<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<font size="+1"><i>June 8, 2017<br>
<br>
</i></font>
<div class="esc-lead-article-title-wrapper" style="margin: 0px 32px
1px 0px; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: arial, sans-serif;
font-size: 13.44px; font-style: normal; font-variant-ligatures:
normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-weight: normal;
letter-spacing: normal; orphans: 2; text-align: left; text-indent:
0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: 2;
word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px;
background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); text-decoration-style:
initial; text-decoration-color: initial;">
<h2 class="esc-lead-article-title" style="font-size: 16px;
line-height: 18px; padding: 0px; margin: 0px; font-weight:
bold;"><a target="_blank" class="article
usg-AFQjCNFznaf7zQCzGtRCgx_E5ObYsWRPmQ
sig2-6B_SZYKSTg1GR1RLl-YwGw did--1575462312478135492"
href="https://hbr.org/2017/06/exxonmobils-shareholder-vote-is-a-tipping-point-for-climate-issues"
style="color: rgb(17, 85, 204); text-decoration: none;"><span
class="titletext" style="font-weight: bold;">ExxonMobil's
Shareholder Vote Is a Tipping Point for Climate Issues</span></a></h2>
</div>
We call this the "Trump climate trap," and it is a real danger. But
another major action last week points in the opposite direction and
leaves us more optimistic.<br>
We witnessed a monumental event in a shareholder resolution calling
on ExxonMobil, the world's biggest publicly listed energy company,
to disclose the impact on its business under a 2-degree scenario.
(That means a world in which we have at least a 50% chance of
limiting temperature increases to no more than 2 degrees Celsius.)<br>
Despite the company's board recommendation that investors to vote
against the proposal, a striking 62.2% of the votes were in favor,
providing a strong signal that climate change is an important
financial risk and that shareholders want to know more about what
companies are doing to transform their operations and products to
remain competitive in a low-carbon world.<br>
The success of the proposal requesting increased disclosure by
ExxonMobil suggests that we have reached a tipping point within the
investment community in the recognition of climate risks. Just a
year ago a similar resolution at Exxon's annual meeting received
support from investors holding only 38.1% of shares. In very little
time, the recognition that our economy will have to transform to
decrease carbon emissions has gone from a minority view among Exxon
shareholders to a majority view.<br>
<font size="-1" color="#666666"><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://hbr.org/2017/06/exxonmobils-shareholder-vote-is-a-tipping-point-for-climate-issues">https://hbr.org/2017/06/exxonmobils-shareholder-vote-is-a-tipping-point-for-climate-issues</a></font><br>
<br>
<div class="esc-lead-article-title-wrapper" style="margin: 0px 32px
1px 0px; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: arial, sans-serif;
font-size: 13.44px; font-style: normal; font-variant-ligatures:
normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-weight: normal;
letter-spacing: normal; orphans: 2; text-align: left; text-indent:
0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: 2;
word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px;
background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); text-decoration-style:
initial; text-decoration-color: initial;">
<h2 class="esc-lead-article-title" style="font-size: 18px;
line-height: 21px; padding: 0px; margin: 0px; font-weight:
bold;"><a target="_blank" class="article
usg-AFQjCNFTCEUpP_H4O75CqolVseYOTxnz8w
sig2-He0I-wtFMbFTsl7b-gC2gA did-6566643512384514944"
href="http://time.com/4808959/climate-change-sylvia-earle-oceans-week/"
id="MAA4DEgBUABgAWoCdXM" style="color: rgb(17, 85, 204);
text-decoration: none;"><span class="titletext"
style="font-weight: bold;">This Marine Biologist Has a
Message for<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><b
style="font-weight: bold;">Climate Change </b>Deniers:
'Get Over It'</span></a></h2>
</div>
Famed marine biologist Sylvia Earle issued an urgent call for humans
to protect the world's oceans and the planet more broadly in the
face of climate change at the launch of Oceans Week.<br>
"We must take care of the ocean. We must take care of the natural
world from the skies above to the depths below," Earle tells TIME
following a panel at the Explorers Club in New York City. "We must
take care of the living earth as if our lives depend on it. Because
they do."<br>
<font size="-1">"Do what you can do, or at least, don't get in the
way"</font><br>
<font size="-1" color="#666666"><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="http://time.com/4808959/climate-change-sylvia-earle-oceans-week/">http://time.com/4808959/climate-change-sylvia-earle-oceans-week/</a></font><br>
<br>
<font color="#000099"><b><a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://www.rand.org/blog/2017/06/the-big-bet-withdrawing-from-the-paris-climate-agreement.html">(RAND)
The Big Bet: Withdrawing from the Paris Climate Agreement</a></b></font><br>
America's formal withdrawal from the Paris climate agreement could
have far-reaching consequences for U.S. global leadership on many
issues, not just on efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Read
more »<br>
The risks and rewards of the president's decision with respect to
global leadership are highly asymmetric: ...<br>
With yesterday's decision, President Trump took a step towards the
"Come Home, America" option, at least in regards to the issue of
climate change, but in such a way as to reduce its benefits and
accentuate its risks. At its best, this "Come Home, America" climate
change option makes sense if the impacts of climate change prove
small and the world makes little progress in replacing fossil fuels.
