<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<p><i><font size="+1"><b>September 28, 2020</b></font></i></p>
[United Nations hears]<br>
<b>Leaders to UN: If virus doesn't kill us, climate change will </b><br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://apnews.com/article/climate-climate-change-oceans-environment-united-nations-general-assembly-d073896990db973a3e45db26787d6a18">https://apnews.com/article/climate-climate-change-oceans-environment-united-nations-general-assembly-d073896990db973a3e45db26787d6a18</a><br>
<br>
<p><br>
</p>
[CBS 60 minutes]<br>
<b>Sir David Attenborough to 60 Minutes on climate change: "A crime
has been committed"</b><br>
Eighteen years after declining to take a hard stance in his first
profile on 60 Minutes, Sir David Attenborough warns about the
dangers of climate change...<br>
- -<br>
Despite his stark warning about the planet's peril, Attenborough
told Cooper it is not too late to salvage it, if countries work
together and societies alter their behavior. The nonagenarian
remains hopeful for the future. <br>
<br>
"There's a huge movement around the world of people from all
nations, young people who can see what is happening to the world,
and demanding that their government should take action,"
Attenborough said. "And that's the best hope that I have."<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.cbsnews.com/news/sir-david-attenborough-60-minutes-2020-09-27/">https://www.cbsnews.com/news/sir-david-attenborough-60-minutes-2020-09-27/</a><br>
<p><br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
[In August, Bill Gates got global warming]<br>
<b>Climate Change Is a Bigger Disaster Than Coronavirus: Bill Gates</b><br>
Aug 6, 2020<br>
Bloomberg Markets and Finance<br>
Aug.06 -- Microsoft Corp. co-founder Bill Gates says climate change
is bigger disaster for the world than coronavirus. Gates speaks
exclusively to Bloomberg's Emily Chang.<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b4kZG2SAr14">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b4kZG2SAr14</a><br>
<p><br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
[very positive science lesson]<br>
<b>Why don't we all just use Geothermal Energy?</b><br>
Sep 27, 2020<br>
Just Have a Think<br>
Science tells us there's enough energy in the first 10 kilometres
below our planet's surface to provide all our energy needs for
millions of years. The Romans tapped into it for their hot water
spas. Today, we all know it as Geothermal Energy. There's no carbon
dioxide emissions and no air pollution with geothermal, and it's
literally right there beneath our feet. So why isn't our entire
planet powered by it?<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Ss_wHCS1Aw">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Ss_wHCS1Aw</a><br>
<p><br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
[Propaganda battlefield history- myth origins exposed]<br>
<b>The video origin of the myth that global warming is good for
agriculture</b><br>
Two '90s-era coal-funded videos on CO2 featured government
scientists who say their comments were misleadingly edited. How it
all happened.<br>
By Karin Kirk | Sunday, September 27, 2020<br>
Misinformation is at the root of many scientific controversies, and
fighting it can feel like a losing battle. But one effective method
is to expose the mechanics of misinformation, to show tactics and
deceptive processes in broad daylight.<br>
<br>
And learning from the past can be key to combating persistent
misinformation campaigns currently and, no doubt, again in the
future. "Those who ignore history," writer and philosopher George
Santayana taught us, "are bound to repeat it."<br>
<br>
A pair of widely circulated climate misinformation videos from the
90s - "The Greening of Planet Earth," and "The Greening of Planet
Earth Continues" - were funded by the benignly named Greening Earth
Society, whose membership consisted of coal interests. Featured in
the video were U.S. government civil service scientists who had no
idea they would land in the midst of a pro-pollution/pro-CO2
narrative. Special interests supporting use of fossil fuels used the
inclusion of the scientists, which seemed to give the video
credibility, to cast doubt on the idea that climate change would
harm people and ecosystems.<br>
<b><br>
</b><b>An early example of a longstanding tactic to mislead</b><br>
