<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<font size="+1"><i>October 27, 2017</i></font><br>
<br>
<b><a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/climate-change-worse-water-temperature-reading-scientists-global-warming-ice-melt-weather-a8020696.html">Climate
change might be worse than thought after scientists find major
mistake in water temperature readings</a></b><br>
Global warming might be far worse than we thought, according to a
new study.<br>
The research challenges the ways that researchers have worked out
sea temperatures until now, meaning that they may be increasing
quicker than previously suggested.<br>
The methodology widely used to understand sea temperatures in the
scientific community may be based on a mistake, the new study
suggests, and so our understanding of climate change might be
fundamentally flawed.<br>
The new research suggests that the oceans hundreds of millions of
years ago were much cooler than we thought. If true, that means that
the global warming we are currently undergoing is unparallelled
within the last 100 million years, and far worse than we had
previously calculated.<br>
Until now, scientists believed that the temperature of the ocean
depths and the surface of the polar ocean 100 million years ago were
about 15 degrees warmer than they are today. But they might in fact
have stayed relatively stable - making the warming we're currently
undergoing far more alarming.<br>
"What appeared to be perfectly preserved fossils are in fact not.
This means that the paleotemperature estimates made up to now are
incorrect," said Sylvain Bernard, a CNRS researcher at the
Paris-based Institute of Mineralogy, Materials Physics and
Cosmochemistry and the study's lead author.<br>
The scientists behind the study claim that the apparent cooling of
the oceans was actually just the effect of the process they've seen.
The changes in the amount of oxygen in the shells isn't a reflection
of changing temperatures - just a consequence of the fact that the
amount of oxygen seen changes over time anyway.<br>
The research was conducted by French researchers from the French
National Center for Scientific Research (CNRS), Sorbonne University
and the University of Strasbourg, and Swiss researchers from the
Swiss Federal Institute of Technology in Lausanne (EPFL) and the
University of Lausanne. It has just been published in Nature
Communications.<br>
<font size="-1"><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/climate-change-worse-water-temperature-reading-scientists-global-warming-ice-melt-weather-a8020696.html">http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/climate-change-worse-water-temperature-reading-scientists-global-warming-ice-melt-weather-a8020696.html</a></font><br>
<br>
<br>
<b><a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RYUwpZpfxPw">(Video)
Climate One TV: The New Political Climate</a></b><br>
With the People's Climate March as a backdrop, Climate One is on the
road in Washington D.C., where Tea Party co-founder, Debbie Dooley,
Executive Director of 350.org, May Boeve and Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse
(D-RI) come together and discuss what it takes to make real progress
in the fight against Climate Change.<font size="-1"><br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RYUwpZpfxPw">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RYUwpZpfxPw</a></font><br>
<br>
<br>
<b><a href="https://youtu.be/PY5EVJHj2rI">(YouTube) The Late Show
with Stephen Colbert</a></b><br>
Published on Oct 26, 2017<br>
Stephen does an in-depth dive into the recent actions of Donald
Trump's Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency.<br>
<font size="-1"><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://youtu.be/PY5EVJHj2rI">https://youtu.be/PY5EVJHj2rI</a></font><br>
<br>
<br>
<b><a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://www.alltherooms.com/w/2017/10/volunteer-puerto-rico-needs-help/">Puerto
Rico needs your help: How to volunteer </a></b><br>
On September 20, 2017, Hurricane Maria, a powerful Category 4, hit
the island of Puerto Rico causing catastrophic effects. It's a
humanitarian crisis that is very close to home - here at
AllTheRooms, our CEO Joseph DiTomaso is half Puerto Rican.<br>
Over one week on from the hurricane, the island is still without
power, with the exception of a few generators that are being used
for high-priority buildings such as hospitals. Millions are left
without drinking water and cannot bathe or flush toilets. The lack
of water is leading to a serious lack of sanitization and this means
that conditions are ripe for illness and disease to spread. The
island is in desperate need of help from the international
community. If you're keen to volunteer, here's how you can help:<br>
