<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<font size="+1"><i>August 3, 2018</i></font><br>
<br>
[latest news at <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://www.abc10.com">https://www.abc10.com</a> Sacramento]<br>
<b><a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://www.abc10.com/article/news/nation-world/1100-homes-torched-as-carr-fire-rages-on-in-california/507-579333901">1,100
homes torched as Carr Fire rages on in California</a></b><br>
The Carr Fire is one of the most brutal fires in California history.<br>
REDDING, Calif - The toll of devastation from one of the most brutal
fires in California history rose to almost 1,000 homes destroyed and
about 200 more damaged as a sprawling wildfire ignited by a spark
from a towed vehicle grew to more than 175 square miles.<br>
Blistering heat, shifting winds, steep terrain and plentiful dried
growth continued to challenge more than 3,000 firefighters battling
the deadly Carr Fire, which has killed two firefighters and four
area residents.<br>
"Firefighters will continue to build control lines to mitigate
spotting despite these challenging conditions," Cal Fire said in its
incident report on the Carr Fire issued late Tuesday. "Repopulation
of communities affected by evacuations will continue as conditions
allow."<br>
<font size="-1"><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://www.abc10.com/article/news/nation-world/1100-homes-torched-as-carr-fire-rages-on-in-california/507-579333901">https://www.abc10.com/article/news/nation-world/1100-homes-torched-as-carr-fire-rages-on-in-california/507-579333901</a></font><br>
- - - -<br>
[12 minute video]<br>
<b><a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m9KlVhAEVm0">Climate
Scientist: California Wildfires Are Faster, Stronger, Deadlier
& Will Continue to Intensify</a></b><br>
Democracy Now! Published on Aug 2, 2018<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://democracynow.org">https://democracynow.org</a>
- In California, tens of thousands of residents have been forced to
evacuate as deadly wildfires continue to rage across the state. The
worst wildfire, the Carr Fire, has engulfed more than 100,000 acres
and destroyed more than a thousand homes in and around Redding,
California, making it the sixth most destructive fire in the state's
history. Authorities said Wednesday that 16 of the largest wildfires
burning in California have scorched 320,000 acres - an area larger
than Los Angeles. Eight people have died. Governor Jerry Brown
called the growing intensity and frequency of California wildfires
the state's "new normal" this week. More fires continue to consume
parts of Colorado, Idaho, Oregon, Washington and Arizona, along with
recent blazes across the globe in Greece, Canada and the Arctic
Circle. We speak with Brenda Ekwurzel, senior climate scientist and
director of climate science for the Climate and Energy Program at
the Union of Concerned Scientists.<br>
<font size="-1"><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m9KlVhAEVm0">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m9KlVhAEVm0</a></font><br>
- - - - <br>
[raw camera footage from live event Brown at 11: minutes in]<br>
<b><a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lLGJCisTK0c">Gov. Brown,
fire officials hold press conference on California wildfires
(August 1, 2018)</a></b><br>
Governor Jerry Brown holds press conference with the state's
emergency officials to provide an update on the destructive northern
California wildfires. (Was live)<br>
#CarrFire<br>
<font size="-1"><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lLGJCisTK0c">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lLGJCisTK0c</a>
(also see 24 minutes in for talks of future fires)</font><br>
<br>
<br>
[Cough, cough, ahem...]<br>
<b><a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/aug/02/wildfire-events-air-quality-health-issues-in-western-us">Wildfire
smoke: experts warn of 'serious health effects' across western
US</a></b><br>
Smoke from fires has been linked to asthma attacks and heart
problems and has contributed to a decline in air quality<br>
As climate change helps push up the number of wildfires in the
western US, communities face losing lives and properties to the
flames. But another threat also looms large - dangerous exposure to
wildfire smoke.<br>
Huge wildfires in California have killed at least six people and
razed hundreds of homes. A pall of smoke has shrouded much of
California and has wafted eastwards, with Nasa satellites showing
fingers of smoke billowing as far as Salt Lake City, Utah...<br>
- - - -<br>
"A big wildfire event not only impacts local communities but also
people hundreds of miles away," said Richard Peltier, assistant
professor of environmental health sciences at the University of
Massachusetts. "Even if your home isn't being destroyed and you
think 'this isn't my problem' you could suffer serious health
effects."<br>
<blockquote>Once a forest turns into a roaring fire, plumes of sooty
smoke containing gases and microscopic particles are released.
