<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<font size="+1"><i>February 1, 2018</i></font><br>
<br>
[climate forecast Australia - video]<br>
<b><a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B-6fNZE7qi8">Climate and
Water Outlook, February-April 2018</a></b><br>
Bureau of Meteorology -The monthly Climate and Water Outlook video
covers rainfall, streamflow and temperature for the next three
months. For more detail, go to <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/ahead/">http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/ahead/</a>
<br>
The next video will be available Thursday the 15th of February. .<br>
<font size="-1"><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B-6fNZE7qi8">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B-6fNZE7qi8</a></font><br>
<br>
<br>
[UK MET Office]<br>
<b><a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://www.theguardian.com/science/2018/jan/31/met-office-warns-of-global-temperature-rise-exceeding-15c-limit">Met
Office warns of global temperature rise exceeding 1.5C limit</a></b><br>
Met Office warns of global temperature rise exceeding 1.5C limit<br>
In next five years greenhouse gases may push global warming past
threshold set by Paris deal<br>
Global temperatures could break through the internationally agreed
upper 1.5C limit within the next five years, according to a forecast
by British scientists that raises fresh questions about the world's
efforts to tackle climate change.<br>
<font size="-1"><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://www.theguardian.com/science/2018/jan/31/met-office-warns-of-global-temperature-rise-exceeding-15c-limit">https://www.theguardian.com/science/2018/jan/31/met-office-warns-of-global-temperature-rise-exceeding-15c-limit</a></font><br>
-<br>
<b><a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/news/releases/2018/decadal-forecast-2018">Five-year
forecast indicates further warming</a></b><br>
January 2018<br>
A new forecast published by scientists at the Met Office indicates
the annual global average temperature is likely to exceed 1 degreeC
and could reach 1.5 degreeC above pre-industrial levels during the
next five years (2018-2022).<br>
There is also a small (around 10%) chance that at least one year in
the period could exceed 1.5 degreeC above pre-industrial levels
(1850-1900), although it is not anticipated that it will happen this
year. It is the first time that such high values have been
highlighted within these forecasts.<br>
Prof Stephen Belcher, Chief Scientist at the Met Office, said:
"Given we've seen global average temperatures around 1 degreeC above
pre-industrial levels over the last three years, it is now possible
that continued warming from greenhouse gases along with natural
variability could combine so we temporarily exceed 1.5 degreeC in
the next five years."<br>
<blockquote><b><a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://youtu.be/4qhaR2KU0sA">Video 2018 Decadal
forecast</a></b> <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://youtu.be/4qhaR2KU0sA">https://youtu.be/4qhaR2KU0sA</a><br>
Professor Adam Scaife explains what the latest Met Office decadal
forecast could mean for global temperatures over the next five
years.<br>
<font size="-1"><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://youtu.be/4qhaR2KU0sA">https://youtu.be/4qhaR2KU0sA</a></font><br>
</blockquote>
Prof Scaife added that continued greenhouse gas emissions leading to
further warming would mean that the chances of seeing years at 1.5
degreeC or more would likely increase in future years.<br>
The Met Office's decadal forecast is updated each year. The forecast
follows our announcement last year about the end of the slowdown,
the subsequent rapid warming and the run of record global
temperatures in the last few years.<br>
The global temperatures quoted here are calculated relative to a
baseline of 1850-1900 providing a measure that is relative to the
pre-industrial period for comparison with the Paris ambition and
target to limit warming to 1.5 degreeC and well below 2 degreeC
respectively above pre-industrial levels.<br>
Later this year the IPCC will publish a special report about the
risks of exceeding the 1.5 degreeC warming level and what might be
done to avoid it.<br>
<font size="-1"><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/news/releases/2018/decadal-forecast-2018">https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/news/releases/2018/decadal-forecast-2018</a></font><br>
<br>
<br>
[2015 studies]<br>
<b><a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://www.vox.com/2015/6/14/8767823/psychology-global-warming">Most
discussions on climate change ignore these 10 basic facts about
human nature</a></b><br>
By Lisa Bennett <br>
I've spent nearly a decade thinking about why people get stuck on
climate change: stuck in debates, denial, what looks like
indifference, and the awful discomfort that comes with the question,
"But what can I do?"<br>
In search of answers, I've interviewed dozens of experts in
psychology, neuroscience, sociology, economics, political science,
and other fields - and many more Americans across a broad spectrum
of political affiliations, income brackets, and ages. I've also read
widely to tap the thinking of those who were once more commonly
looked to for insights into human nature, such as poets,
philosophers, and spiritual leaders.<br>
What I've come up with is my own climate-centric version of Robert
Fulghum's All I Really Need to Know I Learned in Kindergarten.