The two videos in question were released in 1992 and 1998. But more
than 20 years later, their legacy lingers.<br>
<br>
The videos were widely distributed to classrooms and found their way
into bibliographies and lecture halls. The 1998 edition was
distributed widely on Capitol Hill. Both tout the once-common claim,
long since debunked, that adding more carbon dioxide to the
atmosphere would lead to larger plants and a better and greener
world. It was a misleading assertion: The videos did not address the
fact that rising carbon dioxide levels would also boost weeds and
poison ivy. Nor did they grapple with the impact on crops of
climate-change-induced heat stress, drought, wildfires, or the
expansion in range of insect pests and livestock diseases. Today,
reputable scientists expect that higher temperatures will lead to
reduced yields of major commodity crops.<br>
<br>
Yet the tired myth promoted in the videos persists.<br>
<br>
At America Out Loud, a fringe talk radio platform and website, a
June 2020 article describes carbon dioxide as "plant food, the very
opposite of 'pollution.'" The article also repeats the misleading
claim from the "Greening" videos that "More CO2 means free, rich
fertilizer and thus increased yields of food crops."<br>
<br>
To Harvard University science historian and author Naomi Oreskes,
the two videos, funded by the now-defunct Western Fuels Association,
were instrumental in helping create the myth that higher levels of
carbon dioxide in the atmosphere are overwhelmingly positive for
plants, crops, food supply, and humans generally. She points to
witnesses testifying on Capitol Hill in the past few years repeating
that key point emphasized in the videos. That pro-carbon dioxide
point "is still a live meme," Oreskes said in a recent phone
interview. "It is still alive and well and living on K Street," she
said, referring to Washington, D.C's "lobbyist's row."<br>
<br>
Science historian and author Spencer Weart pointed to William
Faulkner's quote that "The past is never past, it's not even past,"
and said "zombie ideas" like those expressed in the two 90s-decade
videos initially "sound plausible" to some, take on a life of their
own, and are still being circulated.<br>
<br>
<b>Years of research discarded during editing</b><br>
Several government scientists who appeared in "The Greening of
Planet Earth" now say they were basically duped. They say they were
not told the purpose of the video at the time of the recording, and
at least in one case a scientist felt pressure to comply.<br>
<br>
The three former U.S. Department of Agriculture research scientists
individually discussed their roles via Zoom calls reflecting on
their research on CO2 and agriculture, and on the events that led
them to be caught off-guard about how their research was presented.<br>
<br>
The scientists say they did not then or currently think that food
production would increase in a CO2-enriched atmosphere, and their
research then and since shows the opposite. The filmmakers simply
edited out the scientific context, stripping away anything counter
to their intended message that CO2 is beneficial for humanity and
for food production. Their research efforts - experimental design,
diligent data collection, and important results - were discarded on
the editing room floor.<br>
<br>
<b>Lewis Ziska, Ph.D.: 'I did not know who they were'</b><br>
"Basically I was in the dark," said Lewis Ziska, a plant
physiologist who worked at USDA at the time. In the video, Ziska
explains how more CO2 in the atmosphere could increase the yield of
rice. But he didn't know the purpose of the production, nor did he
know it was funded by the coal industry. "I did not know who they
were," Ziska recently said of the filmmakers. "I was only doing it
because my boss said, 'Oh, there's a film crew here.'"<br>
<br>
Although it's true that CO2 enhances plant growth, that's only one
of many factors that influence plant health and crop yield. Ziska
attempted to round out his explanation of enriched CO2 on
agriculture: "I turned to the producer and I said, 'Would you like
to know how carbon dioxide affects weeds?' And he said no."<br>
<br>
Then, Ziksa was told to sign a waiver of some sort. "I signed the
release form while the [USDA] national program leader was standing
with the producer, and I knew that if I didn't do this, he would be
upset."<br>
<br>
Several months later, the completed video arrived in Ziska's mail.