This can cause a range of symptoms such as coughing, burning eyes
and shortness of breath.<br>
</blockquote>
More seriously, the smoke can trigger asthma attacks or, more
chronically, lead to heart problems and has even been linked to the
development of cancer. As summers become longer, warmer and drier in
the US west, forests are being transformed into perfect staging
grounds for repeated wildfires of increasing ferocity... <br>
- - - -<br>
There is evidence that the increase in wildfires is already taking a
toll on Americans' health. While overall air quality has improved in
the US over the past 30 years, wildfire-prone states in the
northwest are a glaring exception and are actually getting worse,
new research has found.<br>
<blockquote>Researchers at the University of Washington looked
through data on the very worst bad air days, totaling roughly a
week each year, across the country since 1988. While the rest of
the country has experienced a sharp improvement in air quality, a
sprawling patch that includes parts of Idaho, Wyoming and Montana,
much of Utah and Nevada, and parts of California, Oregon and
Washington has got significantly worse.<br>
</blockquote>
"There's a big red bullseye over that northern Rockies area where
they are getting the big wildfires," said Dan Jaffe, a co-author of
the study. "There's been a big improvement in air quality in the US
but wildfires like the ones we are seeing in California are eating
away at those gains. In some cases the smoke is bringing very bad
air quality."...<br>
- - - <br>
"Wildfires are a growing problem and climate change is making them
worse," said Peltier. "When you expose people to higher levels of
pollution, they are more likely to become ill. We know more
wildfires will mean more deaths. Almost every place in the US, apart
from maybe Hawaii, could be impacted by upwind smoke.<br>
"There have been a lot of predictions that if we don't get ahead of
climate change that crazy things will happen. Well, crazy things are
happening. This is what climate change looks like."<br>
<font size="-1"><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/aug/02/wildfire-events-air-quality-health-issues-in-western-us">https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/aug/02/wildfire-events-air-quality-health-issues-in-western-us</a></font><br>
<br>
[rare media analysis]<br>
<b><a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9dGIV2AE4M8">Extreme
Weather Is Exploding Around the World. Why Isn't the Media
Talking About Climate Change?</a></b><br>
Democracy Now! [video 11 minutes]<br>
Published on Aug 2, 2018<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://democracynow.org">https://democracynow.org</a>
- Major corporate broadcast networks reported on July's 2-week
global heat wave at least 127 times, but mentioned climate change
only once. That's according to a report by Media Matters, which
tracked coverage of the extreme weather by ABC, CBS and NBC. We host
a panel discussion on the media's role in the climate change crisis,
the fossil fuel industry and global warming-fueled extreme weather
across the globe. We speak with Nathaniel Rich, writer-at-large for
The New York Times Magazine. His piece "Losing Earth: The Decade We
Almost Stopped Climate Change" was published August 1 in a special
edition of The New York Times Magazine dedicated to climate change.
We also speak with Rob Nixon, author of "Slow Violence and the
Environmentalism of the Poor," and Brenda Ekwurzel, senior climate
scientist and director of climate science for the Climate and Energy
Program at the Union of Concerned Scientists.<br>
<font size="-1"><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9dGIV2AE4M8">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9dGIV2AE4M8</a></font><br>
<br>
<br>
[Lessons, not learned, will be repeated]<br>
<b><a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/jul/31/california-wildfire-climate-change-carr-fire">Surrounded
by fire, California politicians question links to climate change</a></b><br>
As Carr fire claims lives and homes in pro-Trump area, local
residents reject science: 'It's bull'<br>
At a public meeting not far from the California town of Redding last
year, the US congressman Doug LaMalfa said that he "didn't buy"
human-made climate change.<br>
"I think there's a lot of bad science behind what people are calling
global warming," he said on another occasion.<font size="-1"><br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/jul/31/california-wildfire-climate-change-carr-fire">https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/jul/31/california-wildfire-climate-change-carr-fire</a></font><br>
<br>
<br>
[or is it too hot to remember?]<br>
<b><a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/aug/01/heatwave-climate-denial-summer-2018-sceptics">Was
this the heatwave that finally ended climate denial?</a></b><br>
Michael McCarthy<br>
The blazing summer of 2018 has led to a shift in tone from some
rightwing sceptics who can no longer deny the obvious<br>
It's not always easy to recognise a historical tipping point when
you see one, but I believe I spotted one when I walked into my local
newsagent last Wednesday and saw the front page of the Sun. Over a
map of the world which was coloured bright scarlet, the splash
headline screamed: "THE WORLD'S ON FIRE".<br>
- - - <br>
Britain's biggest-selling daily newspaper was not mincing its words.
The subheading on the left-hand side proclaimed "PLANET GRIPPED BY
KILLER HEATWAVE", while the right-hand one announced: "HUNDREDS DIE
IN EUROPE AND JAPAN". And if you were wondering what the cause of
all this might be, the accompanying news report carried a quote -
just the one - from Len Shaffrey, professor of climate science at
Reading University, who said: "Global temperatures are increasing
due to climate change. The global rise in temperatures means the
probability that an extreme heatwave will occur is also increasing."<br>
<font size="-1"><span class="moz-txt-link-freetext"><a
class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/aug/01/heatwave-climate-denial-summer-2018-sceptics">https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/aug/01/heatwave-climate-denial-summer-2018-sceptics</a></span></font><br>
<br>
<br>
[See the graphs]<br>
<b><a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://tamino.wordpress.com/2018/08/02/climate-disasters-billions-and-billions-of-dollars/">Climate
Disasters: Billions and Billions of Dollars</a></b><br>
Tamino on August 2, 2018 | Leave a comment<br>
NCEI (the National Center for Environmental Information) has some
fascinating data about the number, and cost, of billion-dollar
climate related disasters in the U.S. since 1980. Cost estimates are
adjusted for CEI (the Consumer Price Index) in order to make older
costs comparable to their modern counterparts.<br>
- - - <br>
A few things to note are that some categories are actually multiple;
for example, "drought" includes heat waves. Also, some categories
don't count individual events, they simply record "an event" if that
category cost a billion dollars or more throughout the year.
