica,arial,verdana,sans-serif"><a
href="https://www.cdp.net/en/cities"><strong>Carbon Tracking for
Cities:</strong></a> <br>
</span>
<blockquote><span style="font-family:helvetica
neue,helvetica,arial,verdana,sans-serif"><font size="-1">Carbon
Disclosure Project has just launched its reporting platform
for <a
href="http://climatenexus.us4.list-manage2.com/track/click?u=d1f5797e59060083034310930&id=8b887aff72&e=95b355344d"
style="word-wrap: break-word;-ms-text-size-adjust:
100%;-webkit-text-size-adjust: 100%;color:
#709ab9;font-weight: normal;text-decoration: underline;">cities</a>,
enabling cities to track their sustainability and climate
efforts annually. CDP will host a webinar on Wednesday <a
href="http://climatenexus.us4.list-manage1.com/track/click?u=d1f5797e59060083034310930&id=f5d0ed6002&e=95b355344d"
style="word-wrap: break-word;-ms-text-size-adjust:
100%;-webkit-text-size-adjust: 100%;color:
#709ab9;font-weight: normal;text-decoration: underline;">Feb
8</a> and Wednesday <a
href="http://climatenexus.us4.list-manage.com/track/click?u=d1f5797e59060083034310930&id=593e8954a5&e=95b355344d"
style="word-wrap: break-word;-ms-text-size-adjust:
100%;-webkit-text-size-adjust: 100%;color:
#709ab9;font-weight: normal;text-decoration: underline;">Feb
15</a> to train cities how to best use the tools and
resources. More than <a
href="http://climatenexus.us4.list-manage.com/track/click?u=d1f5797e59060083034310930&id=81d89d7e47&e=95b355344d"
style="word-wrap: break-word;-ms-text-size-adjust:
100%;-webkit-text-size-adjust: 100%;color:
#709ab9;font-weight: normal;text-decoration: underline;">500
cities</a> participated in CDP's climate change tracking in
2016.</font></span><br>
<span style="font-family:helvetica
neue,helvetica,arial,verdana,sans-serif"><font size="-1"><font
color="#666666"><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="http://climatenexus.org/messaging-communication/current-events">http://climatenexus.org/messaging-communication/current-events</a></font></font></span><br>
<span style="font-family:helvetica
neue,helvetica,arial,verdana,sans-serif"></span></blockquote>
<br>
<font color="#666666" size="-1"><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="http://www.vox.com/science-and-health/2016/12/22/14022114/solar-year-two-remarkable-facts">http://www.vox.com/science-and-health/2016/12/22/14022114/solar-year-two-remarkable-facts</a></font><br>
<b><a
href="http://www.vox.com/science-and-health/2016/12/22/14022114/solar-year-two-remarkable-facts">2
remarkable facts that illustrate solar power's declining cost</a></b><br>
<blockquote><font size="-1">It's not "the cheapest electricity in
the world," but it's getting really cheap.</font><br>
</blockquote>
<font color="#666666" size="-1"><br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="http://us6.campaign-archive1.com/?u=6e13c74c17ec527c4be72d64f&id=5659d20e00&e=30dc80e2f6">http://us6.campaign-archive1.com/?u=6e13c74c17ec527c4be72d64f&id=5659d20e00&e=30dc80e2f6</a></font><br>
<b><a
href="http://us6.campaign-archive1.com/?u=6e13c74c17ec527c4be72d64f&id=5659d20e00&e=30dc80e2f6">Oil's
methane emissions higher than feared</a></b><br>
<blockquote><font size="-1">New study shows that oil production can
result in methane emissions up to twice as high as estimated by
'simplistic' data collection systems.</font><br>
<font size="-1">By Alex Kirby</font><br>
<font size="-1">LONDON, 6 February, 2017 – Global methane
emissions from oil production between 1980 and 2012 were far
higher than previously thought – in some cases, as much as
double the amount previously estimated, according to a new
scientific study...The author of the study − which also includes
emissions of another gas, ethane − says it is the first to take
into account different production management systems and
geological conditions around the world.</font><br>
</blockquote>
<br>
<font color="#666666" size="-1"><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2017/01/trump_s_team_wants_to_recalculate_the_social_cost_of_carbon.html">http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2017/01/trump_s_team_wants_to_recalculate_the_social_cost_of_carbon.html</a></font><br>
<font size="+1"><b><a
href="http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2017/01/trump_s_team_wants_to_recalculate_the_social_cost_of_carbon.html">Here's
One Way Trump's Team Could Manipulate Government Data</a></b></font><br>
<blockquote><font size="-1">"Would Trump try to meddle with the
government's data-collection process?"</font><br>
<font size="-1"> His transition team is interested in doing
exactly that. One of the first things that might be under
attack? A number known as the "social cost of carbon."</font><br>
<font size="-1">...It has plans to recalculate the social cost of
carbon, which has been called "the most important number you've
never heard of."</font><br>
<font size="-1"> while the existence of the number is mandated,
the calculation itself is still flexible. Currently, it is
calculated by a group of scientists from multiple federal
agencies every five years. Climate scientists first predict how
much carbon dioxide will be emitted into the atmosphere in the
future, how much temperatures will change as a result, and what
kinds of damages will occur because of these changes.
