<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<font size="+1"><i>July 17, 2018</i></font><br>
<br>
[ABC TV news]<br>
<b><a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://abcnews.go.com/US/dry-weather-lightning-igniting-wildfires-west/story?id=56614504">Dry
weather, lightning igniting wildfires across the West</a></b><br>
Hot weather moving into California and parts of western Rockies on
Monday and the next several days - with temperatures soaring into
the 100s - will has authorities fearing more fires could start.<br>
There are 35 large uncontained wildfires burning across the western
U.S. on Monday morning.<br>
Temperatures soared yesterday to 100 degrees in Portland, Oregon,
for the first time this year. The temperature was just a few degrees
shy of a record.<br>
With the heat, dry weather, gusty winds and dry lightning, numerous
fire and heat warnings have been issued for the West...<br>
<font size="-1"><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://abcnews.go.com/US/dry-weather-lightning-igniting-wildfires-west/story?id=56614504">https://abcnews.go.com/US/dry-weather-lightning-igniting-wildfires-west/story?id=56614504</a></font><br>
<br>
<br>
[Honolulu, Hawaii]<br>
<b><a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://www.khon2.com/news/local-news/mayor-issues-directive-on-climate-change/1306968449">Mayor
issues directive on climate change</a></b><br>
The Commission says the city should plan for 3-feet of sea level
rise by the mid-century and if action isn't taken now, nearly 4,000
structures on Oahu would be flooded, and nearly 18 miles of coastal
roads would become impassable.<font size="-1"><br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://www.khon2.com/news/local-news/mayor-issues-directive-on-climate-change/1306968449">https://www.khon2.com/news/local-news/mayor-issues-directive-on-climate-change/1306968449</a></font><br>
<br>
<br>
[skewers global warming deniers with satire]<br>
<b><a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://www.truthbrary.org/global-warming">TruthBrary.org
from Sacha Baron Cohen</a></b><br>
<font size="-1"><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://www.truthbrary.org/global-warming">https://www.truthbrary.org/global-warming</a></font><br>
<br>
<br>
[President Obama]<br>
<b><a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.businessinsider.com/obama-climate-change-refugee-crisis-food-2017-5">Obama:
Climate change could cause a refugee crisis that's
'unprecedented in human history'</a></b><br>
Climate change is not only leading to global rising temperatures,
it's also displacing millions of people from their homes.<br>
According to former President Barack Obama, if we don't mitigate
greenhouse gas emissions soon, climate change will likely result in
a global refugee crisis.<br>
<br>
"If you think about monsoon patterns in the Indian subcontinent,
maybe half a billion people rely on traditional rain patterns in
those areas," he said at Seeds and Chips, a global food innovation
summit in Italy, on May 9. "If those rain patterns change, then you
could see hundreds of millions of people who suddenly find
themselves unable to feed themselves, because they're already at
subsistence levels. The amount of migration - the number of refugees
that could result from something like that - would be unprecedented
in human history."<br>
<br>
Regions - from the US to Southeast Asia - are already seeing the
effects of climate change, including sea level rise, drought, and
sinking land. All of these factors can displace people from their
homes, and make it difficult to grow food on top of that.<br>
<br>
Every year since 2008, an annual average of 21.5 million people have
been forcibly displaced by weather-related hazards, like floods,
storms, wildfires, and extreme temperature, according to the United
Nations Refugee Agency. Cyclone Komen and monsoon floods in Myanmar
and India displaced 1.6 million and 1.2 million people respectively
in 2015, and many traveled to European or neighboring Asian
countries.<br>
<font size="-1"><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="http://www.businessinsider.com/obama-climate-change-refugee-crisis-food-2017-5">http://www.businessinsider.com/obama-climate-change-refugee-crisis-food-2017-5</a></font><br>
<br>
<br>
[More factors to calculate ]<br>
<b><a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/07/180716151529.htm">Thawing
permafrost microbiomes fuel climate change</a></b><br>
Date: July 16, 2018<br>
Source: University of Queensland<br>
A University of Queensland-led international study could lead to
more accurate predictions or the rate of global warming from
greenhouse gas emissions produced by thawing permafrost in the next
100 years.<br>
