<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<font size="+1"><i>September 4, 2018</i></font><br>
<br>
[from the New Yorker September 10, 2018 Issue]<br>
<b><a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2018/09/10/a-summer-of-megafires-and-trumps-non-rules-on-climate-change">A
Summer of Megafires and Trump's Non-Rules on Climate Change</a></b><br>
by Elizabeth Kolbert<br>
Against an infernal backdrop of widespread wildfires, the
Administration announced its plan to roll back rules limiting
greenhouse-gas emissions from power plants.<br>
The Ranch Fire broke out sometime on the morning of Friday, July
27th, east of Ukiah, California, in Mendocino County. Extreme heat
and windy weather made the blaze difficult to fight; by early
Sunday, it had spread to thirteen thousand acres, and by the end of
the following week it had burned a hundred and fifteen thousand
acres. That weekend, it jumped four streams, a major road, and a
fire line that had been cut by a bulldozer, and in the process it
spread to another hundred thousand acres. By August 12th, it had
become the largest wildfire in California's history, and by the time
it was mostly contained, last week, it had charred more than six
hundred square miles, an area twice the size of New York City.<br>
<br>
A blaze that consumes more than a hundred thousand acres is known as
a megafire. It used to be rare for fires to reach this threshold.
Now it's routine. "We seem to have multiple megafires each year,"
the Web site Wildfire Today noted recently. While the Ranch Fire
raged, three other hundred-thousand-acre-plus fires were "active" in
the United States: the Carr Fire, also in Northern California; the
South Sugarloaf Fire, in northern Nevada; and the Spring Creek Fire,
in southern Colorado. Meanwhile, in Canada, the province of British
Columbia declared a state of emergency in response to more than five
hundred active blazes. As smoke from these and other conflagrations
drifted across the Pacific Northwest, the air quality in Seattle
declined to a level considered "unhealthy for all," and the city's
mayor urged residents to stay indoors.<br>
<br>
It was against this infernal backdrop that the Trump Administration
recently unveiled its plan to roll back rules limiting
greenhouse-gas emissions from power plants. The fires, according to
Donald Trump, had nothing to do with global warming, and instead
were the result of "bad environmental laws," which, he claimed, were
preventing "readily available water" from being used to fight the
blazes. Under the headline "trump tweets while california burns,"
the Los Angeles Times editorial board dismissed the President's
theory as "wingnut drivel." Somewhat less colorfully, Newsweek
observed that it had "little basis in fact."<br>
<br>
The power-plant rules that Trump wants to scrap have a long and
delay-filled history. All the way back in 2007, the U.S. Supreme
Court ruled that carbon dioxide qualifies as a pollutant that should
be regulated under the Clean Air Act. Instead of complying with that
ruling, George W. Bush's Environmental Protection Agency ran out the
clock. When Barack Obama took office, he, too, dawdled; it wasn't
until his second term that the E.P.A. finally proposed the so-called
Clean Power Plan. The plan, which was supposed to reduce CO2
emissions from generating stations by roughly a third, was finalized
in 2015, but it never went into effect. In early 2016, the Supreme
Court, in a 5-4 decision, took the extraordinary step of blocking
its implementation, pending the outcome of a lawsuit brought by two
dozen states - almost all of them led by Republicans - along with a
host of coal and utility companies. (The states accused the E.P.A.
of exceeding its authority.) Two and a half years later, there is
still no decision in that suit, because, under President Trump, the
E.P.A. has been asking for, and receiving, postponements.<br>
<br>
Finally, in June, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of
Columbia Circuit indicated that it was tired of the Administration's
stalling. Then, late last month, the E.P.A. published what it calls
the Affordable Clean Energy rules, or ace. The new rules, which
would replace the Clean Power Plan, are rules in name only. They'd
allow states to set their own standards; these, in many cases, would
amount to a carte blanche for utility companies. Compared with the
Clean Power Plan, ace could, over the next few decades, allow
hundreds of millions of tons of additional carbon emissions.
