<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>February 7, 2021</b></font></i></p>
[SuperBowl TV Commercial indicates paradigm shift]<br>
<b>GM is all-in for electric vehicles in this new Super Bowl ad.
What changed?</b><br>
The company has a long history of obstructing climate policies.<br>
- - <br>
It will likely cost the automaker upward of $10 million to run the
ad on Sunday, and it follows GM’s announcement that it aspires to
eliminate tailpipe emissions from all its new light-duty vehicles by
2035. Transportation is the largest source of US greenhouse gas
emissions, so this commitment from the country’s largest car
manufacturer represents a new level of corporate ambition to bring
down these emissions.<br>
<br>
But the concerns of Will Ferrell’s character — who furrows his brow
in incredulity — are valid: The US indeed lags way behind Norway in
EV sales. International Energy Agency data shows that Norway surged
past the rest of the world, with a 56 percent EV market share for
sales in 2019 while they were just 2 percent in the US.<br>
<br>
And some environmental advocates pointed out the hypocrisy of a GM
ad expressing any surprise at the state of US EV adoption, given the
company’s history.<br>
<br>
GM has itself to blame, in part, advocates say, for the US trailing
Norway in EV market share after decades of lobbying against
government efforts to rein in emissions and gas consumption....<br>
- -<br>
<b>GM’s history of opposing climate action</b><br>
GM’s embrace of electric vehicles is a major about-face from four
years ago. According to the New York Times, the company’s CEO, Mary
Barra, met with President Trump soon after he took office and
requested that he undo President Obama’s CAFE fuel economy standards
— regulations that would have required the auto giant’s new vehicles
to reach 54.5 miles per gallon by 2026. Trump’s watered-down
regulations mean new US cars will only need to reach 40 miles per
gallon. The research firm Rhodium Group calculated that Trump’s
deregulation moves in the transportation sector were the most
damaging rollbacks for carbon emissions during his administration.<br>
<br>
On top of that, when the Trump administration tried to strip
California of its authority to set its own higher fuel efficiency
standards, GM and other automakers also sided with the Trump
administration in the ensuing lawsuit...<br>
- -<br>
Geoffrey Supran, a Harvard research fellow who studies the fossil
fuel industry’s climate denial, called attention to GM’s long
history of obstruction in response to the Super Bowl ad:<br>
GM's new EV ad is entertaining for sure. But it also:<br>
<blockquote>1 Discourages carpooling [but then so does Covid]<br>
<br>
2 Promotes misplaced American exceptionalism<br>
<br>
3 Disregards GM's decades undermining climate science &
pollution regs<br>
<br>
4 Fails to note Norway's success is due to progressive taxes &
policies<br>
</blockquote>
<p><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://twitter.com/GeoffreySupran/status/1357349499312754688">https://twitter.com/GeoffreySupran/status/1357349499312754688</a></p>
GM’s U-turn seems to be in part because the market has forced its
hand. As the New York Times reported, two giant auto markets — China
and California — have committed to 100 percent EV (including hybrids
in China’s case) sales by 2035. President Joe Biden has also said
the US will phase out internal combustion engine vehicles, although
he hasn’t set a date yet.<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://www.vox.com/2021/2/5/22266732/super-bowl-general-motors-will-ferrell-electric-vehicles-awkwafina-kenan-thompson">https://www.vox.com/2021/2/5/22266732/super-bowl-general-motors-will-ferrell-electric-vehicles-awkwafina-kenan-thompson</a><br>
<p><br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
[paleoclimatology text and audio from The Atlantic]<br>
<b>The Terrifying Warning Lurking in the Earth’s Ancient Rock Record</b><br>
Our climate models could be missing something big.<br>
Story by Peter Brannen<br>
- -<br>
Taking in the whole sweep of Earth’s history, now we see how
unnatural, nightmarish, and profound our current experiment on the
planet really is. A small population of our particular species of
primate has, in only a few decades, unlocked a massive reservoir of
old carbon slumbering in the Earth, gathering since the dawn of
life, and set off on a global immolation of Earth’s history to power
the modern world. As a result, up to half of the tropical coral
reefs on Earth have died, 10 trillion tons of ice have melted, the
ocean has grown 30 percent more acidic, and global temperatures have
spiked. If we keep going down this path for a geologic nanosecond
longer, who knows what will happen? The next few fleeting moments
are ours, but they will echo for hundreds of thousands, even
millions, of years. This is one of the most important times to be
alive in the history of life.<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2021/03/extreme-climate-change-history/617793/">https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2021/03/extreme-climate-change-history/617793/</a><br>
