<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<i><font size="+1"><b>June 22, 2020</b></font></i><br>
<p>[Best ever interview with John Cook]<br>
<b>Busting Climate Myths : The Psychology of Denial</b><br>
Jun 21, 2020<br>
Just Have a Think<br>
Debunking myths about Climate Change is a crucial factor in
closing the gap between public and scientific consensus. The good
news is that the gap is narrowing quickly. How do we know that?
Because dedicated scientists like Dr John Cook, founder of the
Skeptical Science website, have been studying the psychology of
denial and taking real polls among thousands of everyday folks for
well over a decade. This week we talk to Dr Cook about the
psychological tactics used by the fossil fuel propaganda machine
and we discuss his brand new book entitled Cranky Uncle vs Climate
Change, which teaches us how to overcome the obstacles.<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YHYKwkpmilY">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YHYKwkpmilY</a><br>
</p>
<p>- - -<br>
</p>
[Cranky Uncle and misinformation - video]<br>
<b>Cranky Uncle vs. Climate Change lecture (16 mins)</b><br>
May 6, 2020<br>
John Cook<br>
A compilation of animated videos debunking the most common myths
about climate change, using cartoons from the Cranky Uncle vs.
Climate Change book:<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://crankyuncle.com/book">http://crankyuncle.com/book</a><br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hARJcK6FizA">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hARJcK6FizA</a><br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://crankyuncle.com/">https://crankyuncle.com/</a><br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://crankyuncle.com/blog/">https://crankyuncle.com/blog/</a><br>
<p><br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
[cartoon carbon info and repair]<br>
<b>Who Is Responsible For Climate Change? - Who Needs To Fix It?</b><br>
Kurzgesagt - In a Nutshell<br>
This video is part of a series about climate change supported by
Breakthrough Energy - a coalition founded by Bill Gates, that is
working to expand clean-energy investment and support the
innovations that will lead the world to net-zero carbon emissions. <br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.gatesnotes.com/Climate-and-energy?WT.mc_id=20200625100000_ClimateCtr2020_CTRKurt-YT_&WT.tsrc=CTRKurtYT">https://www.gatesnotes.com/Climate-and-energy?WT.mc_id=20200625100000_ClimateCtr2020_CTRKurt-YT_&WT.tsrc=CTRKurtYT</a><br>
<br>
Also a special thanks to the team at Our World for helping us out
with data and research!<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://ourworldindata.org/">https://ourworldindata.org/</a><br>
<br>
Sources & further reading:<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://sites.google.com/view/sourcesclimateresponsibility/">https://sites.google.com/view/sourcesclimateresponsibility/</a><br>
<br>
Since the Industrial Revolution, humans have released over 1.5
trillion tonnes of carbon dioxide or CO2 into the earth's
atmosphere. In the year 2019 we were still pumping out around 37
billion more. That's 50% more than the year 2000 and almost three
times as much as 50 years ago. And it's not just CO2. We're also
pumping out growing volumes of other greenhouse gases such as
methane and nitrous oxide. Combining all of our greenhouse gases,
we're emitting 51 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalents each
year. <br>
And emissions keep rising - but they need to get down to 0!<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5GOFt2-3Ij8">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5GOFt2-3Ij8</a><br>
<p><br>
</p>
<br>
[reporting a re-calculation ]<br>
<b>World has six months to avert climate crisis, says energy expert</b><br>
International Energy Agency chief warns of need to prevent
post-lockdown surge in emissions<br>
<br>
"This year is the last time we have, if we are not to see a carbon
rebound," said Fatih Birol, executive director of the International
Energy Agency.<br>
<br>
