<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<font size="+1"><i>December 5, 2017<br>
</i></font> <br>
[LA Times]<br>
<b><a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://beta.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-evacuation-ventura-county-fire-20171204-story.html">More
than 150 structures destroyed, 27,000 people evacuated in raging
Ventura wildfire</a></b><br>
A fast-moving, wind-driven brush fire broke out Monday night in the
foothills near Thomas Aquinas College in Santa Paula and swept into
the city of Ventura early Tuesday, burning homes and forcing
thousands to evacuate. The extent of the losses was unclear, but
fire officials said there was little they could do stop the flames
being pushed by gusts of 50 mph. One person was reported killed in a
traffic accident on a road closed because of the fire. <br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://beta.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-creek-fire-20171205-story.html">http://beta.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-creek-fire-20171205-story.html</a><br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://beta.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-creek-fire-20171205-story.html">Mass
evacuations as fire burns more than 2,500 acres in Sylmar area</a><br>
The blaze comes as firefighters are dealing with a fast-moving,
wind-fueled wildfire that swept into the city of Ventura, burning
31,000 acres, destroying homes and forcing 27,000 people to
evacuate. About 150 structures - including at least one large
apartment complex - were consumed by flames, and many more were
threatened as the fire crept about a quarter-mile from Ventura City
Hall.<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://beta.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-evacuation-ventura-county-fire-20171204-story.html">http://beta.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-evacuation-ventura-county-fire-20171204-story.html</a><br>
<br>
<br>
<b><a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://climatecommunication.yale.edu/publications/americans-oppose-drilling-arctic-national-wildlife-refuge/">Americans
oppose drilling in Arctic National Wildlife Refuge</a></b><br>
The tax bills that were recently approved by the U.S. Senate and
House of Representatives each contain a provision allowing drilling
for oil and gas in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. The bill now
heads for reconciliation by the two chambers, an up or down vote of
the final bill by the House and Senate, and then to President Trump
for his signature...<br>
<b>In our most recent nationally representative survey, conducted in
late October, we found that a large majority of American voters
(70%) oppose drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.
Those strongly opposed outnumber those who strongly support the
policy by more than 4 to 1.</b><br>
Further, majorities of Democrats (84%), Independents (64%), and
Republicans (52%) oppose drilling for oil in the Arctic National
Wildlife Refuge. Only 18% of Republicans "strongly support" the
policy.<br>
For more information about the survey methodology, please click <a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://climatecommunication.yale.edu/publications/climate-change-american-mind-october-2017/11/">here</a>.<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="http://climatecommunication.yale.edu/publications/americans-oppose-drilling-arctic-national-wildlife-refuge/">http://climatecommunication.yale.edu/publications/americans-oppose-drilling-arctic-national-wildlife-refuge/</a><br>
<br>
<br>
<b><a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://thinkprogress.org/omg-heat-wave-scorches-greenland-up-to-54f-warmer-than-normal-9981de9c6a92/">Monster
heat wave reaches Greenland, bringing rain and melting its ice
sheet</a></b><br>
NASA's Oceans Melting Greenland (OMG) mission warns the ice sheet is
more at risk to global warming than we knew...<br>
It's been unusually warm in the United States in recent days, with
records being set across the country. But it's been scorching in
Greenland, with temperatures as much as 54 degrees above normal,
which means above freezing in many places.<br>
And this comes on the heels of new research from NASA's aptly-named
Oceans Melting Greenland (OMG) mission, which finds that the
enormous ice sheet is far more unstable than we realized. That's bad
news because the Greenland ice sheet contains enough land-locked ice
to raise sea levels by over 20 feet....<br>
The bottom line is that over half of the entire ice sheet may be at
risk from this underwater melting. We knew that global warming is
leading to more of the kind of monster heatwaves that intensify and
extend the surface melt season on Greenland - the kind it is now
experiencing. But we are learning that global warming poses a
potentially larger risk to underwater melt from warming ocean
waters. <br>