Wildfire, for instance, is never reported as multiple events, it's
either zero (when the total yearly cost is under a billion) or one
(when it's a billion or more). With those caveats in mind, I looked
for statistically significant changes in both the number, and the
cost, of each of the seven categories of climate-related disaster.<br>
<span style="color: rgb(51, 51, 51); font-family: Georgia,
"Bitstream Charter", serif; font-size: 14px; font-style:
normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-caps: normal;
font-weight: 400; letter-spacing: normal; orphans: 2; text-align:
start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space:
normal; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width:
0px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); text-decoration-style:
initial; text-decoration-color: initial; display: inline
!important; float: none;"></span>- - - -<br>
What is abundantly clear is that the number of billion-dollar
climate-related disasters has risen, both the total and at least
three of the individual categories. All are going in the direction
expected due to man-made global warming. That's because they are due
to man-made global warming.<br>
Cue the climate deniers to invent excuses (often ridiculously
contorted, sometimes outright lies) to blame it on something -
anything - other than climate change.<br>
Cue the American taxpayer to foot the bill for $300 billion in
climate disasters.<br>
<font size="-1"><span class="moz-txt-link-freetext"><a
class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://tamino.wordpress.com/2018/08/02/climate-disasters-billions-and-billions-of-dollars/">https://tamino.wordpress.com/2018/08/02/climate-disasters-billions-and-billions-of-dollars/</a></span></font><br>
<br>
<br>
[thinking carefully in chaos]<br>
<b><a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.kuow.org/post/we-may-be-fighting-wildfires-all-wrong">We
may be fighting wildfires all wrong</a></b><br>
By AMINA AL-SADI, CASEY MARTIN & BILL RADKE <br>
Firefighters should rethink how they battle wildfires. <br>
That's according to environmental journalist Richard Manning who
just wrote a piece in <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://harpers.org/archive/2018/08/lolo-peak-rice-ridge-mega-fires/">Harper's
Magazine titled "Combustion Engines."</a><br>
<span class="moz-txt-link-freetext"><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="http://www.kuow.org/post/we-may-be-fighting-wildfires-all-wrong">http://www.kuow.org/post/we-may-be-fighting-wildfires-all-wrong</a></span><br>
- - - - -<br>
[global warming is the real cause]<br>
<b><a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://harpers.org/archive/2018/08/lolo-peak-rice-ridge-mega-fires/">Combustion
Engines</a></b><br>
Richard Manning<br>
One might wonder why the nation bothers to spend such vast sums of
money, and sacrifice so many lives, fighting fires in the first
place. The answer has little to do with forests, or forest health,
or ecosystems, or saving Bambi's mom from certain death. It has
everything to do with what is inelegantly labeled the "wildland
urban interface," a term truncated into an acronym rhyming with
"gooey" but nonetheless pronounced in serious conversation. It
designates the edge of forests or other wild areas accessible enough
for people to build houses. Such places host much of the West's
rapid growth in residential construction, despite the peril, which
is offset by factors such as cheaper land, open space, wildlife, and
distance from neighbors, building inspectors, and assorted
regulators.<br>
According to the scientists who wrote the National Academy paper,<br>
Because of the people and property values at risk, WUI fires
fundamentally change the tactics and cost of fire suppression as
compared with fighting remote fires and account for as much as 95
percent of suppression costs.<br>
Only about 15 percent of the total area burned in the West since
2000 has been in the WUI, though, meaning we spend the vast majority
of our fire budget on a small portion of affected lands.<br>
In other words, we as a nation pay ever-mounting bills to save a
comparative handful of houses owned by people who against all sane
advice choose to build in the path of catastrophe. Between 1990 and
2010, a period when we should have already known better, 2 million
new homes were built in the interface. These homes don't always
appear to be on the edge of the wilderness. The entirety of Seeley
Lake, a town with more than 1,700 permanent residents, is located in
the WUI: the main drag with its tourist trade, the sawmill at the
edge of town with its 130 workers, the cabins, trailers, frame
houses, the high school, Cory's Market, the American Legion hall,
and Pop's cafe...<br>
- - - -<br>
This political issue, like wildfire itself, is not a conundrum. It
is easily solved. We know in detail what a set of zoning regulations
governing house placement, thinning, building materials, access
roads, and so forth might look like. All of these can be promulgated
and enforced at the county level. But the federal government then
needs to make fighting wildfires-a social process-subject to a
social contract. Perhaps the feds should commit themselves to
refusing to send in the troops to any county that has not taken such
measures. Perhaps the solution to houses in the interface is to let
them burn....<br>
- - -<br>
Everybody where I live has an opinion about wildfire, and it usually
boils down to personal preference about the nature of the landscape:
Green trees. Clean water. Charismatic megafauna. Logs for mills.
Peace and predictability. Above all-and we all agree on this-no
smoke in the air. But it doesn't matter now what any of us wants.
That's the point, why fire is so valuable to our collective
education. It announces the enormity of the consequences of climate
change. Life will never be the same again. None of us will get what
we want. Fire will come. Houses will burn. People will die.<br>
Wilderness has a better grasp of global warming than we do. We
humans are informed by instruments, computers, satellites, and
sensors roaming the globe, telling us epochal upheaval is under way.
But every functioning ecosystem, every living array of biological
complexity, has even more adept sensors. The difference between the
human and the wild's grasp of the matter is the denial. Wilderness
has no reasoning, no wishes, no preferences. Instead, it deploys
death and fire to prepare the way for whatever is to come.<br>
<font size="-1"><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://harpers.org/archive/2018/08/lolo-peak-rice-ridge-mega-fires/">https://harpers.org/archive/2018/08/lolo-peak-rice-ridge-mega-fires/</a></font><br>
<br>
<br>
[BBC invited to grow up]<br>
<b><a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/aug/02/bbc-climate-change-deniers-balance">I
won't go on the BBC if it supplies climate change deniers as
'balance'</a></b><br>
Rupert Read<br>
The science is not in doubt, so the corporation no longer needs to
give them a platform<br>
Like most Greens, I typically jump at opportunities to go on air.