Governments are planning to spend $9tn (7.2tn) globally in the next
few months on rescuing their economies from the coronavirus crisis,
the IEA has calculated. The stimulus packages created this year will
determine the shape of the global economy for the next three years,
according to Birol, and within that time emissions must start to
fall sharply and permanently, or climate targets will be out of
reach.<br>
<br>
"The next three years will determine the course of the next 30 years
and beyond," Birol told the Guardian. "If we do not [take action] we
will surely see a rebound in emissions. If emissions rebound, it is
very difficult to see how they will be brought down in future. This
is why we are urging governments to have sustainable recovery
packages."...<br>
- - <br>
In a report published on Thursday, the IEA - the world's gold
standard for energy analysis - set out the first global blueprint
for a green recovery, focusing on reforms to energy generation and
consumption. Wind and solar power should be a top focus, the report
advised, alongside energy efficiency improvements to buildings and
industries, and the modernisation of electricity grids...<br>
- - <br>
Investors were also keen to put private sector money into a green
recovery, alongside government stimulus spending, said Stephanie
Pfeifer, chief executive of the Institutional Investor Group on
Climate Change, representing funds and asset managers with $26tn in
assets. "The IEA has shown [a green recovery] is not only desirable,
but economically astute. Investors are fully committed to playing
their part in this process."<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/jun/18/world-has-six-months-to-avert-climate-crisis-says-energy-expert">https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/jun/18/world-has-six-months-to-avert-climate-crisis-says-energy-expert</a><br>
<br>
<p><br>
</p>
[JAMA reports direct harm]<br>
June 18, 2020<br>
<b>Association of Air Pollution and Heat Exposure With Preterm
Birth, Low Birth Weight, and Stillbirth in the US</b><br>
A Systematic Review<br>
<br>
<b>Key Points</b><br>
Question Are increases in air pollutant or heat exposure related to
climate change associated with adverse pregnancy outcomes, such as
preterm birth, low birth weight, and stillbirth, in the US?<br>
<br>
Findings In this systematic review of 57 of 68 studies including a
total of 32 798 152 births, there was a statistically significant
association between heat, ozone, or fine particulate matter and
adverse pregnancy outcomes. Heterogeneous studies from across the US
revealed positive findings in each analysis of exposure and outcome.<br>
<br>
Meaning The findings suggest that exacerbation of air pollution and
heat exposure related to climate change may be significantly
associated with risk to pregnancy outcomes in the US.<br>
<br>
<b>Abstract</b><br>
Importance Knowledge of whether serious adverse pregnancy outcomes
are associated with increasingly widespread effects of climate
change in the US would be crucial for the obstetrical medical
community and for women and families across the country.<br>
<br>
<b>Objective</b> To investigate prenatal exposure to fine
particulate matter (PM2.5), ozone, and heat, and the association of
these factors with preterm birth, low birth weight, and stillbirth.<br>
<br>
<b>Evidence Review</b> This systematic review involved a
comprehensive search for primary literature in Cochrane Library,
Cochrane Collaboration Registry of Controlled Trials, PubMed,
ClinicalTrials.gov website, and MEDLINE. Qualifying primary research
studies included human participants in US populations that were
published in English between January 1, 2007, and April 30, 2019.
Included articles analyzed the associations between air pollutants
or heat and obstetrical outcomes. Comparative observational cohort
studies and cross-sectional studies with comparators were included,
without minimum sample size. Additional articles found through
reference review were also considered. Articles analyzing other
obstetrical outcomes, non-US populations, and reviews were excluded.