He learned only then that the video had been produced by the
Greening Earth Society, an organization created by a coal industry
trade group, the Western Fuels Association. The VHS cassette and
accompanying literature had been sent to every Capitol Hill
legislative office in Washington D.C., according to Climate Files.<br>
<br>
Ziska watched the video and thought, "OK, what do I do now?" He
considered his options: "I'm a young scientist at USDA and do I want
to make waves? Do I want to complain?" He opted not to raise the
issue. "Okay, well, learn your lesson and move on," he recalled,
holding up his arms as if signaling defeat.<br>
<b><br>
</b><b>James Bunce, Ph.D.: 'I disagree with most of it'</b><br>
James Bunce is another USDA researcher appearing in the video
campaign. In his segments, he explained that increasing CO2 could
help plants grow in drier environments. Like Ziska, Bunce says he
did not know the genesis or focus of the video project. But unlike
Ziska, Bunce had only recently seen the final product. "I certainly
do not endorse the conclusions they drew from those facts!" he wrote
in an email.<br>
<br>
"I have only the vaguest recollection of having been taped for it,"
he said, explaining that media interviews at that time were not
uncommon for government research scientists. "We're instructed to be
open to public questions."<br>
<br>
What does he think of the video now that he's seen it? "Well, I
disagree with most of it," he said.<br>
<b><br>
</b><b>Bruce Kimball, Ph.D.: Edited to 'suit their sound bite'</b><br>
Bruce Kimball is a soil scientist who appeared in the 1992 video,
with the same theme and format as the 1998 version. He still recalls
the interview: "They had about 20 or 30 questions, and every one of
them could be answered with, 'CO2 is good for plants.'"<br>
<br>
When the video was filmed, Kimball was under the impression that the
interview would be about the research he was doing, but the topic
never came up. "When they came to the end of their questions, I said
to them, 'Aren't you going to ask me about the experiment?'" The
camera crew obliged, and Kimball went on to describe his work with
CO2 enrichment on crops. But all of his explanations were left out
of the final product.<br>
<br>
When Kimball saw the video, he realized the only clips included were
the ones "that best suited their sound bite."<br>
<br>
<b>Anatomy of misinformation</b><br>
The Greening Earth Society endeavored in both videos to make only
one point: CO2 is good for plants and thus global warming will be
"modest and benign." Editing stripped away the real scientific
context, leading to a deceptive message at wide variance from the
evidence accepted within the science community.<br>
<br>
"A lot of the scientists they interviewed, on very specific
questions, gave correct answers," Bunce said. But the framing around
the scientists' quotes led to a mistaken impression far from what
their research showed. "It's the interpretation that I'm sure a lot
of the scientists would not agree with," said Bunce.<br>
<br>
Case in point, Ziska, Bunce, and Kimball all said they stand by
their original remarks, but each disagrees with the larger point.<br>
<br>
"You're only seeing a very small slice of the science," Ziska
remarked while holding up his thumb and forefinger, allowing a
sliver of light to pass through. "And it's the rest of it that needs
to be explored."<br>
<br>
<b>Concern that USDA scientist 'went off course'</b><br>
Among the staff of USDA researchers at the time was a physicist
named Sherwood Idso. Bunce, Idso, Kimball, and Ziska were part of
the USDA's Agricultural Research Service, or ARS, where they did
experiments on how crops responded to carbon dioxide, water, and
various nutrients.<br>
<br>
Idso carried out taxpayer-funded research on CO2 and plants, and he
eventually leveraged part of that background to the benefit of
fossil fuel interests. Idso's own Institute for Biospheric Research
produced the first Greening Earth video in 1992, nine years before
he officially retired from the Agriculture Department and from civil
service. Six years later, he participated in the second video with
the same basic script, and again funded by the Western Fuels
Association.<br>
<br>
Reflecting on Idso's role at ARS, Bunce said, "He made a name doing
some reasonably good things. And then he went off course."<br>
<br>
Bunce said that Idso "went into this side business, which I don't
think anybody in ARS agreed with. The basis of what he was saying
with the Green Earth stuff - I don't think anybody agreed with him
on that."<br>
<br>
Nevertheless, Idso remained an active part of the ARS while
simultaneously working to undermine climate science on his own.
Bunce recalls that his peers "knew [Idso] was way off base, and were
amazed that he was allowed to do that as an ARS scientist."<br>
<br>
Kimball had dual roles with Idso, working both as a collaborator and
also as Idso's supervisor. "I tried to supervise him for a while,"
Kimball said, recalling their complex working relationship. "I've
argued with Sherwood Idso a lot," he said. "I kept telling him,
'Stick to the data, stick to the data.'"<br>
<br>
Kimball and Idso worked together on a 17-year long experiment
growing orange trees in elevated CO2 conditions. The project's final
publication makes no mention of the trees benefiting from climate
change, even though the trees grew quickly with a boost in CO2.