<b>1. Who should I volunteer with?</b><br>
The American Red Cross is currently training volunteers who will be
dispatched to Puerto Rico. The Red Cross is using Florida as a base
to give initial training, whilst delegating volunteer roles. They
are looking for volunteers with all sorts of different skills, from
helping to rebuild houses, through to working with children affected
by the hurricane. <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.redcross.org/hurricane-irma-volunteer-application">Find
out more information or sign up to be a Red Cross volunteer.</a><br>
Meanwhile, the organization Voluntary Organizations Active in
Disaster (VOAD) is responsible for coordinating relief efforts and
delegating roles to volunteers. There are a lot of smaller
organizations focusing on one specific area of the relief aid, and
VOAD brings together the organizations so they can coordinate,
collaborate and communicate. If you're interested in volunteering
with a smaller organization, you can contact VOAD who will help to
put you in contact with relief efforts that are already underway. <a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://www.nvoad.org/howtohelp/volunteer/">Volunteer with
VOAD.</a><br>
You can also volunteer with Habitat for Humanity, which is an
organization that asses housing and shelter needs in some of the
worst-hit areas. Habitat for Humanity is currently seeking
volunteers for the recovery and rebuilding phase, which may last
months or even years. <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://www.habitat.org/">Volunteer with Habitat for
Humanity.</a><br>
<b>2. What type of volunteer work is needed?</b><br>
At the moment Puerto Rico is in a state of chaos. The streets are
flooded, there is little-to-no electricity, homes have collapsed and
there an estimated 1.5 million people are without drinking water.
You should be prepared for difficult, and heart-wrenching
conditions. Volunteers will be needed to help at one of the many
shelters that are serving the community, load and unload trucks,
serve food from the limited supplies, organize the volunteer and
relief efforts and help build and set-up facilities.<br>
<b>3. What are the requirements?</b><br>
If you want to help, you must be at least 16 years old to volunteer
with the Red Cross, and for other organizations, you may need to be
18 years old. If you are between the ages of 16-18 and keen to
volunteer, you will need parental consent. In order to volunteer,
you will need to be fit and ready for manual tasks such as loading
and unloading heavy objects bringing supplies and building shelters.
Most organizations require that you work 8-12 hours a day, depending
on the task at hand. If you are working with children, you will need
to provide a background check.<br>
If you have any tips to add to help with the volunteer effort, we
would love to hear from you. <br>
<font size="-1">Carmela Rodriguez is a Journalist from London. She
recently quit the rainy UK and moved to Medellin, Colombia, where
she is a Content Writer for Alltherooms.com</font><br>
<font size="-1"><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://www.alltherooms.com/w/2017/10/volunteer-puerto-rico-needs-help/">https://www.alltherooms.com/w/2017/10/volunteer-puerto-rico-needs-help/</a></font><br>
<br>
<br>
<b><a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2017/10/19/558821792/report-pollution-kills-3-times-more-than-aids-tb-and-malaria-combined">Report:
Pollution Kills 3 Times More than AIDS, TB And Malaria Combined</a></b><br>
Exposure to polluted air, water and soil caused nine million
premature deaths in 2015, according to a report published Thursday
in The Lancet.<br>
The causes of death vary - cancer, lung disease, heart disease. The
report links them to pollution, drawing upon previous studies that
show how pollution is tied to a wider range of diseases than
previously thought.<br>
Those studies observed populations exposed to pollutants and
compared them to people not exposed. The studies have shown that
pollution can be an important cause of diseases - many of them
potentially fatal - including asthma, cancer, neurodevelopmental
disorders, birth defects in children, heart disease, stroke and lung
disease.<br>
The nine million figure adds up to 16 percent of all deaths
worldwide, killing three times more people than AIDS, tuberculosis
and malaria combined. Pollution is responsible for 15 times more
deaths than wars and all other forms of violence.<br>
"No country is unaffected," the report notes. But 92 percent of
those deaths occurred in low- and middle-income countries.<br>
One blatant example is asbestos. About two million tons of new
asbestos is produced every year. [Asbestos is outlawed in most of
the developed world because of the high risk of lung cancer.]