Climate change has been my window into learning about human nature -
or, at least, about what we humans do when faced with a challenge
much greater than ourselves. The experience has also persuaded me
that a better understanding of our own nature can help inspire a
more effective response to what is happening to the natural world.<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://www.vox.com/2015/6/14/8767823/psychology-global-warming">Here,
then, are 10 things I've learned,</a> along with some ideas about
how these insights might be applied by those working on climate
change:<br>
<blockquote><b>1) We are overly optimistic about the future - our
future, that is...</b><br>
<b>2) We can be blasé about the most important issues in the world
because the global perspective is way beyond ordinary human
scale...</b><br>
<b>3) We are wired to refute imperatives...</b><br>
<b>4) We are vulnerable to peer pressure, especially about things
that confuse us..</b><br>
<b>5) We shy away from topics that remind us of our mortality but
can be motivated to take action on behalf of beings more
vulnerable than us...</b><br>
<b>6) We perceive and respond to risks only when we feel them...</b><br>
<b>7) We are motivated more by hope than by fear, at least in
matters of social change...</b><br>
<b>8) We are more likely to take action when we know precisely
what we can influence...</b><br>
<b>9) We need to believe our actions will make a difference...</b><br>
<b>10) We will continue to behave the same way we always have -
even after we know it is problematic - until there is a
realistic alternative...</b><br>
</blockquote>
It is a safe bet that if you are reading this, you know that fossil
fuels contribute to climate change and yet you continue, either
directly or indirectly, to rely upon them, as most of us do.<br>
But the reason for this, I have firmly come to believe, is not
because most people don't care, don't get it, or have been duped by
climate denial propaganda. I find a more believable reason in the
words of Thomas Kuhn, widely considered one of the most influential
philosophers of science of the 20th century. "People are unlikely to
jettison an unworkable paradigm, despite many indications it is not
functioning properly," Kuhn said, "until a better paradigm can be
presented."<br>
While individual behavior changes are essential, in other words,
many of them remain dependent on systemic public and private sector
changes. To fully succeed, we need a "moon shot"-style rapid
transition to a clean energy economy, like the one proposed last
week by a group of scientists and economists led by the UK's former
chief scientist Sir David King.<br>
But in the end, even the best of plans depends on understanding,
communicating, and acting with a fuller appreciation not just of the
state of the natural world but of our own nature, which means
bringing today's global climate story down to a human scale.<br>
The good news is that doing so requires that we engage some of the
best aspects of human nature, including our ability to be present in
the here and now, to care more about people than about facts, to be
drawn to hope more than fear, to be willing to defend those weaker
than us, and to focus our actions on things that are in our control
- all the while being capable of believing in, even being thrilled
by, the vision of a moon shot.<br>
<font size="-1">Lisa Bennett, coauthor of Ecoliterate, is a writer
and communications strategist focused on climate change and what
helps people rise to challenges great and small. She blogs at
lisabennett.org/blog and is on Twitter at @LisaPBennett.</font><br>
<font size="-1"><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://www.vox.com/2015/6/14/8767823/psychology-global-warming">https://www.vox.com/2015/6/14/8767823/psychology-global-warming</a></font><br>
-<br>
<b><a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2821919">How
People Update Beliefs about Climate Change: Good News and Bad
News</a></b><br>
12 Pages <br>
Sunstein, Bobadilla-Suarez, Lazzaro. Sharot<br>
Date Written: September 2, 2016<br>
<b>Abstract</b><br>
<blockquote>People are frequently exposed to competing evidence
about climate change. We examined how new information alters
people's beliefs. We find that people who doubt that man-made
climate change is occurring, and who do not favor an international
agreement to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, show a form of
asymmetrical updating: They change their beliefs in response to
unexpected good news (suggesting that average temperature rise is
likely to be less than previously thought) and fail to change
their beliefs in response to unexpected bad news (suggesting that
average temperature rise is likely to be greater than previously
thought). By contrast, people who strongly believe that man-made
climate change is occurring, and who favor an international
agreement, show the opposite asymmetry: They change their beliefs
far more in response to unexpected bad news (suggesting that
average temperature rise is likely to be greater than previously
thought) than in response to unexpected good news (suggesting that
average temperature rise is likely to be smaller than previously
thought). The results suggest that exposure to varied scientific
evidence about climate change may increase polarization within a
population due to asymmetrical updating. We explore the
implications of our findings for how people will update their
beliefs upon receiving new evidence about climate change, and also
for other beliefs relevant to politics and law.<br>
