<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<font size="+1"><i>November 11, 2017<br>
</i></font> <b><br>
</b><b><a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.climatechangenews.com/2017/11/07/african-campaigners-call-us-kicked-climate-talks/">African
campaigners call for US to be kicked out of climate talks</a><br>
</b>Published on 07/11/2017<br>
The Pan African Climate Justice Alliance will petition negotiators
to eject Donald Trump's delegation, in light of the president's
hostility to the Paris agreement...<br>
In light of president Donald Trump's avowed intention to withdraw
from the Paris climate agreement, the activists argued the country
had no right to be involved in negotiations on how to implement the
deal...<br>
"You're either with the people or with Trump."..<br>
<font size="-1"><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="http://www.climatechangenews.com/2017/11/07/african-campaigners-call-us-kicked-climate-talks/">http://www.climatechangenews.com/2017/11/07/african-campaigners-call-us-kicked-climate-talks/</a></font><br>
<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://unfccc.cloud.streamworld.de/ondemand"><b>COP23
UNFCCC - On-Demand Events </b><b>(video archive) </b></a><b><br>
</b>Listed by dat, Plenary, Press Conference and other events<br>
<font size="-1"><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://unfccc.cloud.streamworld.de/ondemand">https://unfccc.cloud.streamworld.de/ondemand</a></font><b><br>
<br>
</b><b><b><a
href="https://unfccc.cloud.streamworld.de/webcast/james-hansen-scientific-reticence-a-threat-to-huma">(video
panel) James Hansen - Scientific Reticence: A Threat to
Humanity and Nature]</a></b> </b>28min<b><br>
</b><span class="moz-txt-link-freetext"><a
class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://unfccc.cloud.streamworld.de/webcast/james-hansen-scientific-reticence-a-threat-to-huma">https://unfccc.cloud.streamworld.de/webcast/james-hansen-scientific-reticence-a-threat-to-huma</a></span><b><br>
<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://climatecrocks.com/2017/11/10/theres-been-no-progress-james-hansen-at-cop-23/">(video
interview) "There's been no Progress." James Hansen at COP 23</a></b><br>
by greenman3610<br>
Jim Hansen not a fan of the Paris Agreement. Price on carbon needed.<br>
video <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://youtu.be/a0MsAs-qCSY">https://youtu.be/a0MsAs-qCSY</a><br>
Transcript Dr James Hansen COP 23 interview:<br>
<blockquote><b>I would say there's very little progress because
there's no reductions in global emissions of carbon dioxide.</b><br>
If you look at the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere and methane in
the atmosphere it's actually growing more rapidly than it was two
years ago...<br>
...all the politicians clapping each other on the back as if
something had been accomplished, but there's not going to be any
reduction in fossil fuel use as long as fossil fuels are the
cheapest energy.<br>
And that's the situation. We have to make fossil fuels include the
the cost to society. That means the air pollution costs, the
water pollution costs, the climate change cost.<br>
So we have to add a carbon fee or a carbon tax which has to be
across the board oil gas and coal. Not some cap and trade gimmick
which does almost nothing...there's no realization of the
politicians that they have not taken the needed actions<br>
so in that sense there there's been no progress.<br>
I have gone to different countries and tried to make this case and
you know they do not really change their approach. I try to
persuade them or cap and trade with offsets is really not doing
anything and you know they have to admit that. I met with the
science advisor to the European Commissioner. She agreed a cap and
trade is not working and what you need is an across the board
rising carbon tax or carbon fee. But she says you have to
persuade them, the bureaucrats in Brussels.<br>
Well that's hard to do because...these politicians are working
more for the the fossil fuel industry than they are for the public
in my opinion. That's that's just a hoax in my opinion. They say
that they're going to try to do something. It won't work as long
as fossil fuels are allowed to be the cheapest energy somebody
will burn them.<br>
So some countries will try real hard and they'll reduce their
emissions 20% or 30% but look at the global emissions... they're
still staying at least the same if not increasing ...and that's
going to be true as long as fossil fuels are allowed to be the
cheapest energy. The course of action should be to collect a fee
from the fossil fuel companies at the domestic mines and the ports
of entry. And give the money to the public an equal amount to all
legal residents. That way the person who does better than average
in limiting their carbon footprint will make money in fact if you
look at the distribution of energy use by the public about 70% of