<p><br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
[The Guardian reports on California]<br>
<b>California’s famed Highway 1 collapsed last week. It’s sure to
happen again</b><br>
The iconic coastal road has a history of landslides, and experts say
‘it would not be surprising’ to see them happening more frequently<br>
California’s Highway 1 has been ruptured by a landslide that is
expected to keep 23 miles of the iconic road snaking through the
state’s rugged coastal cliffs closed for months.<br>
<br>
A severe winter rain storm last week caused a 150ft fissure along
the picturesque thoroughfare tucked against Big Sur, with concrete,
trees and mud falling into the sea below.<br>
<br>
It’s not the first time. Landslides have been a longstanding feature
of Highway 1. And with climate change and a deluge in tourism and
traffic overwhelming both infrastructure and environmental
ecosystems in the coastal region, the problems are only expected to
get worse...<br>
- -<br>
Severe weather combinations like the one that occurred last week are
no longer an anomaly. They fall in line with climate crisis trends
and models marked by hot dry summers, bigger fires and long periods
of drought peppered by intense rainstorms that cause floods and
landslides.<br>
<br>
“There is no question that climate change is occurring,” said
Griggs, the coastal scientist. “It would not be surprising to see
this happening more frequently.”<br>
<br>
It’s not just fires, rain and landslides that threaten Highway 1 –
parts are also being ravaged by the sea. Farther north at Gleason
beach in Sonoma county, Caltrans has given up on preserving the
route and has instead opted to build new sections farther inland.
Smashed seawalls – remnants of attempts to buy more time against the
encroaching waves – already line the shore. The state sank millions
into emergency restorations as the coastline continued to erode by
roughly 14 inches on average each year...<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/feb/06/california-highway-1-landslide-climate-crisis">https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/feb/06/california-highway-1-landslide-climate-crisis</a><br>
<p><br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
[in November]<br>
<b>UN names Mike Bloomberg special envoy for climate change</b><br>
The appointment comes ahead of the COP 26 climate summit set to take
place in Scotland later this year.<br>
The UN said Bloomberg will work with governments, businesses, cities
and financial institutions to secure new pledges to significantly
reduce emissions over the next several decades. <br>
<br>
He will also work with high-emitting nations and industries to
accelerate the phase out of coal and a transition to a clean energy
economy. <br>
<br>
Bloomberg, who has campaigned on the issue of climate change,
previously held roles as UN Special Envoy for Climate Action in 2018
and UN Special Envoy on Cities and Climate Change in 2014. <br>
<br>
“Fighting climate change is a global challenge that requires strong
global collaboration. I’m honored to be returning as Special Envoy
to the UN Secretary-General to help drive the fight forward and
secure a greener, healthier future for generations to come,”
Bloomberg said in a statement. <br>
<br>
The appointment comes as the Biden administration has moved forward
to rejoin the Paris climate accord, reversing former President
Trump’s withdrawal from the pact aimed at limiting global warming to
1.5 degrees Celsius by the end of the century...<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://thehill.com/changing-america/sustainability/climate-change/537609-un-names-mike-bloomberg-special-envoy-for">https://thehill.com/changing-america/sustainability/climate-change/537609-un-names-mike-bloomberg-special-envoy-for</a><br>
<p><br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
[What? --"may be" ?!? "may be"?]<br>
Capital Weather Gang of the Washington Post<br>
<b>Recent blockbuster snow totals along East Coast may be tied to
climate change</b><br>
Above-average sea-surface temperatures off the East Coast are adding
more moisture to the atmosphere.<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/weather/2021/02/05/snowfall-records-climate-change-northeast/">https://www.washingtonpost.com/weather/2021/02/05/snowfall-records-climate-change-northeast/</a><br>
<p><br>
</p>
<br>
[Well, duh..]<br>
<b>Climate change "may have played a key role" in coronavirus
pandemic, study says</b><br>
BY JEFF BERARDELLI<br>
FEBRUARY 5, 2021 - CBS NEWS<br>
- -<br>
Beyer does agree that "caution is well-justified" when it comes to
connecting climate change directly to the pandemic because, as he
explains, assessing the degree to which climate change contributed
to any stage between a bat carrying the virus and a human getting
infected will take a lot more work. In particular, he says, this
involves the use of epidemiological models that analyze the
interactions of different species and viruses across space and
time. <br>
<br>
While it's widely understood that exponential growth of the human