Virtually all of that goes to the world's poorest countries that
have poor or no regulations against it. [According to reports it is
used in the production of building materials, among other products.]
It's going to continue to cause epidemics of cancer in poor
counties. Another example is pesticides. About 20 percent of U.S.
pesticide production is of pesticides not allowed in this country
because of known health risks. So we export it to poor countries.<br>
<font size="-1"><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="http://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2017/10/19/558821792/report-pollution-kills-3-times-more-than-aids-tb-and-malaria-combined">http://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2017/10/19/558821792/report-pollution-kills-3-times-more-than-aids-tb-and-malaria-combined</a></font><br>
<br>
<b><br>
</b><b><a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://phys.org/news/2017-10-ocean-acidification-strong-case-limiting.html">Ocean
acidification research makes a strong case for limiting climate
change</a></b><br>
Experiments and analyses carried out by more than 250 scientists
from 20 German institutions clearly indicate that ocean
acidification and warming, along with other environmental stressors,
impair life in the ocean.<b><a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.oceanacidification.de/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/BIOACID_brochure_e_web.pdf">
A brochure summarises</a></b> major outcomes of the project for
policymakers and the public. Members of the project Biological
Impacts of Ocean Acidification (BIOACID) will also be present at the
United Nations climate change conference COP23 in Bonn.<br>
As a gigantic carbon sink, the ocean absorbs about a third of the
carbon dioxide (CO2) released into the atmosphere by human
activities. But when absorbed by seawater, the greenhouse gas
triggers chemical reactions causing the ocean to acidify. Ocean
acidification affects ecosystems and important benefits the ocean
provides to humankind. This includes the regulation of the Earth's
climate, food provision, recreation and biodiversity as a condition
for intact and functioning ecosystems.<br>
<b>Important BIOACID results:</b><br>
- Changes in the ocean carbonate system impact the acid-base balance
in marine organisms. This can negatively affect key processes such
as calcification.<br>
- Many organisms are able to withstand ocean acidification, but may
lose this ability if also exposed to other stressors such as
warming, excess nutrients, loss of oxygen, reduced salinity or
pollution.<br>
- A reduction of regional stress such as nutrient runoff or the loss
of oxygen can mitigate the impact of global stressors like ocean
acidification and warming.<br>
- In a natural community, the impact of stressors on a species can
be amplified or diminished by associated shifts in biotic
interactions such as competition, predation or parasitism.<br>
- Even small alterations at the base of the food web can have
knock-on effects for higher trophic levels.<br>
- Marine life is able to adapt to ocean change through evolution and
can partly compensate for negative effects. However, since ocean
acidification happens extremely fast compared to natural processes,
only organisms with short generation times, such as microorganisms,
are able to keep up.<br>
- About half the tropical coral reefs can be preserved if carbon
dioxide emissions are limited to concentrations that keep global
warming below 1.2 degrees Celsius. However, additional risks posed
by ocean acidification are not included in this forecast.<br>
- Ocean acidification reduces the ocean's ability to store carbon.<br>
- Climate change alters the availability of prey for fish and as a
consequence may affect their growth and reproduction.<br>
- Ocean acidification and warming reduce the survival rates of early
life stages of some fish species. This will likely reduce
recruitment of fish stocks and ultimately fisheries yields.<br>
- The distribution and abundance of fish species will change. This
will have a significant impact on economic activities such as
small-scale coastal fisheries and tourism.<br>
- It is crucial to consider ocean acidification and warming in the
management of fish stocks and marine areas.<br>
- Following the precautionary principle is the best way to act when
considering potential risks to the environment and humankind,
including future generations. Even if the extent of possible risks
is not fully understood, precautionary measures need to be taken in
order to avoid or reduce the harm.<br>
- A more sustainable lifestyle and economy require an interaction
between society, businesses and politics. Political frameworks
should regulate the phase-out of fossil fuels. It is crucial for
every one of us to reconsider concepts of normality and adjust
behaviour in everyday life.<br>