The study of the microorganisms involved in permafrost carbon
degradation links changing microbial communities and biogeochemistry
to the rise of greenhouse gas emissions.<br>
It was led by Australian Centre for Ecogenomics researchers in the
UQ School of Chemistry and Molecular Biosciences Dr Ben Woodcroft,
PhD student Caitlin Singleton, Professor Gene Tyson and
international colleagues.<br>
"As global temperatures rise, large amounts of carbon sequestered in
perennially frozen permafrost are becoming available for microbial
degradation," Dr Woodcroft said.<br>
<blockquote>"Until now, accurate prediction of greenhouse gas
emissions produced from thawing permafrost has been limited by our
understanding of permafrost microbial communities and their carbon
metabolisms."<br>
</blockquote>
Using sequencing techniques pioneered by Professor Tyson, over 200
samples from intact, thawing and thawed permafrost sites in northern
Sweden were examined.<br>
DNA sequences of more than 1500 microbial genomes all new to science
and involved in complex biochemical networks were recovered.<br>
The research, which included new metagenomics software run on UQ
supercomputers, also implicated a number of these entirely new
lineages in the production of greenhouse gases.<br>
Ms Singleton said permafrost stores around 50 per cent of the total
global soil carbon (or 1580 billion tonnes).<br>
"The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report estimated that
between 30 and 99 per cent of near-surface permafrost could
disappear by 2100," she said.<br>
"Northern permafrost wetlands contribute a significant portion of
global methane emissions, particularly as collapsing permafrost can
create the perfect anaerobic conditions for methane-producing
microorganisms (methanogens), and their metabolic partners, to
thrive.<br>
"This is important as methane is a potent greenhouse gas - 25 times
more efficient at trapping the sun's radiation in our atmosphere
than carbon dioxide."<br>
She said that as permafrost thaws, methane emissions increase,
causing a positive feedback loop where increased atmospheric warming
caused more thawing.<br>
<font size="-1"><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/07/180716151529.htm">https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/07/180716151529.htm</a></font><br>
<br>
<br>
[do the math]<br>
<b><a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2018/jul/16/comprehensive-study-carbon-taxes-wont-hamper-the-economy">Comprehensive
study: carbon taxes won't hamper the economy</a><br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2018/jul/16/comprehensive-study-carbon-taxes-wont-hamper-the-economy"> But
global warming will.</a></b><br>
Dana Nuccitelli - Mon 16 Jul 2018<br>
Eleven teams participated in a recent Stanford Energy Modeling Forum
(EMF) project, examining the economic and environmental impacts of a
carbon tax. The studies included "revenue recycling," in which the
funds generated from a carbon tax are returned to taxpayers either
through regular household rebate checks (similar to the Citizens'
Climate Lobby [CCL] and Climate Leadership Council [CLC] proposals)
or by offsetting income taxes (similar to the approach in British
Columbia).<br>
<br>
Among the eleven modeling teams the key findings were consistent.
First, a carbon tax is effective at reducing carbon pollution,
although the structure of the tax (the price and the rate at which
it rises) are important. Second, this type of revenue-neutral carbon
tax would have a very modest impact on the economy in terms of gross
domestic product (GDP). In all likelihood it would slightly slow
economic growth, but by an amount that would be more than offset by
the benefits of cutting pollution and slowing global warming.<br>
<br>
Meanwhile, House Republicans are again on the verge of introducing a
Resolution denouncing a carbon tax as "detrimental to American
families and businesses, and is not in the best interest of the
United States."<br>
<b>The strong economic case for a carbon tax</b><br>
The modeling teams examined four carbon tax scenarios, with starting
prices of $25 or $50 per ton of carbon dioxide, rising at 1% or 5%
per year. These are somewhat modest policy scenarios; CCL proposes a
starting tax of $15 per ton rising at $10 per year, and the CLC
proposes $40 per ton rising around 4% per year. The most aggressive
policy considered by the Stanford EMF teams ($50 per ton rising 5%
per year) falls in between these two proposals.<br>
The modeling studies consistently found that for all four carbon tax
policies considered, whether the revenue is returned via rebate
checks of by offsetting income taxes, the direct economic impact is
minimal:<br>
<blockquote> in every policy scenario, in every model, the U.S.