the people actually could make money with the present distribution
wealthy people would lose money but they could afford that - they
have a bigger carbon footprint because they travel more and have
bigger houses but this would be a big incentive for people to pay
attention to what they're buying as the carbon fee rises.<br>
Products that are made with more fossil fuels will become more
expensive - so people will tend to buy other products and this
will move us off of fossil fuels. Economists all agree this is
the way to do it let the market help. You solve the problem you
can't do it by regulations, by subsidizing solar panels. It does
very little good, we're getting less than 1% of global energy
from solar panels.<br>
I think we will go in that direction because China will eventually
go in that direction. <br>
...You see, either the United States or China or the European
Union needs to decide we're going to have a carbon fee or carbon
tax. None of them have done that yet. But if just one of them
would do it they could practically impose it by means of border
duties on products from countries that do not have an equivalent
carbon fee and that's then a big incentive for other countries to
have their own carbon fee so they can collect the money
themselves. <br>
The World Trade Organization agrees that such a border duty would
be justified and that's what we need but we haven't got either any
of those three major economic powers to agree to do it yet.<br>
The reason that we're not doing what every economist says we
should do - have a carbon tax - is that the fossil fuel industry
is too damn powerful in capitals all around the world in
Washington DC and in other capitals. I thought the US was worse
than the rest of the world and in some ways at the moment it is,
but I went to about a dozen countries and I found that the fossil
fuel industry is very powerful in every capital. I think we will
turn it around. <br>
But we had better do it pretty soon because the fundamental
difficulty is the delayed response of the climate system. <br>
We've only witnessed about half of the change for the gases that
are already in the atmosphere - just because the ocean has so
much inertia. It doesn't warm up quickly there's more energy
coming in to the planet than going out and therefore the ocean is
going to continue to warm up even if we stabilized atmospheric
CO2 today...<br>
...If we would reduce emissions a few percent a year - which
economists say you could easily do if you had a rising price on
carbon - then the maximum temperature rise would be about 1.5
degrees.<br>
It's already a little more than one degree and it would still go
up for a few decades but it would peak at about 1.5 and then could
can begin to go down.<br>
We would - in addition to reducing emissions a few percent a year
- need to store more carbon in the soil and biosphere. But that's
possible and and it has other advantages with improved
agricultural and forestry practices the soil can contain more
carbon and become more fertile in the process and there's value in
forests also in reforestation so we can do that, it's plausible. <br>
Economic studies show that if you had a reasonable rising carbon
fee that emissions would go down by a few percent a year. So it's
feasible but not without the carbon price.<br>
</blockquote>
Produced by Nick Breeze Published on Nov 9, 2017<br>
<font size="-1"><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://youtu.be/a0MsAs-qCSY">https://youtu.be/a0MsAs-qCSY</a></font><br>
<br>
<br>
<b><a
href="https://climateandsecurity.org/2017/11/10/nominee-for-assistant-secretary-of-the-army-for-civil-works-on-climate-change/">Nominee
for Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works on Climate
Change</a></b><br>
On Thursday, November 9 the Senate Armed Services Committee (SASC)
considered the nomination of R.D. James to be Assistant Secretary Of
The Army for Civil Works. During the testimony, in an exchange with
Senator Tim Kaine, Mr. James affirmed the practical approach to
climate change taken by Secretary of Defense James Mattis in his own
statements to the SASC (namely, that we have to prepared for it)....<br>
<font size="-1">see: <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://climateandsecurity.org/2017/11/10/nominee-for-assistant-secretary-of-the-army-for-civil-works-on-climate-change/">https://climateandsecurity.org/2017/11/10/nominee-for-assistant-secretary-of-the-army-for-civil-works-on-climate-change/</a></font><br>
<br>
<b><a href="http://billmoyers.com/story/beyond-harvey-irma/">The One
Government Institution That Isn't Run By Climate Change Deniers</a></b><br>
As the Trump administration shuts down anything faintly connected to
global warming, only one institution isn't now run by deniers and
that's the US military...<br>
Despite their reluctance to speak publicly about such environmental
