<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<font size="+1"><i>July 12, 2017</i></font><br>
<br>
<b><a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-40321674">[BBC
News] Giant iceberg splits from Antarctic</a></b><br>
One of the biggest icebergs ever recorded has just broken away from
Antarctica.<br>
The giant block is estimated to cover an area of roughly 6,000 sq
km; that's about a quarter the size of Wales. <i>(Delaware)</i><br>
An US satellite observed the berg on Wednesday while passing over a
region known as the Larsen C Ice Shelf.<br>
Scientists were expecting it. They'd been following the development
of a large crack in Larsen's ice for more than a decade...<br>
The more than 200m-thick tabular berg will not move very far, very
fast in the short term. But it will need to be monitored. Currents
and winds might eventually push it north of the Antarctic where it
could become a hazard to shipping. <br>
<font size="-1" color="#666666"><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-40321674">http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-40321674</a></font><br>
<br>
<b><a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.cbsnews.com/videos/will-global-warming-lead-to-earths-demise/">(CBS
video) Will global warming lead to Earth's demise?</a></b><br>
JULY 11, 2017, 3:39 PM| In the scientific community there is a
strong consensus that global temperatures have increased in recent
decades and that this trend is largely caused by human-induced
emissions of greenhouse gases. But just how bad could things get?
New York Magazine deputy editor David Wallace-Wells joins CBSN to
discuss his cover story on climate change, which describes an
apocalyptic scenario.<br>
<font size="-1" color="#666666"><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="http://www.cbsnews.com/videos/will-global-warming-lead-to-earths-demise/">http://www.cbsnews.com/videos/will-global-warming-lead-to-earths-demise/</a></font><br>
<font size="+1"><a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://localsteps.org/howbad.html"><b><br>
</b><b>How bad can it be? ...and when?</b></a></font><b><br>
</b>The chart has linked hotspots to temps. In the lower right
corner notice the temperature line for the current year. There are
seven future projections plotted. <br>
The graphic IPCC Chart uses data from <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_Report_on_Emissions_Scenarios">special
report emissions scenario for the IPCC</a>. Links below in blue
are summarized projections for each degree change taken from the
book "<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://www.amazon.com/Six-Degrees-Future-Hotter-Planet/dp/142620213X/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1">Six
Degrees, Our Future on a Hotter Planet</a>" - Mark Lynas and
videos segments from National Geographics. For an excellent video
introduction to the global warming problem see the <a
moz-do-not-send="true" href="http://youtu.be/0F3QPY83NZQ">National
Geographic video of Global Warming 101</a><b><br>
</b><font size="-1" color="#666666"><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="http://localsteps.org/howbad.html">http://localsteps.org/howbad.html</a></font><b><br>
<br>
<br>
<font size="+1"><a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2017/7/11/15950966/climate-change-doom-journalism">Did
that New York magazine climate story freak you out? Good.</a></font></b><br>
<b>It's okay to talk about how scary climate change is. Really.</b><br>
Updated by David Roberts<br>
David Wallace-Wells has a <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2017/07/climate-change-earth-too-hot-for-humans.html">cover
story on climate change in New York magazine</a> that has kicked
up quite a discussion.<br>
It's about worst-case scenarios, i.e., what is likely to happen if
we do nothing to change our current greenhouse-gas emissions
trajectory. It answers the question: How bad could it get?<br>
Turns out, it could get pretty bad. The dystopian future the piece
describes is much worse, and forecast to happen much sooner, than
most people - even people fairly well-versed in climate change -
understand...<br>
The theme of all these critiques is that bad, scary news doesn't
help. It terrifies and paralyzes people....<br>
that doesn't mean that every single instance of fear has to be
accompanied by a serving of hope. Not every article has to be about
everything. In fact, if you ask me, the "[two paragraphs of fear],
BUT [12 paragraphs of happy news]" format has gotten to be a
predictable snooze. Some pieces can just be about the terrible risks
we face. That's okay.<br>
Finally, fear+hope requires fear. Wallace-Wells himself has the best