economy continues to grow at or near its long-term average
baseline rate, deviating from reference growth by no more than
about 0.1% points. We find robust evidence that even the most
ambitious carbon tax is consistent with long-term positive
economic growth, near baseline rates, not even counting the growth
benefits of a less-disrupted climate or lower ambient air
pollution<br>
</blockquote>
The last sentence is critical. The analyses consistently found that
coal power plants would be the biggest losers if a carbon tax were
implemented, and the costs associated with health impacts from other
pollutants released by burning coal (e.g. soot and mercury) are
substantial. Phasing out coal power plants results in significant
health and economic benefits to society.<br>
<br>
So does slowing global warming, of course. A working paper recently
published by the Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond concluded that US
economic growth would slow by an extra 0.2-0.5% per year if we stay
on our current climate path (3-3.5°C global warming) than if we meet
the 2°C Paris target. This compares favorably to a less than 0.1%
per year slowing of the US economic growth rate under the carbon tax
scenarios.<br>
<br>
In short, climate change will slow American economic growth. If we
don't curb global warming, the economic impact will be larger. If we
implement a carbon tax to help meet the Paris climate targets, the
economic impact will be negligible, and will be offset by the
benefits of phasing out dirty coal power plants.<br>
<b>Carbon taxes are effective at cutting pollution</b><br>
The Stanford EMF studies also consistently concluded that a carbon
tax is an effective way to curb carbon pollution, especially in the
power sector:<br>
carbon price scenarios lead to significant reductions in CO2
emissions, with the vast majority of the reductions occurring in the
electricity sector and disproportionately through reductions in coal
… Expected economic costs (not accounting for any of the benefits of
GHG and conventional pollutant mitigation), in terms of either GDP
or welfare, are modest<br>
<br>
The analyses also found that the rate of increase of the carbon tax
was more important than the starting price. For example, a tax of
$50 per ton of carbon dioxide rising by 5% per year would cut carbon
pollution 33-56% by 2040. A tax of $25 per ton rising 5% per year
cuts it by 25-50% by 2040. However, the policies including a tax
increasing at just 1% per year would result in a short-term cut (of
about 20-40%), but carbon pollution would remain stable at those
levels.<br>
<br>
These results suggest that the most effective carbon tax might start
relatively low to give taxpayers time to adjust, but increase
rapidly over time, similar to the CCL proposal, which a separate
report projected to cut carbon pollution 52% by 2040. The Stanford
EMF studies also found that returning the tax revenue by offsetting
income taxes was slightly more beneficial for the economy than using
dividend checks as the rebate mechanism, but the former is a
regressive policy and the latter is progressive.<br>
<br>
Real-world examples demonstrate that pricing carbon pollution is
smart. British Columbia's emissions have fallen as its economy has
continued to grow. California's carbon cap and trade system has
helped the state meet its climate targets 4 years ahead of schedule,
while its economy has flourished.<br>
<br>
Economic analyses consistently show that cutting carbon pollution
will benefit the economy, and that a revenue-neutral carbon tax is
an efficient way of accomplishing that goal. That's why there's a
95% consensus among economists that the US government should commit
to cutting carbon pollution, with 81% favoring a market-based
solution like a carbon tax.<br>
<font size="-1"><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2018/jul/16/comprehensive-study-carbon-taxes-wont-hamper-the-economy">https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2018/jul/16/comprehensive-study-carbon-taxes-wont-hamper-the-economy</a></font><br>
<br>
<br>
[cool bacon]<br>
<b><a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.burnabynow.com/news/is-climate-change-turning-us-into-a-c-pigs-1.23367956">Is