<font size="-1"><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://phys.org/news/2017-10-ocean-acidification-strong-case-limiting.html">https://phys.org/news/2017-10-ocean-acidification-strong-case-limiting.html</a></font><br>
<br>
<br>
<b><a
href="http://www.people-press.org/2017/10/24/8-environmental-attitudes/">POLITICAL
TYPOLOGY REVEALS DEEP FISSURES ON THE RIGHT AND LEFT</a></b><br>
8. Environmental attitudes<br>
The public is deeply divided along partisan and ideological lines in
its opinions about environmental issues. And these differences are
reflected in how the political typology groups view these issues.<br>
In views of global warming, nearly all Solid Liberals say there is
clear evidence that Earth's temperatures have been rising, with 95%
saying this is mostly caused by human activity, such as burning
fossil fuels. Among Core Conservatives, only about quarter see solid
evidence of global warming - and just 5% say the main cause is human
activity.<br>
Opinions vary across the other typology groups. Majorities across
the Democratic-leaning groups say there is solid evidence of global
warming, but only about half of Devout and Diverse (52%) say it is
mostly caused by human activity, the lowest share in any Democratic
group.<br>
<font size="-1"><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="http://www.people-press.org/2017/10/24/8-environmental-attitudes/">http://www.people-press.org/2017/10/24/8-environmental-attitudes/</a></font><br>
<br>
<br>
<b><a
href="http://csas.ei.columbia.edu/2017/10/26/scientific-reticence-a-draft-discussion/">Dr
James Hansen Scientific Reticence: a DRAFT Discussion</a></b><br>
<span style="color: rgb(34, 34, 34); font-family: "Open
Sans", Helvetica, Arial, Verdana, sans-serif; font-size:
16px; font-style: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal;
font-variant-caps: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing:
normal; orphans: 2; text-align: start; 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; display: inline
!important; float: none;">I am writing<span> </span></span><em
style="box-sizing: border-box; color: rgb(34, 34, 34);
font-family: "Open Sans", Helvetica, Arial, Verdana,
sans-serif; font-size: 16px; font-variant-ligatures: normal;
font-variant-caps: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing:
normal; orphans: 2; text-align: start; 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;"><u style="box-sizing:
border-box;">Scientific Reticence and the Fate of Humanity</u></em><span
style="color: rgb(34, 34, 34); font-family: "Open Sans",
Helvetica, Arial, Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: 16px;
font-style: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal;
font-variant-caps: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing:
normal; orphans: 2; text-align: start; 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; display: inline
!important; float: none;"><span> </span>in response to a query
from the editor of<span> </span></span><em style="box-sizing:
border-box; color: rgb(34, 34, 34); font-family: "Open
Sans", Helvetica, Arial, Verdana, sans-serif; font-size:
16px; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-caps: normal;
font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; orphans: 2;
text-align: start; 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;">Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics</em><span
style="color: rgb(34, 34, 34); font-family: "Open Sans",
Helvetica, Arial, Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: 16px;
font-style: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal;
font-variant-caps: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing:
normal; orphans: 2; text-align: start; 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; display: inline
!important; float: none;"><span> </span>who handled<span> </span></span><a
href="https://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/16/3761/2016/acp-16-3761-2016-discussion.html"
style="box-sizing: border-box; color: rgb(1, 109, 145);
font-family: "Open Sans", Helvetica, Arial, Verdana,
sans-serif; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal;
font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-caps: normal;
font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; orphans: 2;
text-align: start; 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);"><em style="box-sizing: border-box;">Ice Melt, Sea Level
Rise and Superstorms</em></a><span style="color: rgb(34, 34,
34); font-family: "Open Sans", Helvetica, Arial,
Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal;
font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-caps: normal;
font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; orphans: 2;
text-align: start; 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; display: inline !important; float: none;">.</span><span
style="color: rgb(34, 34, 34); font-family: "Open Sans",
Helvetica, Arial, Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: 16px;
font-style: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal;