Meanwhile, by the E.P.A.'s own admission, the new "rules" could
result in as many as fourteen hundred premature deaths annually,
owing to the increased pollution from coal plants. The non-rule
rules still have to be finalized, and then they, too, doubtless will
be challenged in court. By the time that challenge is heard, there
may be a new Administration in the White House - at least, so it is
devoutly to be wished.<br>
<br>
As it happens, a few days after the E.P.A.'s announcement of the
rules a group of state agencies in Sacramento released a report
detailing how climate change will affect California. If emissions
are not reined in, by the end of the century maximum daily
temperatures could rise by a horrific 8.8 degrees. Two-thirds of
Southern California's beaches could be lost to sea-level rise, and
the area burned by wildfires could nearly triple.<br>
<br>
The California report points up the essential hazard of delay. Many
pollutants dissipate or break down over time. Carbon dioxide hangs
around and accumulates. What our power plants put into the air today
will still be contributing to warming and melting, fires and floods,
more than a hundred years from now. And what's added tomorrow (and
tomorrow and tomorrow) will make the situation that much worse.<br>
<br>
This fiery summer has given us a glimpse of what climate change will
look like. In addition to the blazes in the West, forest fires raged
in Sweden above the Arctic Circle. More than ninety people were
killed by wildfires that broke out during an extreme heat wave in
Greece. In Japan, a heat wave resulted in at least eighty deaths,
and in South Korea record-breaking temperatures were blamed for
twenty-nine deaths. (Last month, during South Korea's heat wave, the
Prime Minister ordered all work on public construction sites halted
during daytime hours.)<br>
<br>
<b>But perhaps what's most scary about this scorching summer is how
little concerned Americans seem to be</b>. So far, climate change
has barely registered as an issue in the midterm elections, and,
where it has, the optics couldn't be worse: "Trump Digs Coal" was a
slogan that appeared on placards at a West Virginia rally with the
President, staged on the day that the new power-plant rules were
published.<b> As a country, we remain committed to denial and delay,
even as the world, in an ever more literal sense, goes up in
flames.</b> <br>
<font size="-1"><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2018/09/10/a-summer-of-megafires-and-trumps-non-rules-on-climate-change">https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2018/09/10/a-summer-of-megafires-and-trumps-non-rules-on-climate-change</a></font><br>
<br>
<br>
[Opinion]<br>
<b><a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/sep/03/far-right-climate-change-deniers-debate-ukip-emp-report-eu">Disempower
far-right climate change deniers. Don't debate with them</a></b><br>
Molly Scott Cato<br>
A Ukip MEP has written a shamefully ignorant climate change report
for the EU - it should never have happened<br>
After a long, hot summer beset by record temperatures, drought and
deadly fires, imagine my shock, on returning to the European
parliament, to be confronted with a report that denies the reality
of climate change. Given it could influence the allocation of the
next round of environment funding under the EU's Life programme, it
is deeply disturbing to see such a report, based on wholly
discredited science, wending its way down the corridors of Brussels.<br>
Some of the claims made by the report's author, the Ukip MEP Stuart
Agnew, are, frankly, pretty hair-raising. For instance, he claims
that the effect of CO2 levels on our climate is "negligible", and
that it is "one of agriculture's greatest friends". Agnew claims
there is a lack of concentration of CO2 and as a result there is no
problem for the EU to solve.<br>
So how could it be that someone with a track record of shameful
ignorance of the science of climate change ends up being assigned
the task of compiling this report?...<br>
- - - -<br>
Bob Ward, from the Grantham Research Institute on climate change and
environment at the London School of Economics, said: "There is not a
single scientific institution in the world that would agree with
this daft assessment. This document demonstrates how Ukip's climate
change denial is putting at risk the lives and livelihoods of people
in the UK and across the European Union." Dave Reay, professor of
carbon management at the University of Edinburgh, also ridiculed the
report: "The hackneyed, pseudo-scientific arguments here would make
the dinosaurs blush. This will be a wonderful resource when [my
students] discuss the ill-informed ideas that bounce around the echo
chamber of climate change denial."...<br>
- - - -<br>
Lawson may be considered an irrelevant dinosaur, though he still
manages to platform his nonsense at regular intervals on the BBC.
But the man who Conservative MP Anna Soubry declared was now running
the country, the hardline Brexiteer Jacob Rees-Mogg, has blamed high
energy prices on "climate alarmism" and has said it was unrealistic
for scientists to project future climate changes, just as it was
difficult for meteorologists to correctly predict the weather.