matters right now, top officials in the Pentagon are painfully aware
of the problem at hand. They know that global warming, as it
progresses, will generate new challenges at home and abroad,
potentially stretching their capabilities to the breaking point and
leaving this country ever more exposed to the ravages of climate
change without offering any solutions to the problem...<br>
<font size="-1"><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="http://billmoyers.com/story/beyond-harvey-irma/">http://billmoyers.com/story/beyond-harvey-irma/</a></font><br>
<br>
<br>
<b><a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://www.commondreams.org/views/2017/11/08/time-running-out-planet">Time
Is Running Out for the Planet</a></b><br>
By Bill Moyers, Bill McKibben, originally published by Common Dreams
<br>
<strong>...Moyers: Let's pause right here and talk about this
present moment as reality, not fable. Here's what your story
prompts me to ask: When people realize the current order of things
no longer works and the institutions of government and society are
failing to fix them - failing to solve the problems democracy
creates for itself - what options do they have?</strong><br>
<strong>McKibben:</strong> Well, I don't think we're in a place
where rebellion in the sense of the American Revolution works
anymore. One of the reasons that I'm a big advocate of nonviolence
is that it's the only thing that makes sense. Taking up arms against
a government that has the world's biggest supply of them is just a
bad idea right from the start. But that doesn't mean there aren't
other ways to resist, and we're seeing more and more of it coming
from all directions. There are lots of lawyers testing what we can
still do with the courts. There are demonstrators in the streets
reminding us that when people rise up in large numbers, it makes it
more difficult for the government to do bad things. There are people
on social media and people jamming the switchboards on Capitol Hill,
and there are people by thousands getting ready to run for office in
this country, and people trying all kinds of different routes. To
me, the thing that activists work for more than anything is not a
new law. It's a change in the zeitgeist.<br>
<strong>Moyers: The spirit of the times.</strong><br>
<strong>McKibben:</strong> Yes. That's the end result of most really
big campaigning, and once you get that change in the zeitgeist, then
the change in laws and legislation comes relatively easily. But it's
winning that battle in the culture, in the atmosphere around us, as
it were.<br>
<strong>Moyers: For example?</strong><br>
<strong>McKibben:</strong> The great example in recent times is how
effectively people organized around gay marriage. Now, you and I are
both old enough to remember when that seemed like an utterly
impossible ideal. In fact, five years ago Barack Obama and Hillary
Clinton were still dead set against it because it didn't poll well.
But people changed that. Activists managed to change the zeitgeist
around those questions to the point where others began to realize,
"Hey, we like people falling in love. Falling in love and getting
married is a good thing. We should have more of it and not less."
And the minute thati that line was crossed, then the battle was for
all intents and purposes over.<br>
<strong>Moyers: Climate change hasn't been so easy.</strong><br>
<strong>McKibben:</strong> It's harder with many other things. The
fight around climate change, which I've spent my life on, is
somewhat more difficult because no one makes trillions of dollars a
year being a bigot, and that's how much the fossil-fuel industry
pulls in pumping carbon into the air. But the principle is the same,
I think.<br>
<strong>Moyers: For me the question now is how much time do we have?
When it comes to global warming, all signs suggest we are running
out of time.</strong><br>
<strong>McKibben:</strong> The question of time is the question that
haunts me. I remain optimistic enough to think that in general human
beings will figure out the right thing to do eventually, and
Americans will somehow get back on course. Of course, there'll be a
lot of damage done in the meantime. But with climate change in
particular - the gravest of the problems we face - time is the one
thing we don't have. It's the only problem we've ever had that came
with a time limit. And if we don't solve it soon, we don't solve it.
Our governments so far have not proven capable of dealing with this
question. They simply haven't been able to shake off the
self-interest and massive power of the fossil-fuel industry. It's
going to take a lot of work and a lot of effort to get us onto
renewable energy quickly and everywhere. It's doable technically;
the question is whether it's doable politically or not. There I
don't know.<br>
<strong>Moyers: You've said that winning slowly in this fight-</strong><br>
<strong>McKibben:</strong> Winning slowly is another way of losing.