defense, in a (fascinating) <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://gothamist.com/2017/07/10/climate_change_ny_mag.php">interview
with Gothamist:</a><br>
<blockquote>It just so happens that people seem much less aware of
those sort of [negative-end] tail risks than they are of the
positive-end tail risks, which are namely that life will continue
much like it is now. And so I thought even just as a kind of
experiment in psychological anchoring, it was useful to say,
here's really the worst case outcome that you should be thinking
about probably as often as you think about the best case outcome,
which is the world that you walk through every day. There's been a
sort of general failure of imagination that means we've accepted
what's the median-likely outcome as a worst-case scenario. As a
result we've been a bit handicapped in thinking about how much
action needs to be taken.<br>
This sounds exactly right to me. "Things stay roughly as they are"
is just as improbable as the worst-case scenario he lays out, yet
I'd venture to guess it is believed (or more importantly,
envisioned) by vastly more people.<br>
</blockquote>
This sounds exactly right to me. "Things stay roughly as they are"
is just as improbable as the worst-case scenario he lays out, yet
I'd venture to guess it is believed (or more importantly,
envisioned) by vastly more people.<br>
Part of that is because envisioning the best-case scenario is easy -
it looks just like now! - while envisioning the worst-case scenario
is very difficult. It's especially difficult because the worst-case
scenario is treated by the very few people who understand it as a
kind of forbidden occult knowledge to which ordinary people cannot
survive exposure. Nobody can talk about it without getting scolded
by the hope police.<br>
This kind of forced cheerfulness has been around in environmental
circles for a long time, but it seems to have spread to the press.
It wasn't 24 hours after Trump was elected that the first "Trump
can't stop climate progress!" pieces started appearing online. After
he announced he was scrapping the Clean Power Plan: "Trump can't
stop climate progress!" After he withdrew from the Paris climate
agreement: "Trump can't stop climate progress!" Do Not Accept Any
Bad News.<br>
It's fine for activists to be congenitally positive - that's their
job. But I'm with Slate's Susan Matthews: it's just weird for
journalists and analysts to worry about overly alarming people
regarding the biggest, scariest problem humanity has ever faced. By
any sane accounting, the ranks the under-alarmed outnumber the
over-alarmed by many multiples. The vast majority of people do not
have an accurate understanding of how bad climate change has already
gotten or how bad it is likely to get, much less how bad it could
get if we keep electing crazy people...<br>
When there are important things that people don't understand,
journalists should explain those things. Attempts at dime-store
social psychology are unlikely to lead to better journalism.<br>
Over my 407 years in the climate-o-sphere, I've cycled through just
about every school of thought on the right way to communicate
climate change. What I've come to believe is that on this, as on
most matters, nobody really knows anything. Even if there are
accurate statements about how people in general respond to messages
in general, they won't tell you much about how you ought to
communicate with the people you want to reach.<br>
Writing that is consciously pitched to reach and inspire some
mythical average reader (as encountered in social science studies
filtered through popular journalism) tends to be flavorless and
dull.<br>
Similarly, the dry, hedged language of science is not the only
serious or legitimate way to communicate, though climate scientists
often mistake it as such. WW's piece is full of florid language like
this:<br>
However sanguine you might be about the proposition that we have
already ravaged the natural world, which we surely have, it is
another thing entirely to consider the possibility that we have only
provoked it, engineering first in ignorance and then in denial a
climate system that will now go to war with us for many centuries,
perhaps until it destroys us.<br>
That is a humdinger of a sentence! I wish I had written it. However
much climate scolds may harumph at this kind of language, it is
visceral, visual, and memorable in a way that probability functions
and error bars never will be.<br>
For my part, I've given up on speculating about how audiences will
react. I just try to communicate like I would like to be
communicated to, frankly and clearly, as though I'm talking to a
friend in a bar. There are plenty of ways to communicate accurately