Meanwhile, Nigel Farage, adding to a litany of ill-informed comments
on climate change, earlier this year declared that the "beast from
the east" was proof that global warming wasn't real. And of course,
favouring supposed "alternative facts" on climate change is a
prejudice shared by other far-right groups, most notably Donald
Trump's circle...<br>
- - - - -<br>
Given the dangers posed by the far right and the very real threat of
a significant bloc of populist, climate change-denying MEPs after
next year's European elections, it is time for those of us who back
the overwhelming scientific consensus on climate change to take back
control. That is why I joined other politicians, scientists,
academics and campaigners in signing a letter pledging we would
refuse to debate those who deny that human-caused climate change is
real. We can no longer give voice to the pseudo-science of climate
change deniers; we must urgently move the debate on to how we
address the causes and effects of dangerous climate breakdown.<br>
The large right and centre-right groups in the European parliament
could and should have blocked Ukip from taking charge of a report on
climate change. We can only hope that the mainstream groups in
parliament - right, left and centre - that are likely to continue to
control the majorities will show a greater degree of responsibility
in future.<br>
Molly Scott Cato is the Green MEP for the south-west of England<br>
<font size="-1"><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/sep/03/far-right-climate-change-deniers-debate-ukip-emp-report-eu">https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/sep/03/far-right-climate-change-deniers-debate-ukip-emp-report-eu</a></font><br>
<br>
<br>
[Landslides are growing risk to poorest]<br>
<b><a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://mailchi.mp/climatenewsnetwork/landslides-are-growing-risk-to-poorest?e=30dc80e2f6">Waterlogged
hillsides are dangerous. For those who live on them, or further
downhill, they can be deadly. The global risk from landslides is
rising.</a></b><br>
By Tim Radford<br>
LONDON, 3 September, 2018 - Lethal landslides are on the increase.
Between 2004 and 2016, sudden cascades of rock, rubble and mud have
claimed at least 50,000 lives. And fatal slips down unstable
hillside slopes have steadily increased this century, according to
new research.<br>
British geographers report in the journal Natural Hazards and Earth
System Sciences that they had amassed a database of 4,800 fatal
landslides since 2004 and found that at least 700 of them had what
they call a direct human fingerprint: they happened because people
built on unstable soils, they mined, legally and illegally, they cut
into hillsides, and they allowed pipes to leak.<br>
In addition, heavy rainfall, earthquakes, explosions, dam collapses
and freezing and thawing also set the earth moving at ever greater
speeds, with deadly consequences...<br>
<font size="-1"><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://mailchi.mp/climatenewsnetwork/landslides-are-growing-risk-to-poorest?e=30dc80e2f6">https://mailchi.mp/climatenewsnetwork/landslides-are-growing-risk-to-poorest?e=30dc80e2f6</a></font><br>
- - - - -<br>
<b><a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://www.nat-hazards-earth-syst-sci.net/18/2161/2018/">Natural
Hazards and Earth System Sciences </a></b><br>
Global fatal landslide occurrence from 2004 to 2016<br>
<font size="-1"><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://www.nat-hazards-earth-syst-sci.net/18/2161/2018/">https://www.nat-hazards-earth-syst-sci.net/18/2161/2018/</a></font><br>
<br>
<br>
[Australia the Guardian]<br>
<b><a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://www.theguardian.com/business/grogonomics/2018/sep/02/this-government-is-not-even-pretending-to-act-on-climate-change-anymore">This
government is not even pretending to act on climate change any
more</a></b><b><a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://www.theguardian.com/business/grogonomics/2018/sep/02/this-government-is-not-even-pretending-to-act-on-climate-change-anymore"><br>
</a></b>We have gone from at least trying to look like aiming to
reduce emissions to apparently deciding to do nothing<br>
- - - -<br>
And a political party that refuses to act on climate change is not
fit to govern.<br>
<font size="-1"><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://www.theguardian.com/business/grogonomics/2018/sep/02/this-government-is-not-even-pretending-to-act-on-climate-change-anymore">https://www.theguardian.com/business/grogonomics/2018/sep/02/this-government-is-not-even-pretending-to-act-on-climate-change-anymore</a></font><br>
<br>
<br>
[Rand Corp about disinformation of any kind ]<br>
<b><a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://www.rand.org/pubs/perspectives/PE198.html">The
Russian "Firehose of Falsehood" Propaganda Model<br>
Why It Might Work and Options to Counter It</a></b><br>
by Christopher Paul, Miriam Matthews<br>