</blockquote>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/Delivery.cfm/SSRN_ID2821919_code2488747.pdf?abstractid=2821919&mirid=1">Download
the Paper</a> <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/Delivery.cfm/SSRN_ID2821919_code2488747.pdf?abstractid=2821919&mirid=1">https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/Delivery.cfm/SSRN_ID2821919_code2488747.pdf?abstractid=2821919&mirid=1</a><br>
<font size="-1"><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2821919">https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2821919</a></font><br>
<br>
<br>
[Peter Sinclair]<br>
<b><a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://climatecrocks.com/2018/01/31/whats-wrong-with-beautiful-clean-coal/">What's
Wrong with "Beautiful Clean Coal"</a></b><br>
Trump's shout-out to "clean coal" in the State of the Union address
bore little relationship to the reality that continues to play out
in the coal fields.<br>
It's easy to say, "serves 'em right, they voted for a swindler, and
they're being swindled".<br>
In fact, I'll be honest and say, that's my attitude right now, not
just toward coal miners, but anyone who debased themselves, and
betrayed the country, by voting for Trump.<br>
..other perspective(s): <br>
-<br>
<a
href="https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/dont-tell-coal-country-thats-what-you-get-for-voting_us_5a2eb58ee4b0e5443a092a82"
target="_blank" rel="noopener">Huffington Post:</a><br>
<div class="content-list-component bn-content-list-text
yr-content-list-text text"> Even before the US Senate recently
confirmed President Trump's pick of a <a class="bn-clickable"
href="http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/360514-senate-confirms-trumps-mine-safety-pick"
target="_blank" rel="nofollow noopener">former coal executive to
head the U.S. Mine Safety and Health Administration</a>,
Appalachians were already bracing for the bitter taunts from
self-righteous liberals and environmentalists, "That's what you
get for voting for Trump."<br>
We hear it. We don't like it. And attitudes such as these must
change if we ever hope to see change...<br>
-<br>
</div>
<div class="content-list-component bn-content-list-text
yr-content-list-text text"> </div>
<a
href="https://www.reuters.com/article/us-trump-effect-coal-retraining-insight/awaiting-trumps-coal-comeback-miners-reject-retraining-idUSKBN1D14G0"
target="_blank" rel="noopener">Reuters:</a> <br>
WAYNESBURG, Pa. (Reuters) - When Mike Sylvester entered a career
training center earlier this year in southwestern Pennsylvania, he
found more than one hundred federally funded courses covering
everything from computer programming to nursing.<br>
He settled instead on something familiar: a coal mining course.<br>
"I think there is a coal comeback," said the 33-year-old son of a
miner.<br>
Despite broad consensus about coal's bleak future, a years-long
effort to diversify the economy of this hard-hit region away from
mining is stumbling, with Obama-era jobs retraining classes
undersubscribed and future programs at risk under President Donald
Trump's proposed 2018 budget.<br>
Trump has promised to revive coal by rolling back environmental
regulations and moved to repeal Obama-era curbs on carbon emissions
from power plants...<br>
-<br>
<a
href="http://www.post-gazette.com/powersource/policy-powersource/2018/01/10/Is-the-coal-baron-s-Robert-Murray-s-wish-list-becoming-Trump-s-to-do-list/stories/201801090221"
target="_blank" rel="noopener">Pittsburgh Post-Gazzette:</a><br>
Under Trump, the Mine Safety and Health Administration has also
moved to reconsider rules meant to protect miners from breathing
coal and rock dust - the primary cause of black lung disease - and
diesel exhaust, which can cause cancer.<br>
Other Murray priorities, such as eliminating federal tax credits for
wind turbines and solar panels, have floundered, however. The
renewable energy tax breaks were largely retained in the final
Republican-drafted tax plan signed by Trump last month.<br>
And despite Trump's campaign pledges to put scores of coal back to
work by ending what he and Murray have derided as Obama's "War on
Coal," the administration's regulatory rollback has thus far had
modest economic benefits.<br>
Only about 500 coal mining jobs were added in Trump's first year,
bringing the total to about 50,900 nationally, according to the
federal Bureau of Labor Statistics. The nation's utilities have also
continued to shutter coal-fired plants in favor of those burning
natural gas made cheaper and more abundant by new drilling
technologies...<br>
-<br>
<a
href="https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2017/3/17/14951892/trump-budget-coal-country"
target="_blank" rel="noopener">Vox:</a><br>
During the campaign, Donald Trump <a
href="http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/291041-trump-to-coal-country-this-election-is-the-last-shot-for">billed
himself</a> as the "last shot" for coal country. He alone could
save regions like Appalachia that had long suffered from poverty and
dwindling coal jobs. And voters in West Virginia and eastern
Kentucky believed him - choosing Trump over Hillary Clinton by wide,
wide margins.<br>
So it's striking that President Trump's <a
href="https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/whitehouse.gov/files/omb/budget/fy2018/2018_blueprint.pdf">first
budget proposal</a> would slash and burn several key programs
aimed at promoting economic development in coal regions - most
notably, the <a href="https://www.arc.gov/">Appalachian Regional