- through hortatory rhetoric, poetry, painting, dance, "disaster
porn," whatever. Scientific data are not the only medium of
communication or its only currency. Narrative and emotion matter
too.<br>
Most people simply have no idea how scary climate change is. However
that terrible urgency is communicated, the world is better for it.<br>
<font size="-1" color="#666666"><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2017/7/11/15950966/climate-change-doom-journalism">https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2017/7/11/15950966/climate-change-doom-journalism</a></font><br>
<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://thinkprogress.org/climate-change-doomsday-scenario-80d28affef2e"><br>
<font size="+1"><b>We aren't doomed by climate change. Right now
we are choosing to be doomed.</b></font></a><br>
We could prevent New York Magazine's climate change doomsday
scenario, but keep voting not to.<br>
Joe Romm<br>
New York Magazine has stirred up a firestorm of debate by publishing
a worst-case scenario for climate change this week, "<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2017/07/climate-change-earth-too-hot-for-humans.html">The
Uninhabitable Earth</a>" by David Wallace-Wells.<br>
Responses range from <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://mashable.com/2017/07/10/new-york-mag-climate-story-inaccurate-doomsday-scenario/#w1Wun_bzfPqk">Mashable's</a>
"Do not accept New York Mag's climate change doomsday scenario," to
climatologist <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://www.facebook.com/MichaelMannScientist/posts/1470539096335621">Michael
Mann's critical Facebook post</a>, to <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2017/07/we_are_not_alarmed_enough_about_climate_change.html">Slate's</a>
"New York Magazine's global-warming horror story isn't too scary.
It's not scary enough."<br>
The first point to be made is that if you aren't hair-on-fire
alarmed about climate change and America's suicidal GOP-driven
climate and energy policies, then you are uninformed (or
misinformed).<br>
"It may seem impossible to imagine that a technologically advanced
society could choose, in essence, to destroy itself," as Elizabeth
Kolbert wrote way back in 2005 in a New Yorker series every bit as
alarming as the NY Magazine piece, "but that is what we are now in
the process of doing."<br>
We have been choosing to destroy ourselves for quite some time now.
Climate silence and climate ignorance are literally destroying
us....<br>
...we are not doomed. We are simply choosing to be doomed...<br>
What makes the worst-case scenario so difficult to imagine is that
it involves multiple ever-worsening catastrophic impacts happening
everywhere in the world at the same time - impacts that are
irreversible for centuries.<br>
The true worst-case scenario is so bad that scientists simply assume
humanity is too rational and moral to let that happen.<br>
That's a key reason the overwhelming majority of scientific research
on climate change is not about the worst-case scenario.<br>
In 2010, the Royal Society devoted a <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/369/1934/4">special
issue of Philosophical Transactions</a> A to look at this 4°C
(7°F) scenario...this 4°C world is not the plausible worst-case, it
is close to the expected outcome of our current emissions pathway.<br>
As we go past 4°C warming, we put ourselves at greater and greater
risk of making large parts of the planet's currently arable and
populated land virtually uninhabitable for much of the year and
irreversibly so for hundreds of years....<br>
The very worst-case scenario for climate change is unimaginably
horrific. The plausible worst-case scenario is imaginably
horrific - and it's not much different from the world we end up with
if the climate policies of Trump and the GOP leadership continue to
prevail in this country past 2020.<br>
So while the NY Magazine piece isn't framed perfectly, and has a few
errors of fact that others have identified, I would urge everyone to
read it. The piece is one of the few recent discussions in a popular
magazine to try to spell out just how bad things could get.<br>
<font size="-1" color="#666666"><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://thinkprogress.org/climate-change-doomsday-scenario-80d28affef2e">https://thinkprogress.org/climate-change-doomsday-scenario-80d28affef2e</a></font><br>
<br>
<br>
<font size="+1"><b><a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2017/07/we_are_not_alarmed_enough_about_climate_change.html">Alarmism
Is the Argument We Need to Fight Climate Change</a></b></font><br>
<b>New York magazine's global-warming horror story isn't too scary.