Since its 2008 incursion into Georgia (if not before), there has
been a remarkable evolution in Russia's approach to propaganda. The
country has effectively employed new dissemination channels and
messages in support of its 2014 annexation of the Crimean peninsula,
its ongoing involvement in the conflicts in Ukraine and Syria, and
its antagonism of NATO allies. The Russian propaganda model is
high-volume and multichannel, and it disseminates messages without
regard for the truth. It is also rapid, continuous, and repetitive,
and it lacks commitment to consistency. Although these techniques
would seem to run counter to the received wisdom for successful
information campaigns, research in psychology supports many of the
most successful aspects of the model. Furthermore, the very factors
that make the firehose of falsehood effective also make it difficult
to counter. Traditional counterpropaganda approaches will likely be
inadequate in this context. More effective solutions can be found in
the same psychology literature that explains the surprising success
of the Russian propaganda model and its messages.<br>
<b>Recommendations</b><br>
Forewarn audiences of misinformation, or merely reach them first
with the truth, rather than retracting or refuting false "facts."<br>
Prioritize efforts to counter the effects of Russian propaganda, and
focus on guiding the propaganda's target audience in more productive
directions.<br>
Compete with Russian propaganda. Both the United States and NATO
have the potential to prevent Russia from dominating the information
environment.<br>
Increase the flow of information that diminishes the effectiveness
of propaganda, and, in the context of active hostilities, attack the
means of dissemination.<br>
<font size="-1"><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://www.rand.org/pubs/perspectives/PE198.html">https://www.rand.org/pubs/perspectives/PE198.html</a></font><br>
- - - - - <br>
[how it is done- watch the video]<br>
<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nknYtlOvaQ0"><b>Why obvious
lies make great propaganda</b></a><br>
Vox - Aug 31, 2018<br>
For leaders like Trump and Putin, telling big lies isn't about
persuasion -- it's about power.<br>
Subscribe to our channel! <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="http://goo.gl/0bsAjO">http://goo.gl/0bsAjO</a><br>
At first glance, US President Donald Trump and Russian leader
Vladimir Putin seem to have wildly different communication styles.
But what they share is a tendency to repeat big, obvious lies - a
tactic researchers have dubbed the "firehose of falsehood." Whether
it's lying about Russian troops in Crimea or falsely claiming
millions of people voted illegally during the 2016 election, both
leaders demonstrate a kind of shamelessness when it comes to telling
and retelling big lies. And that's because firehosing isn't actually
about persuasion. It's about power.<br>
Read the original "firehose of falsehood" report: <a
class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://www.rand.org/pubs/perspectives/PE198.html">https://www.rand.org/pubs/perspectives/PE198.html</a><br>
Read more of Masha Gessen's work at The New Yorker:<a
class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://www.newyorker.com/news/our-columnists/how-putin-and-trump-each-lied-in-helsinki">https://www.newyorker.com/news/our-columnists/how-putin-and-trump-each-lied-in-helsinki</a><br>
Read more of Christopher Paul's work at RAND: <a
class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://www.rand.org/about/people/p/p">https://www.rand.org/about/people/p/p</a>...
<br>
On Strikethrough, Vox producer Carlos Maza explores the challenges
facing the news media in the age of Trump. Follow Carlos on Facebook
for more: <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://www.facebook.com/CarlosMazaVox">https://www.facebook.com/CarlosMazaVox</a><br>
<font size="-1"><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nknYtlOvaQ0">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nknYtlOvaQ0</a></font><br>
<br>
<br>
[for example]<br>
<b><a
href="https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/08/180830143138.htm">Adapt,
move or die: How biodiversity reacted to past climate change</a></b><br>
Date: August 30, 2018<br>
Source: Faculty of Science - University of Copenhagen<br>
Summary:<br>
A new paper reviews current knowledge on climate change and
biodiversity. In the past, plants and animals reacted to
environmental changes by adapting, migrating or going extinct. These
findings point to radical changes in biodiversity due to climate
change in the future...<br>
- - - - -<br>
"We know animals and plants have prevented extinction by adapt or
migrate in the past. However, the models we use today to predict
future climate change, foresee magnitudes and rates of change, which
have been exceptionally rare in the last million years. Thus, we
need to expand our knowledge and improve our prediction models.