Pretty much any opportunity: BBC national radio,<span> </span><a
href="https://www.theguardian.com/media/bbc"
data-link-name="auto-linked-tag" data-component="auto-linked-tag"
class="u-underline" style="background: transparent; touch-action:
manipulation; color: rgb(224, 94, 0); cursor: pointer;
text-decoration: none !important; border-bottom: 0.0625rem solid
rgb(220, 220, 220); transition: border-color 0.15s ease-out;">BBC</a><span> </span>TV,
Channel 4, Sky - I've done them all over the years, for good or ill.
Even when, as is not infrequently the case, the deck is somewhat
stacked against me, or the timing inadequate for anything more than
a soundbite, or the question up for debate less than ideal.<br>
But this Wednesday, when I was rung up by BBC Radio Cambridgeshire
and asked to come on air to debate with a climate change denier,
something in me broke, and rebelled. Really? I thought.<span> </span><a
href="https://www.theguardian.com/world/gallery/2018/aug/01/july-global-weather-extremes-wildfires-heatwave-flooding-in-pictures"
title="" data-link-name="in body link" class="u-underline"
style="background: transparent; touch-action: manipulation; color:
rgb(224, 94, 0); cursor: pointer; text-decoration: none
!important; border-bottom: 0.0625rem solid rgb(220, 220, 220);
transition: border-color 0.15s ease-out;">This summer</a>,<span> </span><a
href="https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/jul/27/heatwave-made-more-than-twice-as-likely-by-climate-change-scientists-find"
title="" data-link-name="in body link" class="u-underline"
style="background: transparent; touch-action: manipulation; color:
rgb(224, 94, 0); cursor: pointer; text-decoration: none
!important; border-bottom: 0.0625rem solid rgb(220, 220, 220);
transition: border-color 0.15s ease-out;">of all times</a>?<br>
So, for almost the first time in my life, I turned it down. I told
it that I will no longer be part of such charades. I said that the
BBC should be ashamed of its<span> </span><a
href="https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/apr/02/mps-criticise-bbc-false-balance-climate-change-coverage"
title="" data-link-name="in body link" class="u-underline"
style="background: transparent; touch-action: manipulation; color:
rgb(224, 94, 0); cursor: pointer; text-decoration: none
!important; border-bottom: 0.0625rem solid rgb(220, 220, 220);
transition: border-color 0.15s ease-out;">nonsensical idea of
"balance"</a>, when the scientific debate is as settled as the
"debate" about whether<span> </span><a
href="https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/climate-risks-as-conclusive-as-link-between-smoking-and-lung-cancer/"
title="" data-link-name="in body link" class="u-underline"
style="background: transparent; touch-action: manipulation; color:
rgb(224, 94, 0); cursor: pointer; text-decoration: none
!important; border-bottom: 0.0625rem solid rgb(220, 220, 220);
transition: border-color 0.15s ease-out;">smoking causes cancer</a>.
By giving climate change deniers a full platform, producers make
their position seem infinitely more reasonable than it is. (This
contributes to the spread of misinformation and miseducation around
climate change that fuels the inaction producing the<span> </span><a
href="https://www.greenhousethinktank.org/facing-up-to-climate-reality.html"
title="" data-link-name="in body link" class="u-underline"
style="background: transparent; touch-action: manipulation; color:
rgb(224, 94, 0); cursor: pointer; text-decoration: none
!important; border-bottom: 0.0625rem solid rgb(220, 220, 220);
transition: border-color 0.15s ease-out;">long emergency we are
facing</a>.)<br>
From a public service broadcaster, this is simply not good enough.