In addition, this decision makes sense if other countries are
willing to pursue bilateral deals on climate change with the U.S.
None of these bets appear likely at present.<br>
The decision, however, could cause the U.S. and its citizens damage
if climate change proves significant; if the green energy revolution
continues to pick up steam; and if the rest of the world recommits
itself, under Chinese and/or European leadership to the Paris
agreement.<br>
The decision carries significant economic risks, the largest being a
hugely consequential bet that climate change will not prove to be
severe, at least not for the U.S. It also assumes that the U.S. will
benefit from a bilateral approach, that it can negotiate new
agreements, that climate change will be small, that fossil fuels are
the energy of the future, and that the withdrawal will unravel
global emission reduction efforts. The Trump administration is
rolling the dice in a game that the U.S. cannot control.<br>
The economic case for withdrawing from the Paris agreement is also
not well supported by the evidence. This decision seems based
entirely on the near-term savings from not reducing the nation's
greenhouse gas emissions, while ignoring the long-term costs and
associated risks<br>
<font size="-1" color="#666666"><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://www.rand.org/blog/2017/06/the-big-bet-withdrawing-from-the-paris-climate-agreement.html">https://www.rand.org/blog/2017/06/the-big-bet-withdrawing-from-the-paris-climate-agreement.html</a></font><br>
<b><br>
</b><b><a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://evidencesquared.com/ep14/">EP14</a></b><b><a
moz-do-not-send="true" href="http://evidencesquared.com/ep14/">:
Oren Cass and scientific consensus</a></b><br>
In our new podcast episode, John Cook and Peter Jacobs interview
Oren Cass, after Oren and John exchanged articles in the National
Review. Peter geeks out about the 2012 Presidential election (Oren
was part of the Romney campaign) then they have a vigorous debate
about the best way to communicate the scientific consensus on
climate change.<br>
John Cook and Peter Jacobs interview Oren Cass, after Oren and John
exchanged articles in the National Review. Peter geeks out about the
2012 Presidential election (Oren was part of the Romney campaign)
then they have a vigorous debate about the best way to communicate
the scientific consensus on climate change.<br>
<font size="-1" color="#666666"><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="http://evidencesquared.com/ep14">http://evidencesquared.com/ep14</a></font><br>
<font color="#000099"><a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0959378012001215">Climate
change prediction: <b>Erring on the side of least drama</b>?</a></font><br>
Abstract<br>
Over the past two decades, skeptics of the reality and significance
of anthropogenic climate change have frequently accused climate
scientists of "alarmism": of over-interpreting or overreacting to
evidence of human impacts on the climate system. However, the
available evidence suggests that scientists have in fact been
conservative in their projections of the impacts of climate change.