Two reviewers independently determined study eligibility. The Arskey
and O'Malley scoping review framework was used. Data extraction was
performed according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic
Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) reporting guideline.<br>
<br>
<b>Findings</b> Of the 1851 articles identified, 68 met the
inclusion criteria. Overall, 32 798 152 births were analyzed, with a
mean (SD) of 565 485 (783 278) births per study. A total of 57
studies (48 of 58 [84%] on air pollutants; 9 of 10 [90%] on heat)
showed a significant association of air pollutant and heat exposure
with birth outcomes. Positive associations were found across all US
geographic regions. Exposure to PM2.5 or ozone was associated with
increased risk of preterm birth in 19 of 24 studies (79%) and low
birth weight in 25 of 29 studies (86%). The subpopulations at
highest risk were persons with asthma and minority groups,
especially black mothers. Accurate comparisons of risk were limited
by differences in study design, exposure measurement, population
demographics, and seasonality.<br>
<b><br>
</b><b>Conclusions and Relevance</b> This review suggests that
increasingly common environmental exposures exacerbated by climate
change are significantly associated with serious adverse pregnancy
outcomes across the US.<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2767260">https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2767260</a><br>
<br>
<p><br>
</p>
<p> </p>
<br>
[Clean Energy for Biden]<br>
<b>Washington State Clean Energy for Biden Fundraiser</b><br>
You are invited to join us in helping elect Joe Biden for President<br>
Featuring a "fireside chat" with Maggie Thomas, a former climate
advisor to the<br>
presidential campaigns of Governor Jay Inslee and Senator Elizabeth
Warren.<br>
Gregg Small, Executive Director of Climate Solutions is the
moderator.<br>
Thursday, June 25th 5:00-6:00 PM PST<br>
Virtual platform with opportunity for participant questions<br>
To register for the event, go to <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://www.givegreen.com/BBIDENEVT2006V">https://www.givegreen.com/BBIDENEVT2006V</a><br>
<p><br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
[When in doubt, punt]<br>
<b>Solar geoengineering could cause unwanted changes in climate, new
modelling suggests</b><br>
20 June 2020<br>
Using aerosols to reflect sunlight and cool the planet will weaken
storm tracks in the temperate latitudes in both hemispheres, an
international team of scientists warn. Their modelling suggests that
while such solar geoengineering schemes could reduce the severity of
winter storms, they would also stagnate weather systems in the
summer. This could lead to more intense heat waves, increases in air
pollution, and changes in ocean circulation.<br>
<br>
Solar geoengineering involves cooling the Earth by reflecting
incoming sunlight and is seen by some scientists as a way of
mitigating the effects of global warming. One popular strategy
involves placing reflective aerosols in the stratosphere - using
aircraft, balloons or blimps - to block sunlight.<br>
<br>
But the effects of solar geoengineering are unknown. It would not
work as simply as cooling the planet and therefore returning Earth's
climate to pre-industrial levels. Climate under solar geoengineering
would be different, as there would still be marked increases in
atmospheric carbon dioxide levels.<br>
<br>
Extratropical storm tracks<br>
Charles Gertler, a graduate student in the Department of Earth,
Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences at the Massachusetts Institute of
Technology, in the US, and colleagues were interested in how
injecting aerosols into the atmosphere would impact the
pole‐to‐equator temperature gradient in both hemispheres, and the
effect that could have on extratropical storm tracks. These are
regions in the mid and high latitudes with heightened incidences of
storms known as extratropical cyclones, which play a significant
role in determining the day-to-day weather conditions in many parts
of the world.<br>
<br>
"About half the world's population lives in the extratropical
regions where storm tracks dominate weather," Gertler explains. He
adds, "Storm tracks feed off of meridional temperature gradients,
and storm tracks are interesting because they help us to understand
weather extremes."<br>
<br>
The team used various climate models to explore the effects of solar
geoengineering on storm tracks. First, they analysed simulations
from experiment G1 of the Geoengineering Model Intercomparison
Project which provides solar radiation management schemes for
researchers to use with climate models.<br>
<br>
Balancing warming<br>
In the G1 scenario solar radiation is reduced to balance warming
caused by a quadrupling of carbon dioxide concentrations, relative
to pre-industrial levels. This was run for 50 years and compared
with a model that kept carbon dioxide at pre-industrial level and
one that simulated a quadrupling of carbon dioxide concentrations,
to provide a baseline and a global warming scenario, respectively.<br>
<br>
The team ran two other climate simulations. The first, known as