<aside class="element element-rich-link element--thumbnail
element-rich-link--upgraded" data-component="rich-link"
data-link-name="rich-link-1 | 1" style="display: block; float:
left; margin: 0.3125rem 1.25rem 0.75rem -10rem; clear: both;
width: 8.75rem; color: rgb(18, 18, 18); font-size: 17px;
font-style: normal; font-variant-ligatures: common-ligatures;
font-variant-caps: normal; font-weight: 400; letter-spacing:
normal; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none;
white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width:
0px; background-color: rgb(254, 249, 245); text-decoration-style:
initial; text-decoration-color: initial;">
<div class="rich-link tone-comment--item
rich-link--pillar-opinion" style="background-color: rgb(255,
255, 255); margin: 0px; position: relative; overflow: hidden;">
<div class="rich-link__container" style="position: relative;
background-image: repeating-linear-gradient(rgb(220, 220,
220), rgb(220, 220, 220) 0.0625rem, transparent 0.0625rem,
transparent 0.25rem); background-repeat: repeat-x;
background-position: center bottom; background-size: 0.0625rem
0.8125rem; padding-bottom: 0.8125rem;">
<div class="rich-link__header" style="font-size: 0.875rem;
line-height: 1.125rem; font-weight: 400; padding: 0.125rem
0.3125rem 0.5em; box-sizing: border-box; min-height:
2.25rem;">
<h1 class="rich-link__title" style="margin: 0px; font-style:
inherit; font-weight: inherit; font-size: inherit;
line-height: inherit; font-size-adjust: inherit;
font-stretch: inherit; font-feature-settings: inherit;
font-language-override: inherit; font-kerning: inherit;
font-synthesis: inherit; font-variant: inherit; padding:
0px;"><span class="inline-garnett-quote inline-icon "
style="fill: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><svg width="70"
height="49" viewBox="0 0 35 25"
class="inline-garnett-quote__svg inline-icon__svg"><path
d="M69.587.9c-1.842 15.556-3.89 31.316-4.708
48.1H37.043c3.07-16.784 8.391-32.544
17.602-48.1h14.942zM32.949.9c-2.047 15.556-4.094
31.316-4.912 48.1H.2C3.066 32.216 8.592 16.456
17.598.9h15.35z"></path></svg><span> </span></span><a
class="rich-link__link" style="background: transparent;
touch-action: manipulation; color: inherit; cursor:
pointer; text-decoration: none;">Was this the heatwave
that finally ended climate denial?</a></h1>
<div class="rich-link__byline" style="font-size: inherit;
line-height: inherit; font-weight: inherit; padding-right:
1.25rem; font-style: italic; font-variant: inherit;
font-stretch: inherit; color: rgb(224, 94, 0);">Michael
McCarthy</div>
</div>
<div class="rich-link__read-more" style="padding-left:
0.3125rem;">
<div class="rich-link__arrow" style="display: inline-block;"><span
class="inline-arrow-in-circle inline-icon " style="fill:
rgb(255, 255, 255);"><svg width="24" height="24"
viewBox="0 0 24 24" class="inline-arrow-in-circle__svg
inline-icon__svg"><path class="rich-link__arrow-icon"
d="M12 0C5.373 0 0 5.373 0 12s5.373 12 12 12
12-5.373 12-12S18.627 0 12 0m.21 19l-.637-.668
4.888-6.326H4.996v-1.01h11.465l-4.888-6.333.637-.668L19
11.153v.685l-6.79 7.157" fill-rule="evenodd"></path></svg></span></div>
<span> </span>
<div class="rich-link__read-more-text" style="font-size:
0.875rem; display: inline-block; height: 1.875rem;
line-height: 1.625rem; padding-left: 0.125rem;
vertical-align: top; font-weight: 500; color: rgb(224, 94,
0);">Read more</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</aside>
What makes it so frustrating is that there are important debates to
be had around climate change. And so I told the Beeb that I would be
very happy to come on and take part in<a
href="https://medium.com/@GreenRupertRead/apollo-earth-a-wake-up-call-in-our-race-against-time-5f8121687966"
title="" data-link-name="in body link" class="u-underline"
style="background: transparent; touch-action: manipulation; color:
rgb(224, 94, 0); cursor: pointer; text-decoration: none
!important; border-bottom: 0.0625rem solid rgb(220, 220, 220);
transition: border-color 0.15s ease-out;"><span> </span>a
different debate</a>. For example, we should be debating whether
the Paris climate accord is going to be enough, or<span> </span><a
href="https://www.thelondoneconomic.com/opinion/climate-change-once-we-no-longer-deny-it-then-we-just-might-have-the-will-to-try-drastically-to-change-course/14/03/"
title="" data-link-name="in body link" class="u-underline"
style="background: transparent; touch-action: manipulation; color:
rgb(224, 94, 0); cursor: pointer; text-decoration: none
!important; border-bottom: 0.0625rem solid rgb(220, 220, 220);
transition: border-color 0.15s ease-out;">if we need to do more</a>.
Or discussing just how radically our society needs to change to meet
the challenges of the climate crisis, and<span> </span><a
href="http://www.truthandpower.com/rupert-read-some-thoughts-on-civilisational-succession/"
title="" data-link-name="in body link" class="u-underline"
style="background: transparent; touch-action: manipulation; color:
rgb(224, 94, 0); cursor: pointer; text-decoration: none
!important; border-bottom: 0.0625rem solid rgb(220, 220, 220);
transition: border-color 0.15s ease-out;">how we should rethink
our activism</a>.<br>
But I will no longer put up with the absurd notion that a straight
debate about the science can be justified, especially given the
fundamental truth that we've known for decades: that even if there
were any real room for doubt about the science, we should still take
radical action to safeguard a liveable climate, on the basis of the<span> </span><a
href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MfsVlkaExF8" title=""
data-link-name="in body link" class="u-underline"
style="background: transparent; touch-action: manipulation; color:
rgb(224, 94, 0); cursor: pointer; text-decoration: none
!important; border-bottom: 0.0625rem solid rgb(220, 220, 220);
transition: border-color 0.15s ease-out;">Precautionary Principle</a>.