population, and our rampant exploitation of the natural world, like
destroying forests and expanding the animal trade, is increasing the
risk that contagious pathogens can more easily make the jump from
animals to humans, it has been less clear the extent to which
climate change factors in...<br>
- -<br>
Beyer also sees climate connections beyond just the increase in bat
species. "In some cases, higher temperatures can increase the viral
load in species, which can make it more likely that the virus is
transmitted," he said. "And: Increased temperature can increase the
tolerance of viruses to heat, which in turn can increase infection
rates since one of our primary defense systems to infectious
diseases is to raise our body temperature (fever)." <br>
<br>
While there is some caution in the scientific community about the
specific impact of climate change on the current coronavirus
pandemic, there is widespread agreement that, in the future, climate
change will be a growing driver of emerging infectious disease and
pandemics.<br>
<br>
"Climate change will shift the geographic distributions of
pathogen-carrying species in such a way that they overlap with
species that they did not overlap with before," said Beyer. "These
new interactions will provide dangerous opportunities for viruses to
spread and evolve." <br>
<br>
"Climate change definitely is an important driver in disease
emergence and spread. It can increase transmission in a number of
ways," said Ostfeld. "So, yes, climate change definitely concerns me
as a driver of future pandemics." <br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://www.cbsnews.com/news/climate-change-coronavirus-bats-study/">https://www.cbsnews.com/news/climate-change-coronavirus-bats-study/</a><br>
<p><br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
[14 min video ]<br>
<b>Carbon Dioxide Reduction. A BIG loophole for business</b><br>
Feb 1, 2021<br>
Just Have a Think<br>
Carbon Audits and carbon taxes are coming. And big business knows
it. Some are responding by investing heavily in genuine reductions
to their carbon footprint. Others are banking on throwing money at
carbon offset schemes like large scale reforestation to enable them
to carry on business as usual. But with limited suitable land
available, that may prove to be a very dangerous gamble indeed!<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DGoOmUIYVSo">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DGoOmUIYVSo</a><br>
<br>
<p><br>
</p>
<br>
[information battleground]<br>
<b>How to spot the tricks Big Oil uses to subvert action on climate
change</b><br>
Three ways fossil fuel companies try to trick the public.<br>
By Jariel Arvin -- Feb 1, 2021<br>
<br>
In his first week in office, President Joe Biden committed to an
all-of-government approach to tackle climate change, signing
executive orders recommitting the US to the Paris climate agreement,
pausing new leases for oil and gas companies on federal land, and
stating his intention to conserve 30 percent of federal lands by
2030.<br>
<br>
Yet while Biden’s climate actions have been lauded by many, there
are some, often with connections to the fossil fuel industry, who
strongly oppose taking stronger action on climate.<br>
<br>
Many such detractors use common oil industry talking points in their
arguments — talking points that have been developed in collaboration
with PR firms and lobbyists to undercut clean energy policies and
prolong dependence on fossil fuels.<br>
<br>
A 2019 report by researchers at George Mason, Harvard University,
and the University of Bristol describes how the fossil fuel industry
deliberately misled the public by funding climate denial research
and campaigns, all while knowing for decades that human-induced
climate change exists.<br>
<br>
Aware of the science but afraid of the impacts it might have on
their returns, oil executives funded opposition research that
“attacked consensus and exaggerated the uncertainties” on the
science of climate change for many years, with the goal of
undermining support for climate action.<br>
<br>
Their messaging has worked for so long because Big Oil has become
really good at stretching the truth.<br>
<br>
“What’s really important to keep in mind is that part of the reason
that oil and gas propaganda is so effective is that there is always
a grain of truth to it,” said Genevieve Guenther, the founder of End
Climate Silence, an organization that works to promote accurate
media coverage of the climate crisis.<br>
<br>
“I call it ‘sort of true,’ where there’s something about the
messaging that’s true, but that grain of truth gets developed into a
whole tangle of lies that obscure the real story,” she said.<br>
<br>
Guenther, originally a professor of Renaissance literature, is also
working on a book titled The Language of Climate Change. I spoke
with her to get a better understanding of how to recognize — and
counter — Big Oil propaganda.<br>
<br>
As the Biden administration takes important steps to address the
climate emergency, the fossil fuel industry and its allies in the
media will be ramping up the misinformation campaign to skew public