It's not scary enough.</b><br>
By Susan Matthews<br>
New York's David Wallace-Wells has a formidable cover story in the
magazine this week, "The <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2017/07/climate-change-earth-too-hot-for-humans.html">Uninhabitable
Earth</a>," that dryly details just how bad things could get due
to climate change. The answer? Very, very bad. The timeline? Sooner
than you think. The instantly viral piece might be the <a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.amazon.com/dp/0618249060/?tag=slatmaga-20">Silent
Spring</a> of our time, except it doesn't uncover shocking new
information-it just collects all the terrifying things that were
already sitting out there into one extremely terrifying list.<br>
"No matter how well-informed you are, you are surely not alarmed
enough," Wallace-Wells writes, before running through the known
science and stats that explain why rising seas, the focus of most of
our climate panic, are just the tip of the iceberg-disease, famine,
economic panic, and civil unrest are coming, too. An argument for
freaking out, his piece has been decried for being too alarmist.
Actually, it is not alarmist enough. As I read it in bed at midnight
Sunday night, for the first time I started to realize just exactly
why climate change might be a reason not to have children-because if
those children have children, this could be their world. That's how
close to the edge we are...<br>
There's a contingency of people-good people, people with noble
goals-who are <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://newrepublic.com/article/143788/power-peril-climate-disaster-porn">responding
to this piece in horror.</a> Not horror at the future, though that
would be understandable. Instead, they are horrified by the
rhetorical strategy of using alarmism to make a point about climate
change. Horror at the fact that it could make readers like me pause
over the idea of bringing children into the world....<br>
Climate change is a uniquely difficult problem specifically because
addressing it requires humans to be selflessly interested in the
long term, which is neither natural nor easy. But, contrary to the
belief perpetuated by a lot of the criticism of this piece,
addressing climate change does not rely on people being
psychologically self-possessed enough to freely give up meat and
airplane rides for the greater good. There is no amount of
individual good intention that can solve this massive, structural
problem in enough time to have an impact. What we need is leaders
who will take this problem seriously. We need it yesterday. And the
right way to get there is to tell people the truth about the future
and implore them to vote for and insist on a better one....<br>
These days, you rarely see leaders argue that it isn't happening at
all-that's become too gauche to defend. Even Trump, via surrogates,
admits to "believing" in climate change. Instead, just as straight
racism has become impolite but arguments that suggest alternatives
to racism are too costly abound, climate change denialists now make
arguments about degrees of certainty, about the improbability of
staving it off, about the costs of attempting to do so. The new
denialists don't deny climate change-they just refute the fact that
it matters enough to require action....<br>
We don't need to guard against alarmism, against depression, against
anger, against despair when it comes to climate change. Sure, the
hopelessness that accompanies pondering our fate might depress
people out of recycling their water bottles or switching their light
bulbs. That doesn't matter. If it also scares people into actually
taking this issue seriously at the ballot box, the trade-off will be
well worth it. Because the ballot box is where it matters. If we
force the issue-if we elect people who care about the survival of
all humans rather than just a few-then we might have a shot of
preventing the hellscape Wallace-Wells has outlined.<br>
If you don't want that outcome, we need to start by being more
alarmed.<br>
<font size="-1" color="#666666"><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2017/07/we_are_not_alarmed_enough_about_climate_change.html">http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2017/07/we_are_not_alarmed_enough_about_climate_change.html</a></font><br>
<br>
<font size="+1"><b><br>
</b><b><a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://news.nationalgeographic.com/2017/07/global-warming-arctic-colder-winters-climate-change-spd/">Why
a Warming Arctic May Be Causing Colder U.S. Winters</a></b></font><br>
A new study shows how a warming Arctic could negatively impact
regions thousands of miles away.<br>