This<span> </span><a href="https://arxiv.org/pdf/1410.5787.pdf"
title="" data-link-name="in body link" class="u-underline"
style="background: transparent; touch-action: manipulation; color:
rgb(224, 94, 0); cursor: pointer; text-decoration: none
!important; border-bottom: 0.0625rem solid rgb(220, 220, 220);
transition: border-color 0.15s ease-out;">principle of
international law</a><span> </span>states that even the absence of
certainty about the risk of widespread and catastrophic harm to the
environment or public health ought not to stop us from taking
preventive action to head off such potentially ruinous harms.<br>
BBC Cambridgeshire is based in Cambridge, the science capital of the
UK. I expected better from it, especially after the well-publicised
ruling this year that the way that the BBC has been promoting
climate change deniers on air is<span> </span><a
href="https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/apr/09/bbc-radio-4-broke-impartiality-rules-in-nigel-lawson-climate-change-interview"
title="" data-link-name="in body link" class="u-underline"
style="background: transparent; touch-action: manipulation; color:
rgb(224, 94, 0); cursor: pointer; text-decoration: none
!important; border-bottom: 0.0625rem solid rgb(220, 220, 220);
transition: border-color 0.15s ease-out;">no longer acceptable</a>.<br>
In the end, the broadcast<span> </span><a
href="https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p06djwc2" title=""
data-link-name="in body link" class="u-underline"
style="background: transparent; touch-action: manipulation; color:
rgb(224, 94, 0); cursor: pointer; text-decoration: none
!important; border-bottom: 0.0625rem solid rgb(220, 220, 220);
transition: border-color 0.15s ease-out;">went ahead without me</a>.
Much of it<span> </span><a
href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V3lSRh-I2ZQ" title=""
data-link-name="in body link" class="u-underline"
style="background: transparent; touch-action: manipulation; color:
rgb(224, 94, 0); cursor: pointer; text-decoration: none
!important; border-bottom: 0.0625rem solid rgb(220, 220, 220);
transition: border-color 0.15s ease-out;">wasn't bad</a>. The
scientists interviewed were excellent. But the framing of the debate
was awful, and<span> </span><a
href="https://citizensclimatelobby.org/americas-linguistics-how-we-talk-about-climate-change-politics-morals/"
title="" data-link-name="in body link" class="u-underline"
style="background: transparent; touch-action: manipulation; color:
rgb(224, 94, 0); cursor: pointer; text-decoration: none
!important; border-bottom: 0.0625rem solid rgb(220, 220, 220);
transition: border-color 0.15s ease-out;">framing is everything</a>,
so far as<span> </span><a
href="https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2007/nov/13/emergencytalk"
title="" data-link-name="in body link" class="u-underline"
style="background: transparent; touch-action: manipulation; color:
rgb(224, 94, 0); cursor: pointer; text-decoration: none
!important; border-bottom: 0.0625rem solid rgb(220, 220, 220);
transition: border-color 0.15s ease-out;">the message that most
listeners receive</a><span> </span>is concerned. The presenter
introduced the segment by asking, "Is climate change real?" The
journalist doing vox pops bombarded ordinary people with canards
such as, "Maybe it's just a natural cycle?" And, of course, a
climate change denier was given a huge and undeserved platform on an
equal basis to his opponent.<br>
In August 2018, this is unacceptable and it seems that<span> </span><a
href="https://twitter.com/GreenRupertRead/status/1024377781801689089"
title="" data-link-name="in body link" class="u-underline"
style="background: transparent; touch-action: manipulation; color:
rgb(224, 94, 0); cursor: pointer; text-decoration: none
!important; border-bottom: 0.0625rem solid rgb(220, 220, 220);
transition: border-color 0.15s ease-out;">quite a lot of people
agree with me</a>.<br>
However, here's the exciting thing. If we get more momentum behind
the idea of refusing to participate, it will force a change of
coverage methods by the BBC, which experts have been calling for for
years. For if we all refuse to debate with the climate change
deniers on public platforms, and press the BBC to catch up with the
21st century, it will be forced to change its ways, because the BBC
cannot defend the practice of allowing a climate change denier to
speak unopposed. If we truly want to see change on this issue, we
need to be willing to let it know exactly how we feel. So, now I'm
going to get on with filing my<span> </span><a
href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/complaints/" title=""
data-link-name="in body link" class="u-underline"
style="background: transparent; touch-action: manipulation; color:
rgb(224, 94, 0); cursor: pointer; text-decoration: none
!important; border-bottom: 0.0625rem solid rgb(220, 220, 220);
transition: border-color 0.15s ease-out;">official complaint</a><span> </span>to
the BBC …<span class="bullet" style="font-size: 0.00625rem;
line-height: 0.00625rem; color: transparent;"></span><br>
<span class="bullet" style="font-size: 0.00625rem; line-height:
0.00625rem; color: transparent;"></span><font size="-1"><span
class="bullet" style="font-size: 0.00625rem; line-height:
0.00625rem; color: transparent;">•</span><span>R</span>upert
Read teaches philosophy at the University of East Anglia and
chairs the Green House thinktank</font><br>
<font size="-1"><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/aug/02/bbc-climate-change-deniers-balance">https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/aug/02/bbc-climate-change-deniers-balance</a></font><br>
<br>
<br>
[2017 article by David Wallace-Wells]<br>
<b><a moz-do-not-send="true" href="https://youtu.be/z9RlqNKmP-A">He
wrote a Story on the Worst Scenarios of Climate Change</a></b><br>
Climate State - Published on Aug 1, 2018<br>
The Uninhabitable Earth is a New York magazine article by American
journalist David Wallace-Wells published on July 9, 2017. The
long-form article depicts a worst-case scenario of what might happen
in the future due to global warming. <a
class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Uninhabitable_Earth">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Uninhabitable_Earth</a><br>
Release at NYMag The Uninhabitable Earth <a
class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2017/07/climate-change-earth-too-hot-for-humans.html">http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2017/07/climate-change-earth-too-hot-for-humans.html</a><br>