<font size="-1"><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://thinkprogress.org/omg-heat-wave-scorches-greenland-up-to-54f-warmer-than-normal-9981de9c6a92/">https://thinkprogress.org/omg-heat-wave-scorches-greenland-up-to-54f-warmer-than-normal-9981de9c6a92/</a></font><br>
<br>
<br>
<b><a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.mirror.co.uk/tv/tv-news/sir-david-attenborough-begs-donald-11634625">Sir
David Attenborough begs Donald Trump not to ruin our planet amid
US plans to withdraw from climate change agreement</a></b><br>
Blue Planet II narrator has asked the US president to reconsider as
he warns carbon dioxide in the sea will kill all coral by 2100<br>
By Nicola Methven<br>
we have a responsibility to protect the planet and all life on Earth
<br>
The broadcaster, 91, said he hoped the President had seen the error
of his ways since he announced the US would quit the 2015 deal.<br>
Trump believes the accord, which aims to slash global carbon
emissions, is bad for the US economy and will quit it in 2020. He
justified his decision by saying: "I was elected to represent the
citizens of Pittsburgh, not Paris."<br>
But ahead of the final episode of Blue Planet II on BBC1, Sir David
said: "Let us hope that Trump will eventually recognise that the
Paris Agreement was not about Pittsburgh, or even Paris, but the
entire planet.<br>
"Never before have we been so aware of what we are doing to our
planet - and never before have we had such power to do something
about it."<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="http://www.mirror.co.uk/tv/tv-news/sir-david-attenborough-begs-donald-11634625">http://www.mirror.co.uk/tv/tv-news/sir-david-attenborough-begs-donald-11634625</a><br>
<br>
<br>
<b><a
href="https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/12/171201104726.htm">Skepticism
takes many forms</a></b><br>
Not every kind of science skepticism is the same. For example,
skepticism about climate change is linked to political ideology,
whereas skepticism about vaccinations consistently correlates with
religious beliefs. In contrast, skepticism about genetically
modified foods is not fuelled by religious or political ideology.
These are some of the major findings of a new research study
conducted by UvA psychologist Bastiaan Rutjens among North
Americans. The results were published on Friday, 1 December in the
journal Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin.<br>
Why are some people more skeptical about science than others? And
how big is the influence of political conviction and religion on the
degree of skepticism? 'Extensive research has been done in
particular on political ideology as a predictor of climate change
skepticism, for example. To date, however, no research exists in
which different forms of skepticisms are studied simultaneously and
in which several different predictors are taking into account', says
Rutjens. 'In our research, we focused on skepticism about climate
change, genetically modified foods and vaccinations. We also looked
at general levels of trust in science.'<br>
<b>The importance of science</b><br>
For their study, the researchers presented several groups of online
participants with items and surveys on science. The participants
were then asked to grade various statements, including: 'human CO2
emissions cause climate change' and 'vaccinations cause autism'. The
researchers also used a basic test to assess the participants' level
of science literacy and asked them to do a short task in which they
could indicate the level of priority the government should give to
science, and more particularly the amount of money that should be
allocated to science.<br>
The results reveal that climate change skepticism coincides with
political beliefs, particularly social conservatism. Skepticism
about vaccinations is consistently correlated to religious
conviction -- higher levels of religiosity correspond with higher
levels of mistrust in vaccinations. The best predictors of
skepticism about genetically modified foods are the level of trust
in and knowledge about science. Finally, the researchers observed
that the degree of importance attached to science mainly correlates
with religiosity, and much less with political beliefs or knowledge
about science. Religious conservatives who took part in the study
were also found to be the least supportive of allocating money to
science.<br>
<b>Scientific literacy</b><br>
"Our research also shows that skepticism cannot be reduced simply by
increasing the level of science literacy. Some people have a problem
with (certain forms of) science on account of ideological, religious
or moral reasons. This cannot be addressed by simply increasing
their knowledge of science," says Rutjens. "What might help is to
change the way science or certain findings are framed. This, for
example, is one of the results that emerged from research by Matthew
Baldwin and Joris Lammers, which was published last year in PNAS.