By Sarah Gibbens<br>
PUBLISHED JULY 11, 2017<br>
When a U.S. Republican senator threw a snowball onto the Senate
floor in late February of 2015, he used it to underscore his belief
that humanmade climate change was an alarmist conclusion. The
snowball had been rolled from the capital grounds in Washington
D.C., which, at the time, was experiencing an uncharacteristically
cold winter.<br>
If global warming was real, he postured, how could the nation's
capital experience such severe cold?<br>
Uncharacteristically cold winters, however, just might be one of the
most hard felt effects of climate change, according to a study
published in Nature Geoscience by a team of researchers.<br>
The study found that unusually cold temperatures in northern North
America and lower precipitation in the south central U.S. all
coincided with periods of warmer Arctic weather.<br>
<font size="-1" color="#666666"><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="http://news.nationalgeographic.com/2017/07/global-warming-arctic-colder-winters-climate-change-spd/">http://news.nationalgeographic.com/2017/07/global-warming-arctic-colder-winters-climate-change-spd/</a></font><br>
<br>
<br>
<b><a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/341447-trump-navy-secretary-nominee-climate-change-is-real-poses-a-threat">Trump
Navy secretary nominee: Climate change is real and poses a
threat</a></b><br>
President Trump's Navy secretary nominee said Tuesday he is "totally
aware" of the threat posed by climate change..."The Navy is totally
aware of rising water issues, storm issues, etc." nominee Richard V.
Spencer told the Senate Armed Services Committee on Tuesday.<br>
"We must protect our infrastructure, and I will work hard to make
sure we are keeping an eye on that because without the
infrastructure, we lose readiness."<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/341447-trump-navy-secretary-nominee-climate-change-is-real-poses-a-threat">http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/341447-trump-navy-secretary-nominee-climate-change-is-real-poses-a-threat</a><br>
<br>
<br>
<b><a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://weather.com/science/environment/news/americans-climate-change-scientific-consensus">87
Percent of Americans Unaware There's Scientific Consensus on
Climate Change</a></b><br>
Nearly 90 percent of Americans are unaware that there is a consensus
within the scientific community that human-caused climate change is
real and threatens the planet, a new report says.<br>
According to the report published last week by the Yale Program on
Climate Change Communication and the George Mason University Center
for Climate Change Communication, only 13 percent of Americans were
able to correctly identify that more than 90 percent of all climate
scientists have concluded that climate change is real.<br>
<font size="-1" color="#666666"><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://weather.com/science/environment/news/americans-climate-change-scientific-consensus">https://weather.com/science/environment/news/americans-climate-change-scientific-consensus</a></font><br>
<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/jul/10/earths-sixth-mass-extinction-event-already-underway-scientists-warn"><br>
<b>Earth's sixth mass extinction event under way, scientists warn</b></a><br>
Researchers talk of 'biological annihilation' as study reveals
billions of populations of animals have been lost in recent
decades...<br>
The scientists conclude: "The resulting biological annihilation
obviously will have serious ecological, economic and social
consequences. Humanity will eventually pay a very high price for the
decimation of the only assemblage of life that we know of in the
universe."<br>
They say, while action to halt the decline remains possible, the
prospects do not look good: "All signs point to ever more powerful
assaults on biodiversity in the next two decades, painting a dismal
picture of the future of life, including human life."...<br>
The study, published in the peer-reviewed journal Proceedings of the
National Academy of Sciences, eschews the normally sober tone of
scientific papers and calls the massive loss of wildlife a
"biological annihilation" that represents a "frightening assault on
the foundations of human civilisation".<br>
Prof Gerardo Ceballos, at the Universidad Nacional Autónoma de
México, who led the work, said: "The situation has become so bad it
would not be ethical not to use strong language."<br>
Previous studies have shown species are becoming extinct at a
significantly faster rate than for millions of years before, but
even so extinctions remain relatively rare giving the impression of