Scientists explain what New York Magazine article on "The
Uninhabitable Earth" gets wrong <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VfZbYcLxQBI">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VfZbYcLxQBI</a><br>
<font size="-1"><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://youtu.be/z9RlqNKmP-A">https://youtu.be/z9RlqNKmP-A</a></font><br>
<br>
<br>
[Because nobody wants to PAY for a movie about a huge, real
calamity]<br>
<b><a
href="https://www.esquire.com/uk/culture/a22592476/why-are-there-no-decent-blockbusters-about-climate-change/">Why
Are There No Decent Blockbusters About Climate Change?</a></b><a
href="https://www.esquire.com/uk/culture/a22592476/why-are-there-no-decent-blockbusters-about-climate-change/"><br>
</a>Hollywood generally revels in world-ending melodrama, but it's
bottled out of taking on the biggest threat of all<br>
It's all getting very real. Yet nobody's even tried to reimagine
climate change as a monster which smashes up a city, in the long
cinematic tradition of turning anxieties into crowd-pleasing,
lizard-shaped spectacles.<br>
There are a fair few good films in worlds where climate change has
happened - Blade Runner, Soylent Green, Mad Max: Fury Road, AI:
Artificial Intelligence - but they're not really Films Which Are
About Climate Change. They're as much about climate change as Die
Hard is about Christmas. It's just the frame in which their worlds
exist.<br>
<br>
It might be that Hollywood never quite got over spending $175
million on certified stinker Waterworld (plot summary: Kevin Costner
sails around looking for a bit of dry land called Dryland for two
hours) in 1995, but the climate change disaster film is out of
vogue. The one big exception is The Day After Tomorrow, which was a)
not very good, b) only tangentially based on science, c) released 14
years ago and d) came with the tagline 'This year, a sweater won't
do'. We can presumably do better.<br>
<br>
You'd think another devastating documentary like Oscar-winning An
Inconvenient Truth could do the business, at least - except that
last year An Inconvenient Sequel: Truth To Power made $5.4 million
at the box office, about a tenth of what the original earned. There
are loads of other docs out there, all with doomy, slightly
tin-foil-hat names like Merchants of Doubt, The Eleventh Hour,
Greedy Lying Bastards and the never-not-hilarious Cowspiracy. None
have had the impact An Inconvenient Truth did in 2006, perhaps
because they don't function as introductions to the curious; they're
more like set texts you have to read before joining the seminar.<br>
<br>
You can understand why climate change brought on by global warming
isn't as alluring to filmmakers and studios as, say, an impossibly
huge shark which hates Jason Statham. Action films are about an
incredible individual bending the environment to his (still, almost
always, his) will. You stick Tom Cruise, for instance, in a sticky
situation with some terrorists and some missing plutonium, and he'll
punch people and jump out of planes and do that weird run of his
until everything's straightened out. Climate change is terrifying
precisely because no individual is incredible enough to stop it.
It's also gradual and global. There's no in-built countdown to build
a narrative around, no control centre to set a final showdown in. It
isn't something you can get The Rock to fire a rocket at, even just
for the sake of having a decent explosion to use in the trailer.<br>
- - <br>
There might be something more fundamental at play, though. The
damage that human activity is doing to the planet is self-evidently
stupid and self-destructive. People just don't like being told that
to their faces. That's possibly why The Age Of Stupid, in which Pete
Postlethwaite looks back in incredulity from the 2050s at what
short-sighted bloody idiots we all were at the beginning of the 21st
century, didn't make much of an impact. High-handed earnestness
doesn't tend to translate to popular or critical success.<br>
- - <br>
People in general do not like being told that they've nearly
irrevocably ruined the planet they live on, and a climate change
thriller would have to say that extremely loudly and repeatedly.
It'd be right, and you'd know it was right. You just don't want to
pay 12 (pounds) to be told what a greedy, thoughtless, arrogant
prick you - we all - are. Unlike in most disaster films, the
villains wouldn't just be avaricious corporations, corrupt
politicians, or scientists who were so concerned with whether they
could, they didn't stop to think whether they should - it'll be
everyone watching.<font size="-1"><br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://www.esquire.com/uk/culture/a22592476/why-are-there-no-decent-blockbusters-about-climate-change/">https://www.esquire.com/uk/culture/a22592476/why-are-there-no-decent-blockbusters-about-climate-change/</a></font><br>
<br>
<br>
["For years, I've been going to the Arctic with my hair dryers and
extension cords" - sarcastic reason for Arctic melting]<br>
<b><a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/8/1/17253444/qanon-trump-conspiracy-theory-reddit">#QAnon,
the scarily popular pro-Trump conspiracy theory, explained</a></b><br>
How a conspiracy theory that Trump and Robert Mueller are secretly
working together got from Reddit to Trump rallies.<br>
By Jane Coaston <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated"
href="mailto:jane.coaston@vox.com">jane.coaston@vox.com</a>
Updated Aug 2, 2018<br>
Conspiracy theories like QAnon are "self-sealing" - meaning that
evidence against them can become evidence of their validity in the
minds of believers, according to Stephan Lewandowsky, a professor at
the University of Bristol who studies conspiracy theories and
conspiracists. Trying to disprove a conspiracy theory thus usually
only serves to reinforce it.<br>
<b>"For example, if scientists are accused of creating a "hoax,"
such as climate change, </b>but they are then exonerated by
multiple enquiries, then a conspiracy theorist will not accept that
as evidence of their innocence, but as evidence of a broad
conspiracy (to create a world government or whatever) that involves
the government, judiciary, Soros, and anyone else who once shared a
supermarket checkout line with Al Gore in the 1970s," Lewandowsky
said.<br>