...<br>
<font size="-1"><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://www.commondreams.org/views/2017/11/08/time-running-out-planet">https://www.commondreams.org/views/2017/11/08/time-running-out-planet</a></font><br>
<br>
<b><br>
</b><b><a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://newrepublic.com/article/145667/trump-world-fossil-fuels-good">Trump
to World: Fossil Fuels Are Good for You</a></b><br>
No longer content to just deny climate change, the administration is
now making the moral case for burning oil and coal.<br>
By Emily Atkin November 9, 2017<br>
Rick Perry's tortured relationship with the English language reached
new heights (or lows) last week when he somehow connected two very
distinct subjects: fossil fuels and sexual assault. "Let me tell you
where people are dying, is in Africa, because of the lack of energy
they have there," the energy secretary said during a speech in
Washington, D.C. He asked his audience to consider it "from the
standpoint of sexual assault. When the lights are on, when you have
light that shines the righteousness, if you will, on those types of
acts. So from the standpoint of how you really affect people's
lives, fossil fuels is going to play a role in that."<br>
<font size="-1"><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://newrepublic.com/article/145667/trump-world-fossil-fuels-good">https://newrepublic.com/article/145667/trump-world-fossil-fuels-good</a><br>
</font><br>
<br>
<b><a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://undark.org/article/borders-climate-change-displacement/">(opinion)
It's Time to Rethink the Relationship Between Borders and
Climate Change</a></b><br>
Climate-induced migration is now a reality. <br>
Opening borders and removing sovereignty from environmental
decisions needs to be considered.<br>
AFTER 300 YEARS of continuous human settlement, Hurricane Irma
destroyed everything on the island of Barbuda and forced the
relocation of its more than 1,600 residents, demonstrating that
climate-induced migration is no longer a future possibility, but a
present-day reality. A week and a half later, Hurricane Maria
knocked out power for Puerto Rico's 3.4 million residents and left
much of the island without potable water. Fifteen percent of Puerto
Rico's population is expected to leave the island in the coming
year.<br>
Estimates vary, but the consensus is that there will be at least 200
million people displaced by climate change by 2050. In order to
address this already unfolding reality, we need to reconsider the
relationship between borders and climate change now...<br>
..There is already agreement that a few very narrow issues including
genocide and state-sponsored terrorism are exempted from the
protection of state sovereignty.<br>
The environment and the displacement of people from environmental
changes are cross border issues that extend beyond the authority of
a single country.<b> In order to realistically address the climate
crisis, two more exceptions to absolute state sovereignty are
required: the right of people to move from one territory to
another and the right of the global community, not individual
countries, to regulate the emissions of climate changing
pollutants. This does not mean getting rid of sovereignty
entirely, but it does mean countries must give up sovereignty over
decisions that involve issues that have significant cross-border
impacts.</b><br>
Opening borders and removing sovereignty from environmental
decisions will be seen as radical proposals by some. However, the
more radical choice is to build walls and ignore climate change,
pushing us headlong into a rapidly arriving dystopian future of
walled states, violent borders, and hundreds of millions of
displaced environmental migrants struggling to survive rising seas,
heat waves, and devastating environmental change.<br>
Reece Jones is a professor of geography at the University of Hawai'i
and the author of "Violent Borders."<br>
<font size="-1">This piece emerged from a public discussion at Miami
University of Ohio with Adrian Parr, a professor of environmental