In particular, we discuss recent studies showing that at least some
of the key attributes of global warming from increased atmospheric
greenhouse gases have been under-predicted, particularly in IPCC
assessments of the physical science, by Working Group I. We also
note the less frequent manifestation of over-prediction of key
characteristics of climate in such assessments. We suggest,
therefore, that scientists are biased not toward alarmism but rather
the reverse: toward cautious estimates, where we define caution as
erring on the side of less rather than more alarming predictions. We
call this tendency "erring on the side of least drama (ESLD)." We
explore some cases of ESLD at work, including predictions of Arctic
ozone depletion and the possible disintegration of the West
Antarctic ice sheet, and suggest some possible causes of this
directional bias, including adherence to the scientific norms of
restraint, objectivity, skepticism, rationality, dispassion, and
moderation. We conclude with suggestions for further work to
identify and explore ESLD<br>
<font size="-1" color="#666666"><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0959378012001215">http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0959378012001215</a><br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://skepticalscience.com/climate-scientists-esld.html">https://skepticalscience.com/climate-scientists-esld.html</a></font><br>
<br>
<b><a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/jun/06/climate-change-work-trump-epa">Climate
change progress at Trump's EPA is grinding to a halt, workers
reveal</a></b><br>
.. projects that mention climate change have been 'de-emphasized and
halted' as EPA tears up key planks of emissions-lowering agenda<br>
Current and former Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) employees
have described how work on climate change is grinding to a halt at
the agency, with programs being scrapped and fears that staff may be
reassigned away from climate-related tasks.<br>
The Trump administration is tearing up key planks of Barack Obama's
emissions-lowering agenda, with the president withdrawing the US
from the Paris climate agreement last week and tasking the EPA with
rewriting the clean power plan, which aims to curb greenhouse gases
from coal-fired power plants.<br>
<font size="-2" color="#666666"><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/jun/06/climate-change-work-trump-epa">https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/jun/06/climate-change-work-trump-epa</a></font><br>
<br>
<br>
<div class="esc-lead-article-title-wrapper" style="margin: 0px 32px
1px 0px; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: arial, sans-serif;
font-size: 13.44px; font-style: normal; font-variant-ligatures:
normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-weight: normal;
letter-spacing: normal; orphans: 2; text-align: left; text-indent:
0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: 2;
word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px;
background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); text-decoration-style:
initial; text-decoration-color: initial;">
<h2 class="esc-lead-article-title" style="font-size: 16px;
line-height: 18px; padding: 0px; margin: 0px; font-weight:
bold;"><a target="_blank" class="article
usg-AFQjCNGmgpLE2dlXSZS5WQI55P_bsNzqtw
sig2-yKtRWbzv79YNaO6o43NhxQ did-3778845534341545214"
href="http://gizmodo.com/scott-pruitt-wants-some-kind-of-strange-climate-change-1795908916"
style="color: rgb(17, 85, 204); text-decoration: none;"><span
class="titletext" style="font-weight: bold;">Scott Pruitt
Wants Some Kind of Strange Climate Change Showdown</span></a></h2>
</div>
"'What do we know? What don't we know? What risk does it pose to
health in the United States and the world, with respect to this
issue of CO2?' The American people need to have that type of honest,
open discussion, and it's something that we hope to help provide as
part of our leadership."<br>
Because the scientific community has come together on the issue and
almost uniformly agrees that climate change is occurring and is
caused by humans, this debate is more about having the "red team"
poke at the scientific conclusions of the "blue team." "It could
reveal the current consensus as weaker than claimed," Koonin wrote.
"Alternatively, the consensus could emerge strengthened if Red Team
criticisms were countered effectively."<br>
David Titley, a climate scientist at Penn State University,
dismissed Koonin's idea because "science already has a red team:
peer review." When you hear the statistic that 97% of peer-reviewed
studies agreed that climate change is real, understand that the
figure is coming from this peer-reviewed study that examined the
abstracts of 11,944 papers. There has been some debate about whether
or not this constitutes "consensus" or whether or not scientific
consensus is even good for science. But know that scientists
overwhelmingly agree that climate change is real. When a paper
espouses climate change denial and makes it through peer-review,
there's usually something shady going on.<br>
Peter Frumhoff, director of science and policy for the Union of
Concerned Scientists, told the Washington Post back in March, "The
notion that we would need to create an entirely different new
approach, in particular for the specific question around global
warming, is unfounded and ridiculous and simply intended to promote
the notion of a lack of consensus about the core findings, which in
fact is a false notion."<br>
Frumhoff is right on the money. Debate is fine. Scientists should
keep doing research and publishing that research. And, hey look,
they are. Any climate change denier has the opportunity to use
scientific methods and present their research. This kind of debate
wouldn't really advance public understanding of science. It would
give a big megaphone to a tiny contingent, and when the detailed
rebuttals come in, many Americans would not understand the
technicalities. They'd just know that one guy sounded smart and he
said climate change isn't real. And who would be the ultimate judge
of the debate's winner? Scott Pruitt, of course.<br>
<font size="-1" color="#666666"><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="http://gizmodo.com/scott-pruitt-wants-some-kind-of-strange-climate-change-1795908916">http://gizmodo.com/scott-pruitt-wants-some-kind-of-strange-climate-change-1795908916</a></font><br>
<br>
<br>
<div class="esc-lead-article-title-wrapper" style="margin: 0px 32px
1px 0px; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: arial, sans-serif;
font-size: 13.44px; font-style: normal; font-variant-ligatures:
normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-weight: normal;
letter-spacing: normal; orphans: 2; text-align: left; text-indent:
0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: 2;
word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px;
background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); text-decoration-style:
initial; text-decoration-color: initial;">
<h2 class="esc-lead-article-title" style="font-size: 18px;
line-height: 21px; padding: 0px; margin: 0px; font-weight:
bold;"><a target="_blank" class="article
usg-AFQjCNE0N5p9T-cRDI85-EWGAA5mFFUMPQ
sig2-tC6awTa0cbUfublJTi0C3g did-6872812239463724204"
href="https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/07/world/canada/canadas-strategy-on-climate-change-work-with-american-states.html"
id="MAA4DEgBUABgAWoCdXM" style="color: rgb(17, 85, 204);
text-decoration: underline;"><span class="titletext"
style="font-weight: bold;">Canada's Strategy on<b
style="font-weight: bold;"> Climate Change</b>: Work With
American States</span></a></h2>
</div>
In discussions with state and local officials, emission reduction
programs are a particular focus. And in this area, California will
play a special role.<br>
While Canada has a large automotive industry, the cars and trucks it
produces are overwhelmingly exported to the United States. That
makes setting unique emissions or fuel economy standards for the
Canadian market economically unviable. But California, one of the
world's most important car markets, has long been ahead of the
United States government on emissions rules. Canada now plans to
work closely with the state as it again effectively becomes the
American vehicle emissions regulator.<br>
"There's certainly no question that California is a world leader and
is leading the United States on vehicle emissions," said Mr.