climate change turning people in B.C. into A/C pigs?</a></b><br>
According to BC Hydro, the use of air conditioning has skyrocketed
to deal with the summer heat.<br>
The report "Cold comfort: The rising use (and cost) of air
conditioning in B.C." reveals that A/C use in the province has more
than tripled to 34 per cent since 2001. This upward trend will
likely continue, the report says, as 25 per cent of British
Columbians are considering purchasing an air conditioner this
summer.<br>
<br>
"Record heat and long stretches of dry weather are becoming the new
norm in the province, and BC Hydro's meteorologists are predicting
another hot summer this year," said Chris O'Riley, BC Hydro's
president and chief operating officer. "While we typically see
higher electricity demand in the cold, dark winter months, summer
demand for power is rising largely due to higher A/C usage."<br>
More homes in the Southern Interior use air conditioning than any
other region in B.C.<br>
"This is not surprising given places such as Osoyoos, Lytton and
Penticton are often among Canada's summer hotspots; however, the use
of air conditioners across the province is growing," said a news
release.<br>
<br>
In the relatively moderate climate of south coastal B.C., a trend
towards highrise apartments - often glass-walled with little air
flow - is helping to drive A/C adoption. In the past three years,
the use of portable or room air conditioners in the Lower Mainland
has grown by 23 per cent.<br>
<br>
"Cold comfort comes at a cost," said the news release. "Running a
central air conditioner for nine hours a day over the summer costs
around $300, compared to just $6 for a fan for the same amount of
time."<br>
<br>
A recent survey commissioned by BC Hydro also found 93 per cent of
British Columbians are adding to their energy bills by setting A/C
units lower than the BC Hydro-recommended 25 degrees Celsius. For
example:<br>
<blockquote> 20 per cent of respondents in the Lower Mainland and on
Vancouver Island set their thermostat between 17 and 19 degrees
Celsius.<br>
32 per cent of residents in the North set their thermostat between
17 and 19 degrees Celsius.<br>
It is estimated that every degree lower an air conditioner is set
can increase cooling costs by three per cent. Adding to their
costs, more than 40 per cent of British Columbians surveyed said
they always or sometimes leave their air conditioners running when
they are not at home.<br>
</blockquote>
"The survey results show that residents in the Southern Interior
tend to be the best at guarding their homes from heat - and setting
their air conditioning units at the recommended temperature.<br>
Other results from the report include:<br>
Only half surveyed said they close the windows or doors when the
temperature outside is hotter than the temperature inside. <br>
About 25 per cent of those surveyed do not shade windows. Shading
windows can block out up to 65 per cent of the heat.<br>
37 per cent of respondents leave fans on when they are not at home.
Fans do not cool the air, but they do have a cooling effect on the
skin.<font size="-1"><br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="http://www.burnabynow.com/news/is-climate-change-turning-us-into-a-c-pigs-1.23367956">http://www.burnabynow.com/news/is-climate-change-turning-us-into-a-c-pigs-1.23367956</a></font><br>
<br>
<br>
[Audio report from PRI]<br>
<b><a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://www.pri.org/stories/2018-06-21/how-do-we-process-doom-and-gloom-climate-news-how-should-we">How
do we process doom-and-gloom climate news? How should we?</a></b><br>
Livable Planet<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://www.pri.org/node/179483/embedded">https://www.pri.org/node/179483/embedded</a><br>
Frightening stories about climate change seem to come in a
never-ending wave these days.<br>
<br>
In just the past week, we've learned that Antarctica is melting
three times faster than it was a decade ago, rising seas might flood
more than 300,000 US homes twice a month within decades, and that
India is facing the worst water crisis in its history.<br>
<br>
How do our brains respond to this onslaught of negative news?<br>
Not well.<br>
<br>
"Climate change has all the hallmarks of an issue which is difficult