a gradual loss of biodiversity. The new work instead takes a broader
view, assessing many common species which are losing populations all
over the world as their ranges shrink, but remain present elsewhere.<br>
The scientists found that a third of the thousands of species losing
populations are not currently considered endangered and that up to
50% of all individual animals have been lost in recent decade..<br>
<font size="-1" color="#666666"><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/jul/10/earths-sixth-mass-extinction-event-already-underway-scientists-warn">https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/jul/10/earths-sixth-mass-extinction-event-already-underway-scientists-warn</a></font><br>
<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://news.mit.edu/2017/climate-change-deplete-us-water-basins-reduce-irrigated-crop-yields-0711"><br>
<b>Climate change to deplete some US water basins, reduce
irrigated crop yields</b></a><br>
By 2050, the Southwest will produce significantly less cotton and
forage, researchers report.<br>
Jennifer Chu | MIT News Office <br>
By 2050, the Southwest will produce significantly less cotton and
forage, researchers report.<br>
A new study by MIT climate scientists, economists, and agriculture
experts finds that certain hotspots in the country will experience
severe reductions in crop yields by 2050, due to climate change's
impact on irrigation.<br>
The most adversely affected region, according to the researchers,
will be the Southwest. Already a water-stressed part of the country,
this region is projected to experience reduced precipitation by
midcentury. Less rainfall to the area will mean reduced runoff into
water basins that feed irrigated fields.<br>
Production of cotton, the primary irrigated crop in the Southwest
and in southern Arizona in particular, will drop to less than 10
percent of the crop yield under optimal irrigation conditions, the
study projects. Similarly, maize grown in Utah, now only yielding 40
percent of the optimal expected yield, will decrease to 10 percent
with further climate-driven water deficits.<br>
In the Northwest, water shortages to the Great Basin region will
lead to large reductions in irrigated forage, such as hay, grasses,
and other crops grown to feed livestock. In contrast, the
researchers predict a decrease in water stress for irrigation in the
the southern Plains, which will lead to greater yields of irrigated
sorghum and soybean.<br>
By 2050, the team projects that, under a business-as-usual scenario,
in which no action is taken to reduce greenhouse gases, a number of
water basins in the U.S. will start experiencing water shortages.
Several basins, particularly in the Southwest, will see existing
water shortages "severely accentuated," according to the study.<br>
"It may not matter too much for the total crop production of the
U.S., but if you're a farmer in that particular region that's going
to be impacted, that matters to you," Monier says. "What we want to
do is provide useful information that either farmers or land
investors can use to look into the future and make decisions on
where is the right region to expand irrigated agriculture, and where
is it more risky. We also want to make clear that climate mitigation
is better for U.S. irrigated agriculture than not doing
anything."...<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="http://news.mit.edu/2017/climate-change-deplete-us-water-basins-reduce-irrigated-crop-yields-0711">http://news.mit.edu/2017/climate-change-deplete-us-water-basins-reduce-irrigated-crop-yields-0711</a><br>
<br>
<br>
<font size="+1"><b><a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/07/11/climate-change-energy-disruptions/2508789/">This
Day in Climate History July 12, 2013</a> - from D.R. Tucker</b></font><br>
July 12, 2013: USA Today reports:<br>
"U.S. energy supplies will likely face more severe disruptions
because of climate change and extreme weather, which have already
caused blackouts and lowered production at power plants, a
government report warned Thursday.<br>
"What's driving these vulnerabilities? Rising temperatures, up 1.5
degrees Fahrenheit in the last century, and the resulting sea level
rise, which are accompanied by drought, heat waves, storms and
wildfires, according to the U.S. Department of Energy."<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/07/11/climate-change-energy-disruptions/2508789/">http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/07/11/climate-change-energy-disruptions/2508789/</a><font
size="+1"><br>
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------<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>