Instead, the results are expected to be useful to quantify carbon
sequestration in forests, and to manage forests and agricultural
production in our high-CO2 future.<br>
<br>
"I felt I was caught in the middle in a lot of ways," said Kimball
recently, with a sense of bittersweet empathy for his former
colleague. "In many ways he was a really excellent scientist. But he
would extrapolate beyond the data."<br>
<br>
<b>Retirement from USDA to 'unfettered' rejection of climate science</b><br>
After 34 years at the Agricultural Research Service, Idso retired
from government service in 2001.The Agricultural Research Service's
Water Conservation Laboratory's annual research report that year was
dedicated to him, calling him one of the laboratory's "most
productive scientists" and saying he was widely cited in the
scientific literature.<br>
<br>
The dedication noted that Idso had authored over 480 official
publications for USDA "and 88 more on his own time, including a pair
of influential books on carbon dioxide and global change."<br>
<br>
Those "influential" books seeking to cast climate change as a
"fortunate and desirable phenomenon" -- self-published by the
Institute for Biospheric Research, Idso's own organization -- were
widely discredited by climate scientists.<br>
<br>
The closing statement of Idso's retirement dedication hinted at what
was to come as Idso narrowed his focus to full-time work on what he
saw as the benefits of CO2 and of climate change: "We wish him well
in his new endeavor - unfettered by reviews, approvals, and Form
115s!" (A form 115 is part of the USDA's internal approval process
for publishing research results.)<br>
<br>
Idso and his two sons, Craig and Keith, went on to launch and run
the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change. Craig
Idso has worked with the Cato Institute, and the Heartland
Institute, and he was a former director of environmental sciences
for Peabody Energy, the world's largest privately owned coal
company. Keith in the early 2000s served as an officer of the
Idso-led center and wrote and testified in a few instances sharing
views in support of higher CO2 concentrations.<br>
<br>
A primary goal of their efforts was and remains the dismantling of
EPA's 2009 Endangerment Finding, which requires greenhouse gases to
be regulated. The center's webpage asserts that EPA's landmark
ruling failed to account for the "very significant" benefits of CO2
emissions. They continue to swim upstream on climate science. "To
attack CO2 is to attack human prosperity," reads the banner text on
a 2019 YouTube video narrated by Craig Idso.<br>
<br>
According to the organization's website, it still has financial ties
to the fossil fuel industry. Its webpage describing its funding
sources claims independence, but acknowledges that "ExxonMobil made
some donations to us a few times in the past; they probably liked
what we typically had to say about the issue."<br>
<br>
<b>Craig Idso defends his father's legacy</b><br>
Asked to comment for this article, Craig Idso replied on his
father's behalf, saying the elder Idso's health prevents him from
communicating directly. Criag Idso wrote in an email that his
father's involvement was "being filmed for the project and
recommending other scientists who might be willing to share their
research." He said the elder Idso was not "involved in deceptively
editing content." He said also that USDA "played no role whatsoever
in the production of either video," although USDA scientists were
featured in both.<br>
<br>
Turning to the science, Criag Idso said "the accuracy of the
message" in both videos "has withstood the test of time. Enriching
the atmosphere with carbon dioxide has indeed benefited Earth's
biosphere." He said "many updated peer-reviewed science papers"
support that conclusion and "confirm the thesis put forth in the two
Greening of Planet Earth videos from the 1990's that rising CO2 will
enhance the productivity of the planet's vegetation. Quite frankly
the data confirm it has," he wrote.<br>
<br>
<b>Agriculture experiments portend a decline in crop yields</b><br>
It's widely accepted that plants grow faster with additional CO2 in
the atmosphere, whether in a greenhouse or in an open field. But the
error propagated by the Greening Earth Society and its videos was to
exclude susceptible plants and crops and other variables from the
equation.<br>
<br>
"The goal from the other side was to show how wonderful CO2 is
because it makes plants grow more. Without recognizing that, okay,
so it's only going to affect strawberries but it's not going to have
any effect on poison ivy? It's not going to affect invasive weeds?
It's not going to affect the quality of the food that we have? It's
not going to affect how we use pesticides or herbicides?" He
continued: "It's not going to affect the pollen that we come into
contact with? It's not going to affect plants' toxicology, it's not
going to affect the ability of plants to produce volatile organic
carbons which contribute to smog, it's not going to affect
biodiversity, it's not going to affect the entire food chain?"<br>
<br>
Ziska paused briefly to take a breath. His voice had an edge to it.