Their findings revealed that conservatives are more open to the idea
of climate change if a comparison is made with the past instead of
the current frame in which future scenarios dominate."<br>
The research was conducted entirely on participants and data from
North America. Rutjens plans to do comparative research among other
nationalities, starting with Europeans. "We might very likely
identify other patterns," says Rutjens.<br>
<font size="-1"><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/12/171201104726.htm">https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/12/171201104726.htm</a></font><br>
<br>
<br>
<b><a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2017/dec/04/the-moral-and-intellectual-bankruptcy-of-the-republican-party">(opinion)
The moral and intellectual bankruptcy of the Republican Party</a></b><br>
The GOP strategy on taxes and climate: reject evidence and expert
opinion, lie, and wage culture wars<br>
Dana Nuccitelli<br>
Monday 4 December 2017 06.00 EST Last modified on Monday 4 December
2017 06.02 EST<br>
The parallels between the Republican Party positions on taxes and
climate change are striking. Both are morally appalling and reject
the available evidence and expert opinion.<br>
The Initiative on Global Markets' panel of economic experts was
recently asked about the Republican tax plan. Among the experts who
took a position either way, there was a 96% consensus that the plan
would not substantially grow the economy more than the status quo,
and a 100% consensus that it would substantially increase the
national debt.<br>
Those numbers are quite similar to the 97% consensus among climate
scientists that humans are driving global warming and the 95%
consensus among economists that the US should cut its carbon
pollution... <br>
The House and Senate Republicans have passed similar versions of
their tax bill, and neither chamber is allowing any climate policy
to move forward...<br>
So what's making Republican Party leaders reject the expert
consensus on these incredibly important issues?...<br>
As Nobel-winning economist Joseph Stiglitz said, "Either it's a
religious belief, a belief where no amount of evidence would change
that, or they are using the argument cynically and they just want
more money for themselves." He was talking about trickle-down
economics, but just as easily could have been describing climate
denial...<br>
Eating away at the GOP intellectual core: Fox News<br>
A 2012 survey found that Americans who only watch Fox News are less
informed than Americans who watch no news at all. At the time, 55%
of Americans including 75% of Republicans reported watching Fox
News. The network is powerful - a recent study found that Fox News
might have enough influence to tip American elections - and on the
whole it prioritizes ideological messaging over factual accuracy...<br>
Trump's attacks on the so-called "fake news" media have further
eroded Republicans' trust of news sources that lack a conservative
bias. As David Roberts wrote for Vox:<br>
<blockquote>The US is experiencing a deep epistemic breach, a split
not just in what we value or want, but in who we trust, how we
come to know things, and what we believe we know - what we believe
exists, is true, has happened and is happening … the right has
created its own parallel set of institutions, most notably its own
media ecosystem … "conservative media is more partisan and more
insular than the left."<br>
</blockquote>
Similarly, climate denial is based on endless myths and
misinformation - <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://skepticalscience.com/argument.php">Skeptical Science
has catalogued and debunked about 200 of them</a>. And recent
research showed that <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2017/nov/29/new-study-uncovers-the-keystone-domino-strategy-of-climate-denial">these
myths are quite effective at misinforming their audience.</a> ...
<br>
It's all morally reprehensible, and so far, it's working. At this
point, the only way to fix the problem is to defeat the Republicans
who have rotted their party to its core and are now spreading that
rot throughout America and the rest of the world.<font size="-1"><br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2017/dec/04/the-moral-and-intellectual-bankruptcy-of-the-republican-party">https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2017/dec/04/the-moral-and-intellectual-bankruptcy-of-the-republican-party</a></font><br>
-<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2017/11/this-map-shows-exactly-how-many-republicans-in-your-district-dont-believe-in-global-warming/">(Map)
Estimated % of registered Republicans who think global warming is
mostly caused by human activities, 2016</a><br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2017/11/this-map-shows-exactly-how-many-republicans-in-your-district-dont-believe-in-global-warming/">http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2017/11/this-map-shows-exactly-how-many-republicans-in-your-district-dont-believe-in-global-warming/</a><br>
<br>
<br>
<b><a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/the-last-great-exploration-on-earth-is-to-survive_us_5a236d66e4b05072e8b569ea">"The
Last Great Exploration On Earth Is To Survive On Earth"</a></b><br>
Aiko Stevenson, Contributor<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true" href="http://www.2041.com/robert-swan/">Robert
Swan OBE</a>...he is retracing his footsteps back to the South
Pole together with his 23 year old son Barney. Passing on the baton
of polar exploration from one generation to the next, the duo are
the first father and son team to make the <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/robert-and-barney-swan-limber-up-for-solar-powered-polar-adventure-w3xhf5mt2">600
mile trek</a>,..<br>
Twice the size of Texas and <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://www.nationalgeographic.com/magazine/2017/07/antarctica-sea-level-rise-climate-change/">two
and a half miles thick</a>, it has two of the largest and fastest
melting glaciers in Antarctica: Pine Island and Thwaites. Stretching
over <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://grist.org/article/antarctica-doomsday-glaciers-could-flood-coastal-cities/">150
miles long</a>, "together, they act as a plug holding back enough
ice to pour 11 feet of sea-level rise into the world's oceans,"
writes Eric Holthaus in <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://grist.org/article/antarctica-doomsday-glaciers-could-flood-coastal-cities/">Grist.</a><br>
That's enough water to inundate every coastal city on the planet.