opinion and get in the way of climate policy. Fox News has already
started.<br>
<br>
Which is why it’s more important than ever to be aware of the tools
oil and gas companies use to cloud the issue.<br>
<br>
My conversation with Guenther, edited for length and clarity, is
below.<br>
<br>
<b>Jariel Arvin</b><br>
I’d like to start with your thoughts on how the Biden administration
is handling climate change so far.<br>
<br>
<b>Genevieve Guenther</b><br>
I think that the Biden administration has come a really long way
since the beginning of the [2020] primaries. I think that the
Sunrise Movement and Evergreen Action folks, and other activists
connected to Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Jay Inslee, have done an
amazing job, basically schooling Biden on climate.<br>
<br>
So far, Biden’s the best president on climate that we have had. I’m
not quite ready to do a backflip and wave my pom-poms yet, though,
because I know that his major plan, which is to decarbonize the
power grid by 2035, will need to be routed in some way through
Congress.<br>
<br>
I am anticipating that’s not going to be easy and expect a massive
PR blitz [from the fossil fuel industry], which is going to be timed
for the attempt to pass this plan, whether directly or through
budget reconciliation. And I worry that the Biden administration,
and the climate movement more broadly, might not be ready,<br>
<br>
<b>Jariel Arvin</b><br>
So what are the talking points the oil industry uses to try to
convince the public in these PR blitzes?<br>
<br>
<b>Genevieve Guenther</b><br>
People can recognize fossil fuel industry talking points by thinking
about what they’re designed to do. In general, fossil fuel talking
points are designed to do three things: make people believe that
climate action will hurt them, and hurt their pocketbooks in
particular; make people think we need fossil fuels; and try to
convince us that climate change isn’t such a big deal.<br>
<br>
<b>Jariel Arvin</b><br>
How do they make people believe that taking climate action is going
to hurt them financially?<br>
<br>
<b>Genevieve Guenther</b><br>
Right now, they’re really hammering the point that climate action is
going to hurt jobs and the economy. So, for instance, Sen. Ted Cruz
released a press statement saying that by rejoining the Paris
climate accord, Biden is showing that “he’s more interested in the
views of the citizens of Paris than in the jobs of the citizens of
Pittsburgh.”<br>
<br>
<b>Jariel Arvin</b><br>
Yeah, and we also saw Rep. Lauren Boebert make a similar statement
saying she works for “the people of Pueblo, not the people of
Paris,” and that the Paris agreement would put “blue-collar jobs at
risk.”<br>
<br>
<b>Genevieve Guenther</b><br>
Yeah, exactly. So Cruz is arguing that Democrats plan to destroy the
jobs they don’t like, including thousands of manufacturing jobs.
This is completely false, because building out clean energy
infrastructure is going to create millions of manufacturing jobs in
this country which can’t be outsourced.<br>
<br>
And whatever fossil fuel jobs have been lost in the past year
happened a) on Trump’s watch, and b) due to market forces that have
absolutely nothing to do with any explicit climate policy passed by
any administration.<br>
<br>
<b>Jariel Arvin</b><br>
So if the claim is untrue, how has the idea that taking action on
climate change will cause millions of job losses become so
pervasive?<br>
<br>
<b>Genevieve Guenther</b><br>
There’s a mythology in this country of the coal miner and the oil
and gas worker as the kind of exemplary masculine figure who acts as
the backbone of America.<br>
<br>
<b>Jariel Arvin</b><br>
Do you think there’s any truth to that?<br>
<b><br>
</b><b> Genevieve Guenther</b><br>
It is true that if we phase out the fossil fuel industry there are
going to be people, and indeed whole communities, that will need to
find their livelihood in different industries. That is absolutely
true.<br>
<br>
But two things about that: Number one, you can design policies so
that those people don’t suffer, and number two, you can put
incentives in place so that the new jobs are created in the
geographical regions that are already depopulated and suffering
economically, because the fossil fuel industry is not actually
prosperous enough anymore to sustain a vibrant economy in those
regions to begin with.<br>
<br>
So you can set up both: policies to ease the transition and policies
to incentivize new investment so that the economy ends up more
vibrant in these locations than it was before. Nothing is
inevitable. The transition can be managed.<br>
<br>
<b>Jariel Arvin</b><br>
Okay, so what’s the second talking point oil and gas uses?<br>
<br>
<b>Genevieve Guenther</b><br>
The second thing oil and gas companies will do is try to make people
believe that we need fossil fuels, and that oil and gas companies
should stay in business.<br>
<br>
One I’ve seen a lot lately raises people’s national security fears
with the message that we need to extract oil to maintain our “energy
independence,” as if domestically produced fossil energy alone were
powering America’s homes and businesses.<br>