font-variant-caps: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing:
normal; orphans: 2; text-align: start; 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; display: inline
!important; float: none;"><span></span> That paper, together with<span> </span></span><a
href="https://www.earth-syst-dynam.net/8/577/2017/esd-8-577-2017-discussion.html"
style="box-sizing: border-box; color: rgb(1, 109, 145);
font-family: "Open Sans", Helvetica, Arial, Verdana,
sans-serif; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal;
font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-caps: normal;
font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; orphans: 2;
text-align: start; 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);"><em style="box-sizing: border-box;">Young People's Burden</em></a><span
style="color: rgb(34, 34, 34); font-family: "Open Sans",
Helvetica, Arial, Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: 16px;
font-style: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal;
font-variant-caps: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing:
normal; orphans: 2; text-align: start; 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; display: inline
!important; float: none;">, </span><span style="color: rgb(34,
34, 34); font-family: "Open Sans", Helvetica, Arial,
Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal;
font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-caps: normal;
font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; orphans: 2;
text-align: start; 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; display: inline !important; float: none;"><span></span>makes
the case for a low global warming target and the urgency of
phasing out fossil fuel emissions. We argue that global warming
of 2°C, or even 1.5°C, is dangerous, because these levels are far
above Holocene temperatures and even warmer than best estimates
for the Eemian, when sea level reached 6-9 meters (20-30 feet)
higher than today. Earth's history shows that sea level adjusts
to changes in global temperature. We conclude that eventual sea
level rise of several meters could be locked in, if rapid emission
reductions do not begin soon, and could occur within 50-150 years
with the extraordinary climate forcing of continued
"business-as-usual" fossil fuel emissions....</span><br>
<b>Discussion: Reticence?</b><br>
It is conceivable that scientific reticence plays a part in the
reactions to our papers, but I am not convinced that it is the whole
story. In the 1981 and 1988/89 examples discussed above there was
evidence, in the reviews of those papers and in the published
commentaries, that much of the criticism suffered from the
"blindfolds and elephant" explanation. They did not seem to be
considering the entirety of information that we had from
paleoclimate, modern observations, and models, with recognition of
model weaknesses. However, in current analyses it seems unlikely
that recognized experts are not considering the full range of
available information.<br>
<b>The Ice Melt paper is long.</b> One author who does cite Ice
Melt immediately dismisses it, because, he claims, the freshwater
injection rates (hosing rates, he calls them) are unrealistically
large. Obviously he did not read the paper. The injection/hosing
rates are based on observed data for recent years and projected
forward with different time scales for their growth rate (10, 20, 40
year doubling times). Our conclusion that the AMOC and SMOC are
already beginning to slow down is based on current observations and
model results in the present and near-term, not on the high rates of
freshwater injection that occur after many doublings. When one such
author rejects a paper based on such a misinterpretation, it is easy
for the attitude to spread.<br>
<b>Criticism of IPCC. </b>I chose in 1989, when faced with
scientific reticence and more, to bail out of the media circus and
focus only on science. When I reentered the fray in 2004 it was not
just to criticize the lack of climate actions by the Bush
Administration, but also to draw attention to the need for a low
target on global warming if "dangerous" consequences were to be
avoided. Specifically, as spelled out in A Slippery Slope,[34] I
criticized the sea level change analysis in the most recent (2001)
IPCC report. IPCC scenarios had GHG amounts and calculated global
temperatures that were "off the charts" compared to paleoclimate
data covering hundreds of thousands or even millions of years, yet
the calculations for the contribution of Greenland and Antarctica to
sea level rise was measured in cm, very few cm. That didn't seem
plausible, as I argued on heuristic grounds, mainly concerned with
the role of a warming ocean on ice shelves.<br>
This came across as a criticism of IPCC. I cited Richard Feynmann
insights in Slippery Slope, and more directly in Storms of My
Grandchildren,[35] about how the community tends to move slowly in
correcting an error. He is talking about scientific reticence.