Although there is no doubt that this ice will melt as the planet
warms up, the important question is: when?<br>
And, the bad news is that when we look back to the end of the last
Ice Age, (when temperatures were similar to where they are now),
both glaciers collapsed very quickly. That's because the ocean floor
there is so deep that each new iceberg that breaks off exposes
higher and higher cliffs which eventually buckle under their own
weight.<br>
"And, once they start to crumble," writes Holthaus: "The destruction
would be unstoppable. Minute-by-minute, huge skyscraper-sized shards
of ice cliffs would crumble into the sea, as tall as the Statue of
Liberty and as deep underwater as the height of the Empire State
Building. The result: a global catastrophe the likes of which we've
never seen."<br>
With half of the world's population living within 50 miles of the
coast, such a seismic event would create hundreds of millions of
climate refugees, whilst wiping out trillions of dollars of
property. And, although scientists used to think that it would take
millennia to melt these ice sheets, the work of <a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://www.nature.com/articles/nature17145.epdf?referrer_access_token=3pYbX2r78-5squl3O1C7VdRgN0jAjWel9jnR3ZoTv0M-pvJMg7VLINRa2mnTNsvXHo27XGipFYASWYeuVfMI6vfDgWVX4CDZPI6LE9T76qWyloMessSXmHlgrTc4eYo6snojtwiQ0vxUWo-va3LBGAmcwViMQaOUn3nut7x0SLMen6aiNKogSqACh40dQG55tuCLA0u-ExmTz4vftV317m-yQIlPN3rWMw5vZfzhBwJtmXcPmeWMluUAVcdDxJMj&tracking_referrer=grist.org">two
prominent climatologists </a>suggests that it could happen as
early as this century if carbon emissions continue along their
business-as-usual trajectory.<br>
"Antarctica used to be the sleeping elephant", <a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/features/the-doomsday-glacier-w481260">notes</a>
Mark Serreze, the head of the National Snow and Ice Data Center:
"But now the elephant is stirring," begging the question: will we
heed its warming? In a rational world, humans would do anything to
prevent this nightmare. Instead, as Jeff Goodell writes in <a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/features/the-doomsday-glacier-w481260">Rolling
Stone:</a><br>
<blockquote>"Americans elected a president who thinks climate change
is a hoax, who is hellbent on burning more fossil fuels, who
installs the CEO of the world's largest oil company as secretary
of state, and who wants to slash climate-science funding and
instead spend nearly $70 billion on a wall at the Mexican border."<br>
</blockquote>
Ever since Donald Trump took over the White House this year, our
odds of surviving this planetary crisis have considerably worsened:
the property tycoon pulled the US out of the <a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/features/the-doomsday-glacier-w481260">Paris
climate accord</a> this summer. The treaty, though short on
ambition, represented humanity's best chance of survival as it
committed world leaders to limiting global warming to two degrees
celsius. Endorsed by over 190 nations when it was signed in 2015, it
was hailed as a <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/features/the-doomsday-glacier-w481260">"historic"
</a>victory for mankind.<br>
Without it, according to the UN's latest climate study, world
temperatures will race past the <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/dec/31/planet-will-warm-4c-2100-climate">four
degrees Celsius</a> mark well before the turn of this century.