<br>
The truth is that, according to the US Energy Information Agency, in
2019 (the latest year for which full data is available) the US
imported 9.14 million barrels of petroleum a day — half a million
more than we exported. It’s clean, safe energy sources like wind and
solar that are sure to be domestically produced, not oil and methane
gas.<br>
<br>
<b>Jariel Arvin</b><br>
So they act as if US independence will be lost without fossil fuels,
while in reality America still depends on other countries to get its
oil and gas. Got it. What else?<br>
<b><br>
</b><b> Genevieve Guenther</b><br>
Another talking point designed to make us believe that we need
fossil fuels is the message that we cannot halt global warming
without “innovation.” This is a tricky one, because you’ll often
hear energy researchers talk about the innovations we’ll want to
develop in order to enable continued aviation and industrial
shipping.<br>
<br>
But saying that new technologies will help us is different from
saying that we need them, which implies that the world cannot stop
using fossil fuels now. So politicians in the pockets of the oil and
gas producers will proclaim that they support “innovation,” and
fossil fuel companies will place ads touting the money they’re
spending on research and development— but the money they actually do
spend is orders of magnitude smaller than their PR budgets, not to
mention their budgets for exploring and developing new fossil fuel
reserves.<br>
<br>
<b>Jariel Arvin</b><br>
What’s the third big talking point?<br>
<br>
<b>Genevieve Guenther</b><br>
The third thing Big Oil will try to do is to make people believe
that climate change is not such a big deal. Either they call people
trying to communicate the dangers of global warming “alarmists” or
they simply don’t talk about the climate crisis at all.<br>
<br>
In their campaign of silence they’re aided by the vast majority of
the broadcast news media, which mostly proceeds as if the crisis
didn’t exist and won’t even mention the words “climate change” when
they report on floods, fires, and hurricanes in which there are
scientifically established links to global warming.<br>
<br>
It’s weird to think of silence as messaging, but sometimes what you
don’t say is as important as what you do.<br>
<br>
<b>Jariel Arvin</b><br>
Okay, so we now have the three points the fossil fuel industry often
uses: Convince people climate action will hurt their pocketbooks,
suggest that we need fossil fuels, and downplay the climate
emergency. How do climate scientists, activists, and the media
counter that narrative?<br>
<b><br>
</b><b> Genevieve Guenther</b><br>
We’ve got to keep climate change in the foreground of people’s
attention. We’ve got to be clear about why we’re making this energy
transition — it’s not just because it’s a new way to create jobs,
and it’s not just because we like clean air and water.<br>
<br>
It’s because if we don’t do it, we might actually destroy
civilization.<br>
<br>
We’re not going to change up everything unless we have to, and guess
what? We have to. This is what an existential threat means.<br>
<br>
I worry that the Biden administration isn’t bringing that message to
the foreground, because you need that to be part of the
understanding of why we’re doing this work.<br>
<br>
The motivation here is that we’re trying to save our world. We’re
trying to save the lives of our children. I think activists do a
pretty good job of keeping that messaging in the foreground, but I
really wish that politicians would do it too. I think they’re still
running scared, and I don’t think they have to be.<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://www.vox.com/22260311/oil-gas-fossil-fuel-companies-climate-change">https://www.vox.com/22260311/oil-gas-fossil-fuel-companies-climate-change</a>
<p> </p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p><b><br>
</b></p>
[Information battles]<b><br>
</b><b>Twitter thinks ads about climate change are bad. Big Oil's
disinformation is fine, though.</b><br>
Something is off in Twitter's equation.<br>
- -<br>
But there is still one strain of disinformation that Americans
remain largely complacent about: disinformation spread by polluters
and the politicians they fund. Social media companies are routinely
letting oil industry climate change propaganda slip through the
cracks even as they clamp down on other political lies...<br>
I see it all the time while reporting for my newsletter, HEATED,
which published evidence Tuesday that Twitter has been allowing the
oil industry to run misleading ads designed to prevent political
action on climate change. The ads, bought by ExxonMobil and the
American Petroleum Institute, falsely claimed, among other things,
that limiting fossil fuel development would "hinder environmental
progress" and that natural gas — a fossil fuel — is key to a
"cleaner world."...<br>
The reality is that climate scientists nearly uniformly agree that
the key to a cleaner world is reducing the use of fossil fuels
(including natural gas) and replacing them with renewable forms of
energy. The misleading nature of the ads wasn't what caught my eye,