Also, we must recognise the limitations of the models, because they
are used to inform politicians and decision-makers about effects of
climate change on biodiversity."<br>
<font size="-1"><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/08/180830143138.htm">https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/08/180830143138.htm</a></font><br>
<br>
<br>
[Red pill, blue pill]<br>
<b><a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://jembendell.wordpress.com/2018/08/25/after-acceptance-some-responses-to-anticipating-collapse/">After
acceptance - some responses to anticipating collapse</a></b><br>
Posted by jembendell on August 25, 2018<br>
I'd welcome input from psychologists, either in the comments below
or in the Deep Adaptation Linked-In group. Also, please let me know
which types of response that I've missed. Here goes:<br>
<blockquote><u>Reading and talking</u> much more about societal
collapse, and all the issues it brings up, but without
significantly changing behaviour. That can include being active on
social media so your tweets and Facebook posts seem rather
doom-laden. Let's call this "SOS!" response.<br>
<u>Changing jobs, moving home, and starting to build a more
self-sufficient good life</u>, partly off-grid, usually in the
countryside. Or researching and planning this process, actively.
I'll call that the "survivalist" response. In some cases, this
response could be a form of denial, as it is going to be so
difficult to isolate oneself to cope with collapse, as I have
discussed elsewhere.<br>
<u>Seeking personal growth via therapy, and/or various forms of
meaningful play, time in nature, spirituality, or deep
conversations</u>. Many people have expressed a massive personal
transformation as they accept near term mortality and lose some of
their deference to societal norms and expectations. Let's call
this a "transcendence" response.<br>
<u>Talking about societal collapse in one's professional circles,</u>
to explore what could be done within one's profession and beyond.
I am now witnessing a few such attempts, and rather than walking
away from own profession, decided to do the same, for now. Let's
call this the "professional sunk costs" response.<br>
<u>Taking more risks in one's workplace and community</u>, to
express one's views with less fear of repercussion. Often this
involves speaking about purpose and values and not accepting the
dominant assumptions about growth, profit and conformity. The "not
hiding anymore" response.<br>
Reducing workload to create more time for exploring the issue of
climate chaos or societal collapse, in anticipation of making a
major decision about changing one's life. The "taking a breather"
response.<br>
<u>Retraining to develop skills that may be relevant</u> for being
useful to oneself and others post-collapse. That could be learning
first aid, horticulture, herbal medicines, musical instruments, or
even learning how to use a crossbow. Though that last one doesn't
sound too gentle, as these things are done as much as pastimes as
preparations, I'll call this the "gentle prepper" response.<br>
<u>Seeking to repair or improve one's close relationships</u>,
while smelling the flowers and being nicer to pets, neighbours and
colleagues. The "palliative love" response.<br>
Seeking to know how to deal better with confusion, fear, and
anticipatory grief, for oneself and to help others with those
emotions. The "emotional self-care" response.<br>
Looking for networks of people who are creating self-reliant
'Arks', in order to support them and have the option to join
later. The "all options open" response.<br>
<u>Deciding that the options to change one's life and work aren't
attractive or practical now</u>, so continuing as normal but
with a greater focus on peace and joy while waiting for the
collapse. This is the "keep a cyanide pill" response. Though, to
be honest, I haven't met anyone who has prepared that way…. or
they haven't told me.<br>
<u>A related response to that one is where people accept collapse</u>,
go through the range of emotions, consider a range of options and
then consciously choose to try and live in denial to have a
happier life for as long as they can. Sometimes this can include
attempts at living the dolce vita, spending more on today that
they might have, given the bleak outlook. This is the "return me
to the matrix" response. Sci-fi nerds might call it the "blue
pill" response.<br>
<u>Organising to get the idea that we face a climate emergency and
should prepare for collapse</u>, such as through preparing for