'half G1', aims to model a scenario half-way between the G1
geoengineering simulation and a future where carbon dioxide
concentrations quadruple. In the other model aerosols are injected
into the stratosphere at four different latitudes controlled by a
feedback algorithm.<br>
<br>
Their results, described in Geophysical Research Letters, show that
reflecting solar radiation to counteract global warming would weaken
storm tracks in both the northern and southern hemispheres. These
effects are driven by changes in mean temperature and humidity at
different latitudes that reduce the pole‐to‐equator temperature
gradient in both hemispheres. Essentially, reducing incoming solar
radiation cools the equator while the poles continue to warm.<br>
<br>
"Novel changes in climate"<br>
"Our results show that solar geoengineering will not simply reverse
climate change," Gertler explains. "Instead, it has the potential
itself to induce novel changes in climate."<br>
<br>
In the Northern hemisphere storm tracks are also predicted to weaken
with climate change. The latest work suggests that this would occur
at a similar magnitude as with solar geoengineering. In the southern
hemisphere, however, global warming is expected to increase the
intensity of the storm tracks and shift them south. With solar
geoengineering these storm track would weaken, with some of the
models indicating that there may also be a poleward shift in these
systems.<br>
<br>
"A weakened storm track, in both hemispheres, would mean weaker
winter storms but also lead to more stagnant weather, which could
affect heat waves," Gertler says. "Across all seasons, this could
affect ventilation of air pollution. It also may contribute to a
weakening of the hydrological cycle, with regional reductions in
rainfall. These are not good changes, compared to a baseline climate
that we are used to." In the southern hemisphere changes in storm
track intensity could impact wind‐driven ocean circulations and
affect the stability of Antarctic ice sheets, the researchers warn.<br>
<br>
"This work highlights that solar geoengineering is not reversing
climate change, but is substituting one unprecedented climate state
for another," Gertler says.<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://physicsworld.com/a/solar-geoengineering-could-cause-unwanted-changes-in-climate-new-modelling-suggests/">https://physicsworld.com/a/solar-geoengineering-could-cause-unwanted-changes-in-climate-new-modelling-suggests/</a><br>
<p><br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
[video talk - what is science?]<br>
<b>How to tell science from pseudoscience</b><br>
Jun 21, 2020<br>
Sabine Hossenfelder<br>
Each time I say "G5" I mean "5G". Sorry about that!<br>
Is the earth flat? Is 5G is a mind-control experiment by the Russian
government? What about the idea that COVID was engineered by the
vaccine industry? In this video I explain how you can tell apart
science from pseudoscience. Instead of giving you a long and mostly
useless philosophical lecture, I will tell you a simple criterion
that you can apply for most cases, which is that scientific models
are the ones that explain lots of observations with few assumptions.<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o9ylQC5bPpU">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o9ylQC5bPpU</a>
<p><br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
[Digging back into the internet news archive]<br>
<font size="+1"><b>On this day in the history of global warming -
June 22, 2006 </b></font><br>
<p>The New York Times reports on the National Academy of Sciences'
affirmation of Michael Mann's 1999 "hockey stick" paper...<br>
</p>
<blockquote>
<p>...in a 155-page report, the 12-member panel convened by the
National Academies said "an array of evidence" supported the
main thrust of the paper. Disputes over details, it said,
reflected the normal intellectual clash that takes place as
science tests new approaches to old questions.<br>
<br>
The study, led by Michael E. Mann, a climatologist now at
Pennsylvania State University, was the first to estimate
widespread climate trends by stitching together a grab bag of
evidence, including variations in ancient tree rings and
temperatures measured in deep holes in the earth.<br>
<br>
It has been repeatedly attacked by Republican lawmakers and some
business-financed groups as built on cherry-picked data meant to
create an alarming view of recent warming and play down past
natural warm periods.<br>
<br>
At a news conference at the headquarters of the National
Academies, several members of the panel reviewing the study said
they saw no sign that its authors had intentionally chosen data
sets or methods to get a desired result.<br>
<br>
"I saw nothing that spoke to me of any manipulation," said one
member, Peter Bloomfield, a statistics professor at North
Carolina State University. He added that his impression was the
study was "an honest attempt to construct a data analysis
procedure."<br>
<br>
More broadly, the panel examined other recent research comparing
the pronounced warming trend over the last several decades with