Commission</a> and the <a href="https://www.eda.gov/">Economic
Development Administration</a>. In recent years, these programs
have focused on aiding communities that have been left behind as
mining jobs vanished...<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://climatecrocks.com/2018/01/31/whats-wrong-with-beautiful-clean-coal/">https://climatecrocks.com/2018/01/31/whats-wrong-with-beautiful-clean-coal/</a><br>
-<br>
[video]<br>
<b><a moz-do-not-send="true" href="https://youtu.be/aw6RsUhw1Q8">Coal:
Last Week Tonight with John Oliver (HBO)</a></b><br>
We've heard a lot of talk about coal miners in the last year, <br>
but what are the real issues surrounding coal? <br>
John Oliver and a giant squirrel look into it.<br>
<font size="-1"><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://youtu.be/aw6RsUhw1Q8">https://youtu.be/aw6RsUhw1Q8</a></font><br>
<br>
<br>
[BBC Trending]<b><br>
</b><b><a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-trending-42195511">'Chemtrail'
conspiracy theorists: The people who think governments control
the weather</a></b><br>
"Chemtrail" conspiracy theorists vary in their claims. But some of
the most popular include the belief that governments control the
weather on a massive scale, that scientists carrying out legitimate
research about how to counteract climate change through a process
called geo-engineering are secretly poisoning us, or even that
secret powerful groups are spraying us with chemicals to make us
pliant and easy to control...<br>
But what most people call "contrails" Suzanne and other conspiracy
theorists call "chemtrails" - and in them they see evidence of a
clandestine globalist conspiracy involving a pick-and-mix selection
of the UN, the military, national governments, the Rothschilds,
climate scientists, pilots and big business...<br>
A 2016 study by the Carnegie Institute for Science and the
University of California Irvine surveyed 77 leading atmospheric
scientists and geochemists. All but one, 98.7%, reported no evidence
of a secret large-scale atmospheric spraying programme. The one
scientist who dissented recorded unusually high levels of
atmospheric barium in a remote area with low levels of barium in the
soil...<br>
"Our goal is not to sway those already convinced that there is a
secret, large-scale spraying programme - who often reject counter
evidence as further proof of their theories - but rather to
establish a source of objective science that can inform public
discourse," the study's authors wrote...<br>
<font size="-1"><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="http://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-trending-42195511">http://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-trending-42195511</a></font><br>
<br>
<br>
<font size="+1"><b><a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2007/feb/02/frontpagenews.climatechange">This
Day in Climate History February 1, 2007</a> - from D.R.
Tucker</b></font><br>
February 1, 2007: The Guardian reports on a bizarre effort by the
American Enterprise<br>
Institute to attack the credibility of the Fourth IPCC report, due
to<br>
be released the next day.<br>
<blockquote><b>Scientists offered cash to dispute climate study <br>
</b>Ian Sample, science correspondent<br>
Scientists and economists have been offered $10,000 each by a
lobby group funded by one of the world's largest oil companies to
undermine a major climate change report due to be published today.<br>
<br>
Letters sent by the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), an
ExxonMobil-funded thinktank with close links to the Bush
administration, offered the payments for articles that emphasise
the shortcomings of a report from the UN's Intergovernmental Panel
on Climate Change (IPCC).<br>
<br>
Travel expenses and additional payments were also offered.<br>
<br>
The UN report was written by international experts and is widely
regarded as the most comprehensive review yet of climate change
science. It will underpin international negotiations on new
emissions targets to succeed the Kyoto agreement, the first phase
of which expires in 2012. World governments were given a draft
last year and invited to comment.<br>
Advertisement<br>
<br>
The AEI has received more than $1.6m from ExxonMobil and more than
20 of its staff have worked as consultants to the Bush
administration. Lee Raymond, a former head of ExxonMobil, is the
vice-chairman of AEI's board of trustees.<br>
<br>
The letters, sent to scientists in Britain, the US and elsewhere,
attack the UN's panel as "resistant to reasonable criticism and
dissent and prone to summary conclusions that are poorly supported
by the analytical work" and ask for essays that "thoughtfully
explore the limitations of climate model outputs"....<br>
</blockquote>
<font size="-1"><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2007/feb/02/frontpagenews.climatechange">http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2007/feb/02/frontpagenews.climatechange</a></font><br>
<br>
<br>
<font size="+1"><i>
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------</i></font><br>
<font size="+1"><i> </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><br>
<i> </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><br>
<font size="+1"><i><font size="+1"><i> </i></font></i></font><font
size="+1"><i> </i></font><br>
<font size="+1"><i> <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="a%20href=%22mailto:contact@theClimate.Vote%22">Send
email to subscribe</a> to news clippings. </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>