food rationing, on to the political agenda. As it evokes the
belief in national government and citizen sacrifice that we have
seen during wars, I will call this the "war footing" response. I
should note that people who respond in this way have a variety of
views that are shaped by their existing politics and values and
there is no consensus nor likely to be one.<br>
<u>Organising to campaign for geoengineering and/or carbon
sequestration</u> while we still have the capacity to act on
these. Examples include Arctic cloud brightening, agroecology and
kelp planting. Some call for these actions with the idea that
while civilisation exists then we have the chance to reduce the
speed of climate change and thus give the species a chance to
avoid extinction. I'll call it the "where's Bruce Willis"
response.<br>
<u>Turning to non-violent direct action to force changes in
practices that are making matters worse</u>. Most instances of
such direct action appear to be within a carbon emissions
reduction paradigm, but could be influenced now by an awareness of
impending collapse. That would bring into view a range of new
things to disrupt, depending on the values one holds dear after
accepting collapse. I will call this the "climate peace activist"
response.<br>
<u>Organising to promote a particular set of proposals, and
develop certain capabilities, for how to adapt to the coming
changes, in particular at local levels</u>. Some have started
focusing on practical grassroots initiatives to develop
capabilities for deep adaptation. I'll call this the
"humanitarian" response.<br>
<u>Organising to promote the cultural concepts that will help us
to find and express meaning after societal-collapse</u>. It
involves looking for beauty and meaning in a new context. This is
one focus of the Dark Mountain group. It's a "reframing collapse"
response.<br>
<u>Evangelising about one's views on life, the cosmos and human
organisation</u>. That evangelising can be religious, new age
spirituality or a view on politics and social organisation. This
response can be cloaked in stories about how becoming a believer,
or more devout, will help reduce the harm of climate change (so
that gets close to collapse-denial) or help with whatever form of
human community may survive. Secular versions include people
saying they are developing the blueprint for how humanity will be
in future if everyone listens and does what they will be told.
Collectively, I'll call these the "follow me" response. One of the
joys of lumping all these approaches into the same category is it
will annoy the hell out of the people who respond in this way.
Sorry guys, and yes its nearly always guys, but the common
denominator seems to be an ego-driven need to hold the truth and
be recognised for that.<br>
<u>Watching Guy McPherson videos on Youtube</u>. The "masochist"
response.<br>
Sharing Guy McPherson videos with your Facebook friends. The
"sadomasochist" response.<br>
</blockquote>
OK, that's an in-joke. "Doomer humour" will be a fast-growing genre.
And, by its own admission, fairly fast-ending.<br>
There are other responses that I have not come across yet in person,
but have heard about. These are worrying forms of response and are
sometimes cited by people who don't want to talk about these issues.
They include:<br>
<b>Anger and anxiety turning into depression</b>, sometimes leading
to suicide. I have read about a couple of suicides related to
anxiety caused by awareness of climate change. These were famous
cases, so I don't know of how widespread climate-influenced
depression has become. It's the "depressive" response.<br>
<b>Turning to violent direct action</b> to either take revenge or
attempt to impose change or force action. I have only heard this
discussed in abstract terms, mostly when people wonder why we
haven't seen this kind of action yet. It's the "violent" response<br>
Mentioning these responses makes me realise that we need
psychologists and others who provide counsel to people, such as
coaches and religious leaders, to engage actively in this field and
develop the relevant support.<br>
<font size="-1"><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://jembendell.wordpress.com/2018/08/25/after-acceptance-some-responses-to-anticipating-collapse/">https://jembendell.wordpress.com/2018/08/25/after-acceptance-some-responses-to-anticipating-collapse/</a></font><br>
<br>
<br>
[Activism for Sept 5th]<br>
When: September 5th, 2.00-3.00pm<br>
Where: Paramount Plaza, 1633 Broadway, New York, 10019<br>
Speakers: Activists from Greenpeace, the Center for Constitutional