However, I probably could have been more discrete in criticizing
IPCC - after all, the scientists contributing to those long reports
put in a lot of work for very little recognition.<br>
<b>Superstorms and flying boulders.</b> Several reviews and
commentaries seemed angry about the use of the word "superstorms" in
the title, even asserting that it was intended to draw public
attention to the paper. Duh. What a bad thing to do! Is this
feeling related to scientific reticence?<br>
We were not helped by the Washington Post article referring to
flying boulders. We did not say that any boulders flew. Our
interpretation of the boulders on Eleuthera is that powerful
storm-driven late-Eemian waves, when sea level was several meters
higher than today, transported the boulders from the cliffs below to
their present location where they rest on Eemian substrate.<br>
Recent publications have confirmed that storms can move very large
boulders. The funneling nature of the bay on Eleuthera increases
the power of the waves in the vicinity of the boulders. Boulders in
that region moved during the Holocene are smaller, suggesting that
some storms in the late Eemian were stronger than today.<br>
None of the major conclusions in our paper, about the threat of
large sea level rise or about AMOC and SMOC already slowing down,
depend on interpretation of the Eleuthera boulders. However, I
would like to draw attention to a new comprehensive review paper by
Hearty and Tormey[36] on the geologic evidence.<br>
<b>Early Discussion of Discussion paper and peer-review.</b> Both
the Ice Melt and Burden papers were submitted to journals that
include publication of an initial "Discussion" version of the paper,
after it has been checked and approved by an editor. This
publication mode seemed especially appropriate for both papers:
there were upcoming United Nations climate conferences and we hoped
to get feedback from both scientists on the science and from the
public and policymakers on the papers' policy implications.
However, there was criticism of whether the papers should be
discussed publicly before the peer-review process is complete.<br>
Even if there is merit to that position - and I see nothing wrong
with presenting a discussion paper for discussion (!) as long as it
is so identified - both papers subsequently passed detailed
peer-review. Indeed, the Ice Melt paper seemed to go through
further review by an editorial board, which seemed to redefine the
word "dangerous" to mean something different than what the public
means. See Dangerous Scientific Reticence.<br>
<b>Negative Emissions.</b> Perhaps nothing illustrates the dangers
of scientific reticence better than the way negative emissions crept
into IPCC scenarios. Clarifying the implausibility of that scenario
is an objective of our Burden paper.<br>
<b>Co-authors. </b> People suggesting that we are exaggerating the
global warming threat should take a close look at the list of
co-authors. They include top scientists in the world in the
relevant disciplines. I am grateful to them for all that they have
done to help produce the two papers.<br>
I note that I am sending out this draft discussion without showing
it to the co-authors, because I need the next week to prepare
materials for discussions at the Bonn COP meeting.<br>
<font size="-1"><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="http://csas.ei.columbia.edu/2017/10/26/scientific-reticence-a-draft-discussion/">http://csas.ei.columbia.edu/2017/10/26/scientific-reticence-a-draft-discussion/</a></font><br>
<br>
<br>
<b><a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://toofab.com/2017/10/26/samantha-bee-turns-climate-change-denier-into-a-believer-through-hell-house-of-global-warming-horror/">Samantha
Bee Turns Climate Change Denier Into a Believer Through 'Hell
House' of Global Warming Horror</a></b><br>
Instead of a haunted house, Bee sends eight climate change deniers
through maze demonstrating how global warming can harm our way of
life.<br>
Samantha Bee thinks it's a catastrophe that American's are more
afraid of clowns than climate change, so she tried to scare them
into taking global warming seriously on Wednesday night.<br>
"Over half of American's believe humans are not responsible for
global warming," the "Full Frontal" host said. "Then again, if what
the majority of what Americans thought mattered, there wouldn't be a
clown in the White House in the first place."<br>
The thought of clowns inspired the TBS late-night host to think
about controversial "Hell Houses," which religious organizations
used to host to scare people out of being gay or getting abortions.