however. It was that Twitter allowed the oil industry to pay to
spread misleading climate-related political propaganda while
prohibiting anyone from doing the same to call out that propaganda.<br>
<br>
Twitter banned all political ads in 2019, in part as a response to
the Trump campaign's misinformation ahead of the presidential
election. The effect, however, was that everyone was banned from
promoting tweets about political issues — even climate change. And
now, as recently as Tuesday, environmental groups have publicly
affirmed that they can't pay to spread tweets fact-checking oil
companies. Their tweets would be considered prohibited "political
content."<br>
<br>
On the flip side, Twitter doesn't consider it "political" when oil
companies try to paint themselves as green. Instead, it's considered
promoting "environmental stewardship." The reality, though, is that
these oil company tweets are the newest phase of the industry's
40-year campaign to sow doubt about the severity of the climate
crisis and persuade the public to oppose aggressive action. That's
not just according to me, a reporter who's been covering oil
industry climate disinformation since 2013. It's according to
several researchers who specialize in fossil fuel industry
communications. As Robert Brulle, an environmental sociologist who
studies oil industry advertisements at Drexel University, told me:
"This is just another effort to manipulate public opinion to support
options that the corporation wants."...<br>
- -<br>
It's unclear whether all this is because of naiveté, willful
ignorance or psychological dissonance on the part of social media
giants. What is clear, though, is that social media companies are
struggling to effectively tackle the threat of climate propaganda
and disinformation at the worst moment possible. With a new
president committed to climate action and a slim Democratic majority
in Congress, the U.S. is entering the most critical political moment
for climate policy in our lifetimes. As Ken Caldeira, a climate
scientist at the Carnegie Institution, recently told Grist: "What we
do in the next years and decades will affect the Earth for tens of
thousands of years, if not longer."<br>
<br>
What social media companies do or don't do about disinformation will
be a huge part of the equation.<br>
<br>
"Corporations — including social media platforms — need to take
climate misinformation as seriously as they take election and Covid
misinformation," John Cook, an assistant research professor at
George Mason University who studies climate disinformation, told me.
"A long-term problem like climate change cuts both ways — it may
seem less immediate now, but it also means we'll be suffering the
consequences of today's decisions for decades to come."<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://www.msnbc.com/opinion/twitter-thinks-ads-about-climate-change-are-bad-big-oil-n1256661">https://www.msnbc.com/opinion/twitter-thinks-ads-about-climate-change-are-bad-big-oil-n1256661</a><br>
<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 -
February 7, 2007 </b></font><br>
<p>February 7, 2007:<br>
• Air America host Betsy Rosenberg and Competitive Enterprise
Institute representative Chris Horner discuss the recently
released 4th IPCC report on the Fox News Channel program "Hannity
and Colmes."<br>
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="http://youtu.be/5k267NdmiFY">http://youtu.be/5k267NdmiFY</a><br>
</p>
<p>• The US Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation holds a hearing on climate change research and
scientific integrity, focusing on the George W. Bush
administration's slicing and dicing of science and data. White
House whistleblower Rick Piltz and Nobel laureate Sherwood Rowland
testify.<br>
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b9vXi61G0MU">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b9vXi61G0MU</a><br>
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PYDQD8AeORA">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PYDQD8AeORA</a><br>
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="http://scienceblogs.com/intersection/2007/02/07/senate-fireworks-on-climate-an/">http://scienceblogs.com/intersection/2007/02/07/senate-fireworks-on-climate-an/</a><br>
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="http://scienceblogs.com/integrityofscience/2007/02/07/administration-testimony-one-o/">http://scienceblogs.com/integrityofscience/2007/02/07/administration-testimony-one-o/</a><br>
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="http://www.climatesciencewatch.org/2013/01/31/recalling-an-exchange-with-sen-john-kerry-about-climate-change-and-the-bush-white-house/">http://www.climatesciencewatch.org/2013/01/31/recalling-an-exchange-with-sen-john-kerry-about-climate-change-and-the-bush-white-house/</a><br>
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="http://www.climatesciencewatch.org/2013/06/03/recalling-an-exchange-with-sen-lautenberg/">http://www.climatesciencewatch.org/2013/06/03/recalling-an-exchange-with-sen-lautenberg/</a><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>