Garneau, Canada's transport minister.<br>
Mr. Garneau said he anticipated that a group of experts he just
gathered to recommend zero-emission vehicle rules for Canada would
closely watch California's decisions.<br>
Coming directly after the president's speech, the meeting between
the mayor and Mr. Garneau centered on the role of transit in
reducing emissions, as well as trade issues.<br>
<font size="-1" color="#666666"><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/07/world/canada/canadas-strategy-on-climate-change-work-with-american-states.html">https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/07/world/canada/canadas-strategy-on-climate-change-work-with-american-states.html</a></font><br>
<font color="#000099"><b><br>
</b><b><a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fl08NSgQ5nc">(video)
Some Paleoclimate Perspectives: Dr Alex Thomas</a></b></font><br>
1:04:01 Fundamental Paleoclimatology - published June 7, 2017<br>
<font size="-1" color="#666666"><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fl08NSgQ5nc">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fl08NSgQ5nc</a></font><br>
<br>
<font size="+1"><b><a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P2-8177663.html">This Day
in Climate History June 8, 1990</a> - from D.R. Tucker</b></font><br>
<blockquote> The Massachusetts Institute of Technology hosts a
global-warming debate between climate scientist Stephen Schneider
and climate denier Dick Lindzen. Reporting on the debate the next
day, the Boston Globe notes:<br>
"A long-anticipated showdown at the Massachusetts Institute of
Technology yesterday between two prominent voices in the
global-warming debate brought little agreement about the
reliability of current predictions for the rate and magnitude of
climate change. But despite the seriousness of the topic, the
event did provide a theatrical and sometimes humorous presentation
of the arguments on either side.<br>
"Underscoring the range of scientific opinion on the issue, the
organizers put MIT meteorologist Richard Lindzen on one side and
climate researcher Stephen Schneider of the National Center for
Atmospheric Research on the other side of a table divided down the
middle. Schneider, who believes there is a better-than-even chance
of 'unprecedentedly fast climate change' in the next century, sat
at the red end in front of a palm tree, while Lindzen, one the
most vocal skeptics, commanded the blue extreme before a scraggly
spruce. The moderator straddled the border.<br>
"These models are made up of equations that are meant to represent
the important physical processes -- such as motion and heat
transport in the atmosphere -- that work together to create
weather and climate. Based on the work of five climate modeling
teams in the United States and Britain and forecasts of energy
use, scientists have projected that the earth's average
temperature will rise between 3 and 9 degrees Fahrenheit by the
middle of the next century. While such a temperature rise might
not sound like much, climate researchers say that such a sharp
rise in global temperature in such a short time almost certainly
would cause major shifts in climate."<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P2-8177663.html">http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P2-8177663.html</a><br>
</blockquote>
<font size="+1"> </font><font size="+1"><i>------------------------------------------------------------------------------------<br>
</i></font><font size="+1"><i> </i></font><font
size="+1"><i> You are encouraged to forward this email </i></font>
<blockquote>
<blockquote><small>. </small><small><b>** Privacy and Security: </b>
This is a text-only mailing that carries no images which may
originate from remote servers. </small><small> Text-only
messages provide greater privacy to the receiver and sender.
</small><small> </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><br>
<small>To subscribe, email: <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></blockquote>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>