Bee then partnered with haunted house producer Terror Behind the
Walls to create her own version of a Hell House imagining what
terrifying things humanity will suffer through when planet Earth is
destroyed beyond repair.<br>
Bee found eight climate change deniers, with a wide range of
opinions on the subject, to join her in the experience. One of the
participants believed that although cows and their "anal gas" were
to blame, they couldn't possibly destroy everything he knows and
loves.<br>
<b><a href="https://youtu.be/rJO0XoakOJQ">(videos) A Meditation on
Climate Change | October 25, 2017 Cold Open | Full Frontal on
TBS</a></b><br>
Something cosmic was really pushing Sam to do a show on climate
change.<br>
<font size="-1"><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://youtu.be/rJO0XoakOJQ">https://youtu.be/rJO0XoakOJQ</a></font><b><br>
<a href="https://youtu.be/hrDeKf1Cpbo">Scott Pruitt vs. The World
| October 25, 2017 Act 2 | Full Frontal on TBS</a></b><br>
The guy in charge of the EPA is stabbing the environment with a
deregulation shiv.<br>
<font size="-1"><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://youtu.be/hrDeKf1Cpbo">https://youtu.be/hrDeKf1Cpbo</a></font><br>
<b><a href="https://youtu.be/DFjV8hZR4uM">Full Frontal's (Hot As)
Hell House | October 25, 2017 Act 3 | Full Frontal on TBS</a></b><br>
There's only one thing that can scare climate change deniers into
believing: hanging out with other deniers. <br>
<font size="-1"><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://youtu.be/DFjV8hZR4uM">https://youtu.be/DFjV8hZR4uM</a></font><br>
<b><a href="https://youtu.be/jAPltvZCt9w">(Earth is) Not OK ft.
Ingrid Michaelson | October 25, 2017 | Full Frontal on TBS</a></b><br>
This summer's endless fires and storms left us a little unsure, so
we asked Earth herself, Ingrid Michaelson, if things are ok. Ingrid
Michaelson appears courtesy of Cabin 24 Records.<br>
<font size="-1"><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://youtu.be/jAPltvZCt9w">https://youtu.be/jAPltvZCt9w</a></font><br>
<font size="-1"><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="http://toofab.com/2017/10/26/samantha-bee-turns-climate-change-denier-into-a-believer-through-hell-house-of-global-warming-horror/">http://toofab.com/2017/10/26/samantha-bee-turns-climate-change-denier-into-a-believer-through-hell-house-of-global-warming-horror/</a></font><br>
<br>
<br>
<font size="+1"><b><a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://web.archive.org/web/20130303200905/http://www.rockefeller.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/press-releases?ID=87f3ae3b-0f0d-44ee-af03-9080592901a4">This
Day in Climate History October 27, 2006</a> - from D.R.
Tucker</b></font><br>
-Senators Demand that the World's Largest Oil Maker Make Public Its
History of Funding Climate Change "Skeptics"-<br>
WASHINGTON, D.C. - In an effort to call attention to the detrimental
effects of industry-funded, so-called "research" in the debate on
global climate change, Senators John (Jay) Rockefeller IV (D-WV) and
Olympia Snowe (R-ME) today called on the world’s largest oil company
to end its funding of a climate change denial campaign. Rockefeller
and Snowe’s effort would also reassert the leading role of the
United States in addressing important global issues that demand the
world’s collective attention.<br>
Rockefeller and Snowe said that ExxonMobil’s extensive funding of an
"echo chamber" of non-peer reviewed pseudo-science had unfortunately
succeeded in raising questions about the legitimate scientific
community’s virtually universal findings on the detrimental effects
of global warming. This ongoing "debate" has also damaged America’s
reputation as a leader in global affairs.<br>
"American companies have every right to engage in important public
debates, but these discussions should neither serve as a license to
obscure credible data and research nor impede domestic and
international actions based on that data," said Rockefeller.