temperature shifts over the last 2,000 years. It expressed high
confidence that warming over the last 25 years exceeded any
peaks since 1600. And in a news conference here today, three
panelists said the current warming was probably, but not
certainly, beyond any peaks since the year 900.<br>
<br>
The experts said there was no reliable way to make estimates for
surface-temperature trends in the first millennium A.D.<br>
<br>
In the report, the panel stressed that the significant remaining
uncertainties about climate patterns over the last 2,000 years
did not weaken the scientific case that the current warming
trend was caused mainly by people, through the buildup of
heat-trapping greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.<br>
<br>
"Surface temperature reconstructions for periods prior to the
industrial era are only one of multiple lines of evidence
supporting the conclusion that climatic warming is occurring in
response to human activities, and they are not the primary
evidence," the report said.<br>
<br>
The 1999 paper is part of a growing body of work trying to pull
together widely disparate clues of climate conditions before the
age of weather instruments.<br>
<br>
The paper includes a graph of temperatures in the Northern
Hemisphere that gained the nickname "hockey stick" because of
its vivid depiction of a long period with little temperature
variation for nearly 1,000 years, followed by a sharp upward
hook in recent decades.<br>
<br>
The hockey stick has become something of an environmentalist
icon. It was prominently displayed in a pivotal 2001 United
Nations report concluding that greenhouse gases from human
activities had probably caused most of the warming measured
since 1950. A version of it is in the Al Gore documentary "An
Inconvenient Truth."<br>
<br>
Senator James M. Inhofe, Republican of Oklahoma, and
Representative Joe Barton, Republican of Texas, have repeatedly
criticized the Mann study, citing several peer-reviewed papers
challenging its methods.<br>
<br>
The main critiques were done by Stephen McIntyre, a statistician
and part-time consultant in Toronto to minerals industries, and
Ross McKitrick, an economist at the University of Guelph in
Ontario...</p>
<p>- -</p>
<p>The report was done at the request of Representative Sherwood
Boehlert, the New York Republican who is chairman of the House
Science Committee, who called last November for a review of the
1999 study and related research to clear the air.<br>
<br>
In a statement, Mr. Boehlert, who is retiring at the end of the
year, expressed satisfaction with the results, saying, "There is
nothing in this report that should raise any doubts about the
broad scientific consensus on global climate change — which
doesn't rest primarily on these temperature issues, in any event
— or any doubts about whether any paper on the temperature
records was legitimate scientific work."<br>
</p>
</blockquote>
<p><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/22/science/22cnd-climate.html?_r=0">http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/22/science/22cnd-climate.html?_r=0</a>
<br>
<br>
<br>
</p>
/-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------/<br>
<br>
/Archive of Daily Global Warming News <a
class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E"
href="https://pairlist10.pair.net/pipermail/theclimate.vote/2017-October/date.html"><https://pairlist10.pair.net/pipermail/theclimate.vote/2017-October/date.html></a>
/<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://pairlist10.pair.net/pipermail/theclimate.vote">https://pairlist10.pair.net/pipermail/theclimate.vote</a><br>
<br>
/To receive daily mailings - click to Subscribe <a
class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E"
href="mailto:subscribe@theClimate.Vote?subject=Click%20SEND%20to%20process%20your%20request"><mailto:subscribe@theClimate.Vote?subject=Click%20SEND%20to%20process%20your%20request></a>
to news digest./<br>
<br>
*** Privacy and Security:*This is a text-only mailing that carries
no images which may originate from remote servers. Text-only
messages provide greater privacy to the receiver and sender.<br>
By regulation, the .VOTE top-level domain must be used for
democratic and election purposes and cannot be used for commercial
purposes.<br>
To subscribe, email: <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated"
href="mailto:contact@theclimate.vote">contact@theclimate.vote</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E"
href="mailto:contact@theclimate.vote"><mailto:contact@theclimate.vote></a>
with subject subscribe, To Unsubscribe, subject: unsubscribe<br>
Also you 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><br>
Links and headlines assembled and curated by Richard Pauli for <a
class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://TheClimate.Vote">http://TheClimate.Vote</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="http://TheClimate.Vote/"><http://TheClimate.Vote/></a>
delivering succinct information for citizens and responsible
governments of all levels. List membership is confidential and
records are scrupulously restricted to this mailing list.<br>
<br>
<br>
</body>
</html>