for people to engage with psychologically," says Lorraine Whitmarsh,
professor of environmental psychology at the University of Cardiff
in Wales. <br>
<br>
People perceive the risks of climate change "as both considerably
uncertain and also as being mostly in the future and geographically
distant, all factors that lead people to discount them," according
to a 2009 American Psychological Association report on the topic.<br>
<br>
In other words, the worst impacts of climate change feel far away -
in both time and place - to many Americans. So while it will
increasingly impact all of us, every day, it's hard for us to get
worked up about it.<br>
<br>
So do news stories with frightening projections about the future
prod us to action, or make us stick our heads in the sand?<br>
<br>
It's a debated topic in psychology, and some recent research
suggests there's not enough evidence to empirically say whether or
not "arousing fear" is an effective way to communicate the risks of
climate change. But other psychologists argue we know enough to say
scare tactics don't work when it comes to engaging the public.<br>
<br>
"What we know from psychological studies is that if you overuse
fear-inducing imagery, what you get is fear and guilt in people, and
this makes people more passive, which counteracts engagement,"
Norwegian psychologist and author of "What We Think About When We
Try Not To Think About Global Warming," Per Espen Stoknes, told
YaleEnvironment360.<br>
<br>
<b>So what does work in effectively communicating the risks of
climate change?</b><br>
<br>
Making it personal, Whitmarsh says. "Talk to people about the
impacts of climate change on things that are important to them,
things that they value," Whitmarsh tells The World. "They may be
family, or their local area, or objects or areas that are important
to them, rather than talking about distant regions."<br>
<br>
When it comes to changing behaviors that impact the environment,
Whitmarsh has found it's often more effective not to raise the issue
of climate change at all.<br>
<br>
"If you want people to save energy, reduce the amount of meat
they're consuming, reduce the amount of flights they're taking, for
example, you don't necessarily need to make an environmental or
climate change argument to get them to do that," Whitmarsh says.<br>
<br>
Explain the economic argument for using less energy, for example, or
the health benefits of eating less meat. Some research has shown,
for example, that real-time energy usage readings help people use
less energy. <br>
<br>
"Emphasizing those (personal benefits) when you're communicating and
trying to persuade people to change their behaviour is more likely
to be effective," Whitmarsh says.<br>
<br>
Accentuate the positive<br>
It's a tactic climate scientist Peter Kalmus takes in his book,
<b> "Being the Change: Live Well and Spark a Climate Revolution."</b><br>
<br>
Kalmus writes about his experience cutting his carbon footprint to a
tenth of what it once was by giving up flying and eating meat,
taking up biking, and scavenging and growing his own food. These
changes not only helped him live more sustainably, it also made him
happier and feel more connected to his community.<br>
<br>
"There was a lot about it that I liked, that I would do even if
there wasn't a climate emergency," Kalmus says, including biking,
gardening, and converting his car to run on waste vegetable oil. "I
really enjoyed all of these things."<br>
<br>
Kalmus, a climate scientist at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory in
California who speaks on his own behalf and not for NASA, tells The
World that he had an "unpleasant wake-up call" when he started
learning more about climate change and decided to switch his field
of study from astrophysics to atmospheric science.<br>
<br>
"I was kind of shaking people by the proverbial lapels and telling
them 'We need to stop burning fossil fuels,'" Kalmus said. "And then
I realized 'Hey, I'm not actually doing that myself.' So maybe I can
reduce my own use of fossil fuel."<br>
<br>
About eight years ago he sat down to take stock of his own personal
CO2 emissions. He found that flying produced about three-quarters of
his 20-ton annual carbon footprint, and in 2012, he gave up flying.