Demographers predict population growth while economists predict
economic growth and quantify how climate change will affect such
growth. They make similar calculations for other greenhouse
gases, like methane, which comes from oil and gas operations and
landfills....</font><br>
<font size="-1">The social cost of carbon is recalculated every
five years. When it was last calculated, in 2015, the cost was
estimated at $36 per ton of carbon dioxide emissions. This was a
substantial increase from the $21 calculation in 2010, which
largely reflects the fact that the scientists' predictions for
climate change impacts and damages have become more dire.</font><br>
<font size="-1"> the Trump administration is skeptical of the
entire idea of a social cost of carbon. Last month, Thomas Pyle,
Trump's Department of Energy transition leader, indicated in a
leaked memo that the administration would review the calculation
behind the social cost of carbon and aim to end its use in
government decision-making. The memo stated, "If the [social
cost of carbon] were subjected to the latest science, it would
certainly be much lower than what the Obama administration has
been using." ...</font><br>
<font size="-1">The number isn't set to be reassessed until 2020.
Of course, Trump could try to assemble a new group of scientists
and economists and adopt a much lower cost than the current
consensus. Trump's "America Energy First Plan" is premised on
the statement that "for too long, we've been held back by
burdensome regulations on our energy industry." ...</font><br>
<font size="-1">Scientists do think there needs to be more
research, and the National Academy of Sciences recently released
a new report offering recommendations for updating the standard.
If it's recalculated using the latest research, the cost of
carbon would be even higher....</font><br>
<font size="-1">To recalculate this number at a lower rate,
Trump-appointed scientists would need to perform some
statistical gymnastics, though there are ways to attack certain
aspects of the calculation that could significantly lower it.
For instance, they could mess with the discount rate or try to
limit the geographic scope of the analysis to only account for
how climate change will affect America, rather than account for
the global cost. ...</font><br>
<font size="-1">Any attempt to stop using the social cost of
carbon would be illegal and is sure to face legal action. A
reassessment of the cost based on shoddy science would likely
face the same. Either way, it's likely to be a battle.</font><br>
</blockquote>
<br>
<font color="#666666" size="-1"><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/gch2.201600008/abstract">http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/gch2.201600008/abstract</a></font><br>
<b><a
href="http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/gch2.201600008/abstract">Inoculating
the Public against Misinformation about Climate Change</a></b><br>
Abstract <br>
<blockquote><font size="-1">Effectively addressing climate change
requires significant changes in individual and collective human
behavior and decision-making. Yet, in light of the increasing
politicization of (climate) science, and the attempts of
vested-interest groups to undermine the scientific consensus on
climate change through organized "disinformation campaigns,"
identifying ways to effectively engage with the public about the
issue across the political spectrum has proven difficult. A
growing body of research suggests that one promising way to
counteract the politicization of science is to convey the high
level of normative agreement ("consensus") among experts about
the reality of human-caused climate change. Yet, much prior
research examining public opinion dynamics in the context of
climate change has done so under conditions with limited
external validity. Moreover, no research to date has examined
how to protect the public from the spread of influential
misinformation about climate change. The current research
bridges this divide by exploring how people evaluate and process
consensus cues in a polarized information environment.
Furthermore, evidence is provided that it is possible to
pre-emptively protect ("inoculate") public attitudes about
climate change against real-world misinformation.</font><br>
</blockquote>
<font color="#666666" size="-1"><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://youtu.be/5k267NdmiFY">http://youtu.be/5k267NdmiFY</a></font><br>
<font size="+1"><b><a href="http://youtu.be/5k267NdmiFY">This Day in
Climate History February 7, 2007</a> - from D.R. Tucker</b></font><br>
Air America host Betsy Rosenberg and Competitive Enterprise
Institute representative Chris Horner discuss the recently released
4th IPCC report on the Fox News Channel program "Hannity and
Colmes."<br>
<br>
======================= ####
===========================<br>
<blockquote>
<blockquote><small><b>forward this email: </b></small><small>Send
to everyone who needs to st ay informed about global warming.
</small><br>
<small> To subscribe email me: <a
class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated"
href="mailto:contact@theclimate.vote">contact@theclimate.vote</a>
with subject: subscribe, To Unsubscribe, subject:
unsubscribe</small><br>
<small> Also you</small><font size="-1"> may
subscribe/unsubscribe at <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://pairlist10.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/theclimate.vote">https://pairlist10.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/theclimate.vote</a></font><small>
</small><br>
<small> </small><small>Links and headlines assembled and
curated by Richard Pauli</small><small> for <a
class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://TheClimate.Vote">http://TheClimate.Vote</a>
delivering succinct information for citizens and responsible
governments of all levels.</small><small> L</small><small>ist
membership is confidential and records are scrupulously
restricted to this mailing list. <br>
</small><small>. </small><small><b>** Privacy and Security: </b>
We do NOT collect IP addresses. This is a text-only mailing.
It carries no graphics or images which may originate from
remote servers that routinely track and identify IP address</small><small>.
Text-only messages provide greater privacy to the receiver and
sender. If you receive a version of this document in an
email with a graphics image - even a one-pixel-sized image,
for optimal privacy from tracking, you should not open it. **</small><br>
<small> By regulation, the .VOTE top-level domain must be used
for democratic and election purposes and cannot be used for
commercial purposes. </small><small>. <br>
</small></blockquote>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>