"Well of course it's going to do all those things."<br>
<br>
Bunce was also eager to fill in the science he feels had been left
out of the video. "When you add warming to increasing CO2, the net
[result] in many, many important crops is negative." Controlling the
experiment for warmer conditions - not just elevated CO2 - reduced
crop output "almost all the time." The notion that CO2 would somehow
protect plants from damage from high temperatures "has been thrown
on its head by experiments," he said.<br>
<br>
Kimball's research showed the same results. In one instance, the
combination of elevated CO2 and warmer temperatures benefited yields
of grasses in Wyoming's cool climate. But in most other cases, when
crops were exposed to elevated CO2 and warmer temperatures, crop
yields went down. This was true for soybeans and corn in the Midwest
and for wheat and rice in China, where "CO2 caused small increases
in yield, but warming caused severe decreases in rice yield."<br>
<br>
Changes in precipitation patterns add yet another wrinkle to the
complexities of agriculture in a warming planet, as floods and
droughts disrupt crop yields. "A place like Arizona that's already
dry is probably going to even get drier," Kimball noted, "which is
pretty damn scary."<br>
<br>
<b>Ziska in 2018: 'Okay, I've had enough'</b><br>
Ziska's research has come a long way since his days as a junior
scientist making an unintended cameo in a P.R. piece. But the USDA
has changed too, particularly in recent years. In 2018, Ziska was
one of the authors of a landmark study that showed that rising CO2
diminishes the nutritional value of rice. The research team found
that elevated CO2 concentrations create an imbalance within the
plant's chemical makeup as CO2 becomes disproportionately large
compared to other elements of plant growth. "The entire elemental
balance is out of whack," Ziska said.<br>
<br>
That 2018 study concluded that rice grown in high-CO2 conditions had
lower quantities of protein, iron, zinc, and B-vitamins. Because
rice is the world's single most important food crop, the effects of
reduced nutritional value are profound, particularly for
lower-income parts of Asia.<br>
<br>
After the paper was published in Science Advances, USDA stepped in
to downplay the work. First, the agency claimed the findings were
incorrect, even though the research had already been through
rigorous peer review and internal review within the ARS. Next, USDA
declined to issue a press release about the paper, and, according to
a story in Politico. pressured institutions of collaborating authors
to pull the plug on press releases that had already been written.<br>
<br>
Despite USDA's efforts to bury the publication, the far-reaching
results were newsworthy, and Ziska was approached for media
interviews. Ziska's bosses denied him permission to do the
interviews.<br>
<br>
"At that point, that's when I said 'Okay I've had enough.' Ziska
said. He left the USDA both out of frustration and as a symbol of
protest. Ziska now continues his work as an associate professor of
environmental health sciences at Columbia University.<br>
<br>
Ziska presses on, convinced that his work carries real importance
for public health. As science of all types is enduring pointed
partisan attacks undermining the seriousness of issues from COVID-19
to climate change, he says he some days is tempted to crawl under
his desk.<br>
<br>
But Ziska feels society may be reaching a crossroads. He says he
hopes strengthening public acceptance on the importance of sound
science and public health will spur a change, "politically,
culturally, and socially -- to make things better."<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://yaleclimateconnections.org/2020/09/video-origin-of-the-myth-that-global-warming-good-for-agriculture/">https://yaleclimateconnections.org/2020/09/video-origin-of-the-myth-that-global-warming-good-for-agriculture/</a><br>
<p><br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
[opinion]<b><br>
</b><b>Doing Something About Global Warming Is Cheaper Than Doing
Nothing</b><br>
September 25th, 2020 by Steve Hanley <br>
The rallying cry from conservatives for the past 40 years is that
doing something about our overheating planet is just too darn
expensive. Better to do nothing and continue marching into the
future using a business as usual approach than actually address the
climate emergency. That's the horse puckey spewed billions of times
by rapacious fools who are in thrall to Charles Koch. Any lie
repeated often enough becomes the truth, which basically explains
the business model of Fox News.<br>
<br>
Koch and his acolytes have built what amounts to a religion based
upon the idea that humans have an obligation to extract and combust
every available drop of fossil fuel. That quaint notion has taken
its place alongside other current quasi-religious movements that
preach how Democrats want to confiscate our guns, black males are
all homicidal maniacs who must be incarcerated or killed to preserve
law and order, and a woman's reproductive system is the property of
the state.<br>
<br>
But as Mark Twain once observed, "What you don't know won't hurt you
near as much as what you do know that t'aint true." A recent article
by the Washington Post suggests we can do something about our
changing climate and it will cost a lot less than the measures
already taken to address the scourge of the coronavirus...<br>
- -<br>
Researchers at Stanford University, Resources for the Future, and
ReconMR have just released the results of a survey conducted between
May and August asking Americans about their attitudes regarding
climate change. The poll included 999 people. It found nearly half
of Americans think addressing climate change will help the economy
while only 29% believe it will have negative economic consequences.