He still travels with his wife and kids - they just opt for trips
within California and, about once a year, drive their bio-fueled car
or take the train to visit family in Chicago, camping along the way.<br>
<br>
Kalmus recognizes that not everyone can easily bike to work, or give
up flying altogether.<br>
<br>
But he says an easy first step for those interested in cutting their
carbon footprint is sitting down to do a personal CO2 audit.<br>
<br>
"Figure out how your actions are connected to CO2," he says, can
help you pinpoint the biggest steps you can take to reduce your CO2
emissions. "So hopefully people can find something that makes them
happier and also reduces their footprint. And then that's a
sustainable change, and hopefully they'll be eager to try taking the
second step."<br>
<br>
One person can't fight climate change alone. But Kalmus hopes he'll
be an example others can follow.<br>
<br>
"What I'm doing is trying to push for a cultural shift," Kalmus
says. "As more and more people start demanding alternatives to the
fossil-fueled infrastructure, I think the systems will start to
catch up."<br>
<font size="-1"><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://www.pri.org/stories/2018-06-21/how-do-we-process-doom-and-gloom-climate-news-how-should-we">https://www.pri.org/stories/2018-06-21/how-do-we-process-doom-and-gloom-climate-news-how-should-we</a></font><br>
<br>
<b><a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2018/jul/12/rising-ocean-waters-from-global-warming-could-cost-trillions-of-dollars"><br>
Rising ocean waters from global warming could cost trillions of
dollars</a></b><br>
We'll need to mitigate and adapt to global warming to avoid massive
costs from sea level rise<br>
Ocean waters are rising because of global warming. They are rising
for two reasons. First, and perhaps most obvious, ice is melting.
There is a tremendous amount of ice locked away in Greenland,
Antarctica, and in glaciers. As the world warms, that ice melts and
the liquid water flows to the oceans.<br>
The other reason why water is rising is that warmer water is less
dense - it expands. This expansion causes the surface of the water
to rise.<br>
Rising oceans are a big deal. About 150 million people live within 1
meter (3 feet) of sea level. About 600 million live within 10 meters
(33 feet) of sea level. As waters rise, these people will have to go
somewhere. It is inevitable that climate refugees will have to move
their homes and workplaces because of rising waters. <br>
In some places, humans will be able to build sea walls to block off
the water's rise. But, in many places, that won't be possible. For
instance, Miami, Florida has a porous base rock that allows sea
water to permeate through the soils. You cannot wall that off. In
other places, any sea walls would be prohibitively expensive. <br>
<br>
It isn't just the inevitable march of sea level that is an issue.
Rising waters make storm surges worse. A great example is Superstorm
Sandy, which hit the US East Coast in 2012. It cost approximately
$65 bn of damage. The cost was higher because of sea level rise
caused by global warming.<br>
<br>
Climate scientists do their best to project how much and how fast
oceans will rise in the future. These projections help city planners
prepare future infrastructure. My estimation is that oceans will be
approximately 1 meter higher in the year 2100; that is what our
infrastructure should be prepared for. What I don't know is how much
this will cost us as a society...<br>
- - - - <br>
There are four important takeaways from this study. First, while the
economic costs are large, there is some range of projections. The
actual costs may be lower or higher than the median predicted in the
study. This is largely due to the fact that we don't know how fast
Greenland and Antarctica will melt. If they melt faster than
projected, things will be worse than what I've described here.<br>
<br>
Second, adaptation will help. By adaptation I mean making our
societies less susceptible to sea level rise. For example, building
sea walls when possible, building new infrastructure away from
coasts, putting in natural breaks to limit storm surge during large
storms, and making infrastructure more water-resistant.<br>
<br>
Third, what we do now matters. If we can get off the high-emissions
business as usual scenarios - if we can increase investment in clean
and renewable energy - we can reduce the future costs.<br>
<br>
Finally, while scientists often use 2100 as a benchmark year, it
isn't like oceans will stop rising then. In fact, we are committing
ourselves to hundreds of years of rising oceans. The ocean has a lot
of climate inertia. Once it starts rising, you cannot stop it. So,
by focusing only on the year 2100, we are deluding ourselves into
underestimating the long term costs.<br>
<br>
This research shows it's important to connect climate science with
economic science. Too often, social scientists and economists with
very little climate science understanding have tried to tell us that
climate change is not a problem. Whenever you hear an economist or a
social scientist give you a rosy future prediction, take it with a
grain of salt. Their opinion is worthless without being backed by