politics at the University of Cincinnati.</font><br>
<font size="-1"><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://undark.org/article/borders-climate-change-displacement/">https://undark.org/article/borders-climate-change-displacement/</a></font><br>
<br>
<br>
<b><a
href="http://mashable.com/2017/11/07/global-warming-disaster-movies-geostorm/#r4AdBe2WTiqs">Why
Hollywood started making disaster flicks about climate change</a></b><br>
A system of satellites and lasers that controls the weather, as
depicted in the new climate change-inspired disaster film Geostorm:
Yeah, sounds pretty laughable.<br>
But the premise of the 2004 blockbuster The Day After Tomorrow
seemed ridiculous when it came out, too. (In the movie, global
warming affects the Gulf Stream ocean current, shutting it down in
mere days, sparking a global weather catastrophe.)<br>
In 2015, however, scientists found the ocean current that triggered
global storms and a New York City deep freeze in The Day After
Tomorrow actually was slowing down. Essentially, Hollywood had
produced an extreme funhouse mirror version of the climate reality
of the decade to come. <br>
...With the release of Geostorm and the affects of global warming
becoming clearer and clearer, we investigated whether Hollywood is
making more movies about global warming. Today, when the real life
climate and energy fights seem impossible to win, filmmakers and
audiences are looking for fictional, winnable battles on the big
screen. <br>
We spoke to experts and surveyed disaster and apocalyptic action
movies from the '90s till now to find out what they tell us about
actual attitudes about climate change. As both budgets and
world-ending destruction in cheesy disaster movies like Geostorm
have ballooned, natural disasters have started to become the reality
for billions across the globe. <br>
We completed a survey of natural disaster and disaster-related films
from the 1990s to the present, using lists from IMDB, to track the
presence of climate change on screen. We then determined whether
each of these films either alludes to climate change, or invokes the
idea that human actions related to resource consumption (i.e., the
cause of global warming) are responsible... <br>
<b><a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://i.amz.mshcdn.com/J1WO7alni1_4FnE7rJUH5EulwC4=/fit-in/1200x9600/https%3A%2F%2Fblueprint-api-production.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fuploads%2Fcard%2Fimage%2F627447%2F4edcd4d5-73d3-4c05-b960-d94f70a31e0d.jpg">List
of Climate Change and disaster films </a></b> <a
class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://i.amz.mshcdn.com/J1WO7alni1_4FnE7rJUH5EulwC4=/fit-in/1200x9600/https%3A%2F%2Fblueprint-api-production.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fuploads%2Fcard%2Fimage%2F627447%2F4edcd4d5-73d3-4c05-b960-d94f70a31e0d.jpg">https://i.amz.mshcdn.com/J1WO7alni1_4FnE7rJUH5EulwC4=/fit-in/1200x9600/https%3A%2F%2Fblueprint-api-production.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fuploads%2Fcard%2Fimage%2F627447%2F4edcd4d5-73d3-4c05-b960-d94f70a31e0d.jpg</a><br>
In the last four years, the ratio of non-climate change films to
climate change films has nearly evened out...<br>
...Overall there aren't many climate change-inspired films, but
there are more in the last four years than in all the previous time
frames. And the increase of climate change-invoking films overlaps
with the fact that 2015 and 2016 were already the world's two
hottest years on record, and 2017 is shaping up to be number
three.... <br>
Does telling stories about global warming actually do the planet any
good?<br>
The jury is out on whether movies - let alone sensationalist
blockbusters like Geostorm - actually motivate viewers to take
action on climate change. Bartosch cites The Day After Tomorrow as
"the standard example" of how films that directly invoke climate
change "openly discuss questions of science or, more generally, the
role of humans in a changing climate." <br>
"There exist a number of studies engaging with behavioral change of
audiences after having watched the film" Professor Bartosch said.