This will usher in changes not seen since the last Ice Age, marking
the end of civilisation as we know it. And, to make matters worse,
4C is only the <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2017/07/climate-change-earth-too-hot-for-humans.html">median
forecast:</a> the upper end of the curve goes as high as 8C...<br>
"The greatest threat to our planet is the belief that someone else
will save it." After all, with a steep temperature rise sitting on
our collective horizon: "The last great exploration on Earth is to
survive on Earth."<br>
The Swans are expected to reach the Pole on January 15th. You can <a
moz-do-not-send="true" href="http://www.2041.com/blog/">follow
their journey here</a>: <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="http://www.2041.com/blog/">http://www.2041.com/blog/</a><br>
<font size="-1"><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/the-last-great-exploration-on-earth-is-to-survive_us_5a236d66e4b05072e8b569ea">https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/the-last-great-exploration-on-earth-is-to-survive_us_5a236d66e4b05072e8b569ea</a></font><br>
-<br>
[Nature]<br>
<b><a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://www.nature.com/articles/nature17145.epdf?referrer_access_token=3pYbX2r78-5squl3O1C7VdRgN0jAjWel9jnR3ZoTv0M-pvJMg7VLINRa2mnTNsvXHo27XGipFYASWYeuVfMI6vfDgWVX4CDZPI6LE9T76qWyloMessSXmHlgrTc4eYo6snojtwiQ0vxUWo-va3LBGAmcwViMQaOUn3nut7x0SLMen6aiNKogSqACh40dQG55tuCLA0u-ExmTz4vftV317m-yQIlPN3rWMw5vZfzhBwJtmXcPmeWMluUAVcdDxJMj&tracking_referrer=grist.org">Contribution
of Antarctica to past and future sea-level rise</a></b><br>
Article summary:<br>
Polar temperatures over the last several million years have, at
times, been slightly warmer than today, yet global mean sea level
has been 6-9 metres higher as recently as the Last Interglacial
(130,000 to 115,000 years ago) and possibly higher during the
Pliocene epoch (about three million years ago). In both cases the
Antarctic ice sheet has been implicated as the primary contributor,
hinting at its future vulnerability. Here we use a model coupling
ice sheet and climate dynamics-including previously underappreciated
processes linking atmospheric warming with hydrofracturing of
buttressing ice shelves and structural collapse of
marine-terminating ice cliffs-that is calibrated against Pliocene
and Last Interglacial sea-level estimates and applied to future
greenhouse gas emission scenarios. Antarctica has the potential to
contribute more than a metre of sea-level rise by 2100 and more than
15 metres by 2500, if emissions continue unabated. In this case
atmospheric warming will soon become the dominant driver of ice
loss, but prolonged ocean warming will delay its recovery for
thousands of years.<br>
<font size="-1"><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://www.nature.com/articles/nature17145.epdf">https://www.nature.com/articles/nature17145.epdf</a></font><br>
<br>
<br>
<font size="+1"><b><a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2007/12/05/what_s_wrong_with_war_for_oil2">This
Day in Climate History December 5, 2007 </a> - from D.R.
Tucker</b></font><br>
December 5, 2007: In a monologue that clearly explains why he had<br>
spent the previous nineteen years claiming that climate change was a<br>
hoax, Rush Limbaugh declares:<br>
"Can I give you a real simple reality? It may be controversial, but<br>
it's inarguable. This is a world that runs on fossil fuels, folks,
and<br>
it's going to run on fossil fuels long after you and I and your<br>
grandkids are dead. Wind, solar, all pipe dream stuff, as we sit
here<br>
and speak now. Would somebody explain to me what is so immoral about<br>
the leaders of this country attempting to maintain a supply and
access<br>
to the fossil fuel that runs the world and runs our economy?...What<br>
I'm suggesting here is that even if a part of all of the strategy
here<br>
[with the Iraq War] is to maintain the free flow of oil at market<br>
prices, what in the name of Sam Hill is wrong with that? What's the<br>
crime? Where's the immorality in it?"<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2007/12/05/what_s_wrong_with_war_for_oil2">http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2007/12/05/what_s_wrong_with_war_for_oil2</a><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>
<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>