physical understanding. And the loudest economists and social
scientists often have very little of this physical understanding.<br>
<font size="-1"><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2018/jul/12/rising-ocean-waters-from-global-warming-could-cost-trillions-of-dollars">https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2018/jul/12/rising-ocean-waters-from-global-warming-could-cost-trillions-of-dollars</a></font><br>
<br>
<br>
[Satire, this is satire, soon to be famous satire]<br>
<b><a href="https://www.truthbrary.org/global-warming">TruthBrary.org
from Sacha Baron Cohen says:</a></b><br>
<blockquote> <b>WELCOME TO THE TRUTHBRARY.ORG</b><br>
<b></b><br>
<b>REJECT THE MAINSTREME MEDIA + THE LIEbrary OF FALSE INFOMATION
THEY TRY TO PUSH INTO THE PUBLICS MIND'S. THE TRUTHBRARY WILL
SET YOU FREE. THIS IS A LIBERTY WEBSITE FOR TRUE AMERICA AND
TRUTH LOVING AMERICANS.</b><br>
</blockquote>
This website is TRUTHBRARY.ORG. It is a collection of studies and
investigations carried out by Dr. Billy Wayne Ruddick for the good
of the American people. Now it the time when the American people
must take back control of our media. The mainstream media cannot be
trusted. They have there own agenda and are beholden to the whim of
the deep state and the illuminati. We must take control of our facts
and our truth. We must stand together to fight the dark forces of
clintons and muslims and Godless peoples to stand strong for our
religious freedom and hold forth for what is right in our country.
Now is the time for the silent majority to come together ansd seek
out our truth.<b><br>
<br>
Global Warming Doomsayers Are Cherrypickers</b><font size="-1"><br>
</font>
<blockquote><font size="-1"><b>The consensus of the far left, for
whatever their political reasons, claim the sky is falling.
Their doomsday predictions on climate change and the U.S.'s
villainous role are well-documented.</b></font><br>
<br>
<font size="-1"><b>That is the usual hysterical thinking from the
left with other hidden intentions in mind. The real truth is
quite different. Contrary to the notion that global warming
has caused more rain, there was no significant global
precipitation change from 1850 to present. Previous studies
have analyzed shorter timeframes and found rainfall changes
that some people had attributed to global warming, but those
results were generally not statistically significant over time
scales of decades and centuries.</b></font><br>
<br>
<font size="-1"><b>According to the IPCC, which has engaged in
deceitful actions to exaggerate global warming, evidence for
such an hysterical outcome is highly questionable. In fact,
Since 1951 there have been statistically significant increases
in the number of heavy precipitation events in more regions
than there have been statistically significant decreases.</b></font><br>
<br>
<font size="-1"><b>Apparent changes in rainfall intensity
sometimes vanish when examining longer timeframes that better
account for natural variations. For instance, cyclones with
winds ranging from 39 to 73 miles per hour are called
"tropical storms," and those with winds exceeding 73 miles per
hour are called "hurricanes." The datasets In the
International Geophysical Research Letters in 2011, show that
the global number and intensity of tropical storms and
hurricanes have not increased over the past four decades.</b></font><br>
<br>
<font size="-1"><b>Perception accords produce a flood of global
warming-related misinformation is spread by the media and
environmental groups. There is low confidence in any observed
long-term increases in tropical cyclone activity, intensity,
frequency or duration, after accounting for past changes in
observing capabilities in the last 40 years.</b></font><br>
<br>
<font size="-1"><b>In the North Atlantic region, where hurricanes
Harvey and Irma formed, tropical storm and hurricane activity
have increased significantly over the past four decades.
However, this trend fades in the wider context of variation
over the past century.</b></font><br>
<br>
<font size="-1"><b>The National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA), shows no robust trends in annual
numbers of tropical storms, hurricanes and major hurricanes
counts have been identified over the past 100 years in the
North Atlantic basin. They state that North Atlantic tropical
storms show a "pronounced upward trend" since 1878, but this
is because these records are "relatively sparse" in their
early decades.</b></font><br>
<br>
<font size="-1"><b>The trend in storm activity is "not
significantly distinguishable from zero." Furthermore, NOAA
notes the trend in the unadjusted data. NOAA emphasizes that
one cannot logically assess hurricane trends based only on
those that reach land, because they are "much less common"
than the full number of hurricanes that form at sea. A major
distinction that makes it absurd to draw conclusions based on
hurricanes that make landfall, much less hurricanes that make
landfall in one region in a single year.</b></font><br>
<br>
<font size="-1"><b>Certain media outlets with radically leftist
points of view have linked hurricanes Harvey and Irma to
global warming. They choose to ignore wide-ranging facts.