Speaking to Time magazine about the Republican mantra that
addressing climate change is too expensive, Jon Krosnick, a Stanford
social psychologist professor and lead author of the report says,
"It's just an argument that doesn't work. The argument has never
convinced even a majority of Republicans."<br>
<br>
The report finds significant majorities support tax incentives,
carbon pricing, and regulations as means to reduce emissions. More
than 80% of Americans believe the U.S. should offer tax incentives
for utilities that make power with renewable energy. More than 80%
support key U.S. commitments under the Paris Agreement. And nearly
two thirds support a requirement for all cars to get at least 55
miles per gallon by 2025. "It's not like 52-48 or that kind of
thing," says Krosnick. "There are clear leanings."<br>
<br>
Time says the report finds concern about climate change is driven
less by personal economic considerations and more by broader
societal interests. Concern that climate change will significantly
harm future generations is a better predictor of support for action
on climate change than concerns it would harm someone personally.
"It's not about the pocketbook," says Krosnick.<br>
<br>
A previous report from Stanford and RFF found the percentage of
Americans who care passionately about climate change has risen
dramatically in recent years from 13% in 2015 to 25% in 2020. It
finds three quarters of Americans believe they have seen the effects
of climate change and 80% say they support more stringent building
codes to adapt to the effects of climate change. Oddly enough,
despite the findings of such reports, not one question about climate
change will be asked during the upcoming presidential debates that
begin in a few days.<br>
<br>
An NPR/PBS NewsHour/Marist poll released Sept. 19 shows climate
change is one of the top concerns for Democratic voters along with
the coronavirus pandemic and the economy. A June poll from Pew
Research Center found that nearly two thirds of Americans want more
aggressive action from the federal government on climate change...<br>
- -<br>
The Washington Post ends with this analysis: "If we can spend
trillions to fight the coronavirus, we can do this. Building the
needed capacity over a 30-year period would require some investment,
ranging from $50 billion per year for manufacturing limestone to
$250 billion per year for MPAs. But that money would produce a 15
percent return, and even the high end is a small price to pay for a
fully restored climate in this century.<br>
<br>
"The main hurdle isn't financing or technology; we have enough of
both. It's expanding our thinking beyond half-measures and
committing to outcomes we want. We know that restoring public health
in the pandemic requires bold action and international cooperation.
Restoring a healthy climate and a livable planet requires no less.
But it's within our grasp if we're willing to reach for it." The
question is, are we willing to do what needs to be done to keep our
planet habitable for humans? Nothing else really matters if the
answer to that question is no. And that starts with voting in the
next election. Vote as if your life and the lives of your children
and your children's children depends upon it, because it does. <br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://cleantechnica.com/2020/09/25/doing-something-about-global-warming-is-cheaper-than-doing-nothing/">https://cleantechnica.com/2020/09/25/doing-something-about-global-warming-is-cheaper-than-doing-nothing/</a><br>
<br>
<p><br>
</p>
[Digging back into the internet news archive]<br>
<font size="+1"><b>On this day in the history of global warming -
September 28, 2007 </b></font><br>
<p>President George W. Bush speaks at a "conference" on climate
change in Washington. The speech and the "conference" are widely
viewed as political efforts to obscure the Bush administration's
overall lack of interest in taking serious steps to reduce carbon
pollution. <br>
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/28/world/americas/28iht-28climatesub.7674315.html">http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/28/world/americas/28iht-28climatesub.7674315.html</a><br>
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2007/09/28/201917/bush-climate-speech-follows-luntz-playbook-technology-technology-technology-blah-blah-blah/">http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2007/09/28/201917/bush-climate-speech-follows-luntz-playbook-technology-technology-technology-blah-blah-blah/</a><br>
</p>
<p><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 mailing is text-only. It does not
carry images or attachments which may originate from remote
servers. A text-only message can 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. Messages have no tracking software.<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>