Rights, the International Corporate Accountability Roundtable, and
more<br>
Dallas: Find our roving message to Energy Transfer Partners<br>
When: From September 4th-6th a mobile billboard will display a
message from our coalition to Energy Transfer Partners, the company
behind the Dakota Access Pipeline. <br>
Where: In front of ETP's headquarters and other locations throughout
Dallas - read the schedule here<br>
Bonus: The first 10 people to photograph the truck and
@SLAPPtaskforce on Twitter or Facebook will win a free T-shirt!<br>
Click here to Find Us in Dallas - and invite others!<br>
San Francisco: Panel Discussion on Greenpeace's boat the Arctic
Sunrise<br>
When: September 5th, 4:00-5.30pm (boarding from 3.00pm)<br>
Where: Arctic Sunrise (Greenpeace ship), Pier 19, San Francisco, CA
94111<br>
Speakers: Activists and journalists from Mother Jones, Electronic
Frontier Foundation, Greenpeace, Rainforest Action Network,
Wikimedia, Techdirt, and SLAPP survivors/activists from California
<br>
Bonus: Free tours of the Arctic Sunrise will begin at 3:30 and there
will be a reception with drinks and nibbles directly after the
event!<br>
Join our Event in San Francisco - and invite others!<br>
Join us online:<br>
Stay updated by following us on Twitter at @SLAPPtaskforce and on
the Protect the Protest Facebook page. <br>
Join the conversation by using #ProtectTheProtest<br>
For more information about the coalition, visit <a
class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated"
href="http://www.protecttheprotest.org">www.protecttheprotest.org</a>
or e-mail us at <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated"
href="mailto:info@protecttheprotest.org">info@protecttheprotest.org</a>.
<br>
<br>
<br>
[video classic science lecture from 2013]<br>
<b><a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HtHlsUDVVy0&feature=youtu.be&t=23m30s">Peter
Ward Our Future In a World Without Ice Caps</a></b><br>
Climate State<br>
Published on Sep 20, 2013<br>
Brown Bag Lecture Series; Center for Student Engagement &
Leadership; and Arts, Culture, and Civic Engagement<br>
Apr. 11, 2013<br>
In honor of Earth Month: Peter D. Ward, Ph.D., is a paleontologist
and professor of Geological Sciences at the University of
Washington. Ward specializes in the Cretaceous-Tertiary extinction
event (the one that killed the dinosaurs), the Permian-Triassic
extinction event, and mass extinctions in general. He was elected as
a fellow of the California Academy of Science in 1984 and has been
nominated for the Schuchert Medal, an award of the Paleontological
Society. Ward has written many books including Under a Green Sky:
Global Warming, the Mass Extinctions of the Past, and What They Can
Tell Us About Our Future and The Flooded Earth: Our Future In a
World Without Ice Caps.<br>
<font size="-1"><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HtHlsUDVVy0&feature=youtu.be&t=23m30s">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HtHlsUDVVy0&feature=youtu.be&t=23m30s</a></font><br>
<font size="-1">another one at <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HP_Fvs48hb4">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HP_Fvs48hb4</a></font><br>
<br>
<br>
<font size="+1"><b><a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://web.archive.org/web/20020619223452/http://www.commondreams.org/views01/0904-01.htm">This
Day in Climate History - September 4, 2001</a> - from D.R.
Tucker</b></font><br>
September 4, 2001: In the Boston Globe, Theodore Roosevelt IV - the
great-grandson of President Theodore Roosevelt--declares:<br>
<blockquote>"We Americans are heading into a carbon-constrained,
ecologically fragile future for which we are ill prepared. Under
the present leadership we are dragging our feet, willing to
sacrifice vital natural resources instead of making real
investments in current efficiency and future energy technologies.
This is hardly a conservative agenda. <br>
<br>
"Moderate Republicans, and I am one, are distressed that an
administration that strenuously claims to be conservative is
instead intent on maintaining undisciplined and wasteful
consumption. This is unsustainable public policy, and I doubt that
it will go far in achieving victory in the midterm elections. Bad
public policy and bad politics are a lethal combination."<br>
</blockquote>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://web.archive.org/web/20020619223452/http://www.commondreams.org/views01/0904-01.htm">http://web.archive.org/web/20020619223452/http://www.commondreams.org/views01/0904-01.htm</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>