"Climate change is one of the most serious environmental and
economic issues facing the United States and our partners in the
international community. It is absolutely irresponsible for any
entity to try to influence our government’s involvement in such an
important debate in any way that is not scrupulously accurate and
honest."<br>
"The institutions that ExxonMobil is supporting are producing very
questionable data. The company’s support for a small, but
influential, group of climate skeptics has damaged the United
States’ reputation by making our government appear to ignore
conclusive data on climate change and the disastrous effects climate
change could have."<br>
"ExxonMobil - which recorded $10.5 billion in third quarter profits
this year - has an obligation and a responsibility to the global
community to refrain from lending their support, financial and
otherwise, to bogus, non substantiated articles and publications on
climate change that serve only to cloud the important global debate
of rigorous peer-reviewed research and writings," Snowe said. "The
efforts of those supported by ExxonMobil foster the false belief
among the international community that the United States is
insensitive to global warming and unwilling to engage in forthright
discussion on what many consider to be one of the most important
economic and environmental issues of the 21st century."<br>
According to reports, in 2004 alone, ExxonMobil was the primary
funder of more than 29 climate change denial front groups. Since the
late 1990s, ExxonMobil has spent more than $19 million on a strategy
of "information laundering," enabling a small number of professional
skeptics, working through so-called scientific organizations, to
funnel their viewpoints through non-peer-reviewed websites, such as
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.techcentralstation.com">www.techcentralstation.com</a>.<br>
"Climate change denial has been so effective because the ‘denial
community’ has mischaracterized the necessarily guarded language of
serious scientific dialogue as vagueness and uncertainty,"
Rockefeller and Snowe wrote ExxonMobil Chairman and Chief Executive
Officer Rex Tillerson. "ExxonMobil is responsible for much of this
scientific data debate and support of global warming deniers."<br>
Rockefeller and Snowe insisted that ExxonMobil end its funding of
the climate change denial campaign by the Competitive Enterprise
Institute (CEI) and other organizations with similar purposes. The
two Senators also encouraged ExxonMobil and Tillerson to make its
history of funding public and acknowledge the dangers and realities
of climate change.<br>
<font size="-1">Permalink:
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.rockefeller.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/2006/10/post-87f3ae3b-0f0d-44ee-af03-9080592901a4">http://www.rockefeller.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/2006/10/post-87f3ae3b-0f0d-44ee-af03-9080592901a4</a></font><br>
<font size="-1"><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://web.archive.org/web/20130303200905/http://www.rockefeller.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/press-releases?ID=87f3ae3b-0f0d-44ee-af03-9080592901a4">http://web.archive.org/web/20130303200905/http://www.rockefeller.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/press-releases?ID=87f3ae3b-0f0d-44ee-af03-9080592901a4</a></font><br>
<br>
<font size="+1"><i>-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------<br>
</i></font><font size="+1"><i><a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://pairlist10.pair.net/pipermail/theclimate.vote/2017-October/date.html">Archive
of Daily Global Warming News</a> </i></font><i><br>
</i><span class="moz-txt-link-freetext"><a
class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://pairlist10.pair.net/pipermail/theclimate.vote">https://pairlist10.pair.net/pipermail/theclimate.vote</a></span><font
size="+1"><i><font size="+1"><i><br>
</i></font></i></font><font size="+1"><i> <br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="a%20href=%22mailto:contact@theClimate.Vote%22">Send
email to subscribe</a> to this mailing. </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>