Yale Climate Connections found that The Day After Tomorrow increased
viewers' "willingness to act on the issue." <br>
"The problem is," Bartosch said, "that such changes in behavior
hardly last." <br>
Aston had a similar response.<br>
"I would say Hollywood/commercial cinema and the apocalypse film has
no real answer for the issue of climate change," he said. "Perhaps
the spectacular arrangement of these films and the strict codes and
conventions mean that it is difficult to adequately represent such a
theme?<br>
It might also be that to do so would make the film too close to the
'real', too immediate and thus too traumatic and threatening."<br>
Audience members' responses to Geostorm aligned with the above
theory of how films affect viewers' perception of global warming
solutions - or don't. Filmgoers we talked to in New York exited the
film ambivalent.<br>
Shelly Miller objected to the sensationalist sci-fi premise as a
whole, on the grounds that it did not depict climate change as it
is. "They said it instead of showed it," said Shelly Miller, who is
in her 50s. "It would have been much more effective if they'd shown
more of the climate change things."<br>
"I feel like this movie wasn't really helpful," added Ms. Miller's
friend Eunice Martinez. Reflecting on the weather-controlling
satellite system, Ms. Martinez added, "We think that we can just
build a machine and that will fix everything. When it's really our
behavior we need to change."..<br>
...Perhaps the increase in disaster and apocalyptic films dealing
with climate change is not an answer to the increase in extreme
weather events, but a response to our lack of effective solutions
for a problem so large that it renders audiences (and global
response) numb and paralyzed. Our attempt to manipulate the
narrative of climate change on screen - through a story in which the
hero and the planet survive - may reflect our inability to control
the colossal problem of global warming as it becomes more unwieldy
in real life.<br>
There is consensus among climate scientists that one of the clearest
manifestations of man-made climate change is an increase in the
frequency and magnitude of some types of extreme weather,
particularly heat waves and heavy precipitation events.<br>
The past six months alone have witnessed a barrage of deadly extreme
weather events, including California's deadliest and most damaging
wildfires on record, which followed the state's hottest summer. The
U.S. has been hit by three major hurricanes, one of which set a
global record for maintaining at least 180 mile-per-hour winds for
more than a day. The scenes from Santa Rosa, California, to the
island of St. John have been nothing short of apocalyptic. <br>
However, "many of the gloom-and-doom visions - appropriate and
likely as they are - are not without their problems," said Professor
Bartosch.<br>
Unlike our climate change movie heroes, in the face of catastrophic
climate scenarios like those depicted in Geostorm, "we can't do much
else," he added, "than sit back and enjoy the spectacle of
apocalypse while we can." <br>
Films are concentrating more on climate change but....they don't
seem to be doing much for the planet. So far, they've been little
more than escapism. So call your members of congress, demand
re-entry into the Paris Climate Agreement, reduce your carbon
footprint, and vote in every single election. For our planet, and
for our future. <br>
But in the meantime, might as well pass the popcorn.<br>
<font size="-1"><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="http://mashable.com/2017/11/07/global-warming-disaster-movies-geostorm/#r4AdBe2WTiqs">http://mashable.com/2017/11/07/global-warming-disaster-movies-geostorm/#r4AdBe2WTiqs</a></font><br>
<br>
<br>
<b><a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.joboneforhumanity.org/the_climate_has_changed_before_but_this_is_different_look_at_the_archeological_record">THE
CLIMATE HAS CHANGED BEFORE. BUT THIS IS DIFFERENT – LOOK AT THE
ARCHEOLOGICAL RECORD...</a></b><br>
POSTED BY DAVID PIKE <br>
A major new report states unequivocally that humans are changing the
planet. Archaeology puts those changes into context – and explains
why action is crucial...<br>
The United States government recently published the Climate Science
Special Report authored by 13 federal agencies, which states
unequivocally that climate change is occurring and it is caused by
human actions. The report follows several months of uncommonly
strong hurricanes caused by warmer-than-typical ocean temperatures.
The Trump Administration responded to the report by stating: "The
climate has changed and is always changing."<br>
Climate change is part of life on planet Earth; however, context is
needed to understand past change and the current situation.
Archaeology can explain how temperature change of just a few degrees
cause extreme weather events, affect crops, and impact human lives.
It also shows how the current changes are different from those in
the past.<font size="-1"><br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="http://www.joboneforhumanity.org/the_climate_has_changed_before_but_this_is_different_look_at_the_archeological_record">http://www.joboneforhumanity.org/the_climate_has_changed_before_but_this_is_different_look_at_the_archeological_record</a></font><br>
<br>
<br>
<font size="+1"><b><a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://youtu.be/rOQjpn6Lnwg">This Day in Climate History
November 11, 2012 </a> - from D.R. Tucker</b></font><br>
"CBS This Morning" runs a strange segment on climate change<br>
featuring sock puppets (!) and Koch Brothers ally Richard Muller.<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://youtu.be/rOQjpn6Lnwg">http://youtu.be/rOQjpn6Lnwg</a><br>
<font size="+1"><i><br>
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------<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>
<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>