Instead, these media outlets cherry-pick timeframes,
geographical locations, report contents, and the opinions of
some scientists. They ignore other well-qualified scientists
who have contrary views.</b></font><br>
<br>
<font size="-1"><b>Thousands of scientists do not believe that
humans are the main cause of changes in climate. Here are just
a few of the most famous AGW skeptics. Search for their names
on youtube and hear what they say that refutes what the IPCC
says.</b></font><br>
<br>
<font size="-1"><b>-Siegfried Fred Singer, physicist, emeritus
professor of environmental science</b></font><br>
<font size="-1"><b>-William Happer, Physicist</b></font><br>
<font size="-1"><b>-Freeman Dyson, theoretical physicist and
mathematician</b></font><br>
<font size="-1"><b>-Bob Carter, Paleoclimatologist</b></font><br>
<font size="-1"><b>-Dr Don Easterbrook, Geologist</b></font><br>
<font size="-1"><b>-Ivar Giaever, Physicist, Nobel laureate</b></font><br>
<font size="-1"><b>-John Coleman, Meteorologist, Weather Channel
co-founder</b></font><br>
<font size="-1"><b>-Dr. Judith Coleman, Climatologist</b></font><br>
<font size="-1"><b>-Roy Warren Spencer, Meteorologist</b></font><br>
<font size="-1"><b>-Wei-Hock "Willie" Soon, solar physicist</b></font><br>
<font size="-1"><b>-Tim Ball, historical climatologist</b></font><br>
<font size="-1"><b>-Dr. Patrick Moore, PHD in Ecology, founder of
Greenpeace</b></font><br>
<font size="-1"><b> </b></font><br>
<font size="-1"><b>Legitimate scientists will tell you that one of
the worst abuses of analytics is to cherry pick results.
Cherry pickers tout analysis findings when the results serve
the purpose at hand. But, they ignore the findings when the
results conflict with the original plan. There are no grounds
to claim that global warming has increased rainfall or
hurricane activity.</b></font><br>
</blockquote>
<font size="-1"><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://www.truthbrary.org/global-warming">https://www.truthbrary.org/global-warming</a></font><br>
- - - - <br>
[No joke, here's the 'no kidding' information; look up the 'experts'
mentioned above]<br>
<b><a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://www.desmogblog.com/global-warming-denier-database">Global
Warming Disinformation Database</a></b><br>
Welcome to the DeSmog Climate Disinformation Research Database where
you can search and browse our extensive research on the individuals
and organizations that have helped to delay and distract the public
and our elected leaders from taking needed action to reduce
greenhouse gas pollution and fight global warming. Choose a tab
below to view the lists of climate science denier individuals and
organizations.<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://www.desmogblog.com/global-warming-denier-database">https://www.desmogblog.com/global-warming-denier-database</a><br>
<br>
<br>
<font size="+1"><b><a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=35jWlIknSFw">This Day in
Climate History - July 17, 2008</a> - from D.R. Tucker</b></font><br>
July 17, 2008: <br>
• In a speech at Constitution Hall in Washington, D.C., Al Gore
calls upon the United States to move away from fossil fuels
completely by 2018.<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=35jWlIknSFw">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=35jWlIknSFw</a><br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/18/washington/18gore.html?fta=y">http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/18/washington/18gore.html?fta=y</a><br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://youtu.be/YEuU42qijmo">http://youtu.be/YEuU42qijmo</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>
</i></font><font size="+1"><i><font size="+1"><i>To receive daily
mailings - <a
href="mailto:subscribe@theClimate.Vote?subject=Click%20SEND%20to%20process%20your%20request">click
to Subscribe</a> </i></font>to news digest. </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>