And here's the really important point: <b>Conspiracy theories
aren't created by evidence, but by belief,</b> or by the desire to
believe, that there must be something more to the events that shape
our lives, culture, and politics than accident or happenstance.<br>
Where there is confusion, or even pain and tragedy, QAnon, or
shootings termed "false flags," or 9/11 trutherism brings some
semblance of order and security...<br>
<font size="-1"><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/8/1/17253444/qanon-trump-conspiracy-theory-reddit">https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/8/1/17253444/qanon-trump-conspiracy-theory-reddit</a></font><br>
- - - -<br>
[Media feeds pizza to fanatics]<br>
<b><a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pWPGI2GXKas">What Does The
Conspiracy Group QAnon Have To Do With President Donald Trump? |
The 11th Hour | MSNBC</a></b><br>
MSNBC - Published on Aug 1, 2018<br>
Trump's Tampa rally on Tuesday saw a heavy presence from the
conspiracy theory group QAnon. So who are they, and why do they
support the president? Ben Collins & Clint Watts.<br>
<font size="-1"><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pWPGI2GXKas">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pWPGI2GXKas</a><br>
- - - - -<br>
</font>[QAnon believes in fake global warming news]<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_conspiracy_theory">Global
warming conspiracy theory</a><br>
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia<br>
A global warming conspiracy theory invokes claims that the
scientific consensus on global warming is based on conspiracies to
produce manipulated data or suppress dissent. It is one of a number
of tactics used in climate change denial to legitimize political and
public controversy disputing this consensus. Global warming
conspiracy theorists typically allege that, through worldwide acts
of professional and criminal misconduct, the science behind global
warming has been invented or distorted for ideological or financial
reasons, or both...<br>
- -- - <br>
<b>Funding</b><br>
See also: <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_denial#Lobbying">Climate
change denial § Lobbying</a>, and <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ExxonMobil#Funding_of_global_warming_disinformation_and_denial">ExxonMobil
§ Funding of global warming disinformation and denial</a><br>
There is evidence that some of those alleging such conspiracies are
part of well-funded misinformation campaigns designed to manufacture
controversy, undermine the scientific consensus on climate change
and downplay <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effects_of_global_warming">the
projected effects of global warming</a>. Individuals and
organisations kept the global warming debate alive long after most
scientists had reached their conclusions. These doubts have
influenced policymakers in both Canada and the US, and have helped
to form government policies.<br>
<blockquote>Since the late 1980s, this well-coordinated, well-funded
campaign by contrarian scientists, free-market think tanks and
industry has created a paralyzing fog of doubt around climate
change. Through advertisements, op-eds, lobbying and media
attention, greenhouse doubters (they hate being called deniers)
argued first that the world is not warming; measurements
indicating otherwise are flawed, they said. Then they claimed that
any warming is natural, not caused by human activities. Now they
contend that the looming warming will be minuscule and harmless.
"They patterned what they did after the tobacco industry," says
former senator Tim Wirth, who spearheaded environmental issues as
an under secretary of State in the Clinton administration. "Both
figured, sow enough doubt, call the science uncertain and in
dispute. That's had a huge impact on both the public and
Congress." - <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://academic.evergreen.edu/curricular/energy/0708/articles/TruthDenialNewsweek07Aug.pdf">The
truth about denial</a>, S. Begley, Newsweek[<br>
</blockquote>
Greenpeace presented evidence of the energy industry funding <a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_denial">climate
change denial</a> in their 'Exxon Secrets' project. An analysis
conducted by The Carbon Brief in 2011 found that 9 out of 10 of the
most prolific authors who cast doubt on climate change or speak
against it had ties to ExxonMobil. Greenpeace have said that Koch
industries invested more than US$50 million in the past 50 years on
spreading doubts about climate change. ExxonMobil announced in 2008
that it would cut its funding to many of the groups that "divert
attention" from the need to find new sources of clean energy,
although in 2008 still funded over "two dozen other organisations
who question the science of global warming or attack policies to
solve the crisis." A survey carried out by the UK Royal Society
found that in 2005 ExxonMobil distributed US$2.9 million to 39
groups that "misrepresented the science of climate change by
outright denial of the evidence".<br>
<font size="-1"><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_conspiracy_theory">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_conspiracy_theory</a></font><br>
<br>
<br>
<font size="+1"><b><a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.msnbc.com/andrea-mitchell-reports/watch/sustained-change--obama-unveils-climate-plan-497534531635">This
Day in Climate History - August 3, 2015</a> - from D.R. Tucker</b></font><br>
August 3, 2015: <br>
The New York Times reports:<br>
"The issue of climate change played almost no role in the 2012
presidential campaign. <br>
President Obama barely mentioned the topic, nor did the Republican
nominee, Mitt Romney. It was not raised in a single presidential
debate.<br>
"But as Mr. Obama prepares to leave office, his own aggressive
actions on climate change have thrust the issue into the 2016
campaign. Strategists now say that this battle for the White House
could feature more substantive debate over global warming policy
than any previous presidential race."<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/03/us/politics/obama-policy-could-force-robust-climate-discussion-from-2016-candidates.html?_r=0">http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/03/us/politics/obama-policy-could-force-robust-climate-discussion-from-2016-candidates.html?_r=0</a><br>
<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>