<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>March 1, 2021</b></font></i></p>
[Storm chaser video recounting last year]<br>
<b>TORNADOES OF 2020 - Is it over yet?</b><br>
Feb 28, 2021<br>
Pecos Hank<br>
741K subscribers<br>
Best tornado, lightning and severe storm footage from 2020 in the
tour of Tornado Alley highs and lows from March through July. 1075
confirmed tornadoes have been tallied in the US in 2020 including
the third widest tornado ever recorded. <br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://youtu.be/VyUL8161wUE">https://youtu.be/VyUL8161wUE</a><br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VyUL8161wUE">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VyUL8161wUE</a><br>
<p><br>
</p>
[Audio interview]<br>
<b>Nobel Climate Scientist Michael Mann on Denier Tactics and Idiocy
(February 28, 2021)</b><br>
Feb 28, 2021<br>
Al Franken<br>
Mann Discusses his new book The New Climate Wa<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yJSaIg0U6SE">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yJSaIg0U6SE</a><br>
<p>- -<br>
</p>
[words from top US climatologist -- denial, deflection, division,
doomism,..]<br>
<b>Climatologist Michael E Mann: 'Good people fall victim to
doomism. I do too sometimes'</b><br>
Jonathan Watts -- 27 Feb 2021 <br>
The author and eminent climate scientist on the deniers’ new tactics
and why positive change feels closer than it has done in 20 years<br>
<br>
Michael E Mann is one of the world’s most influential climate
scientists. He rose to prominence in 1999 as the co-author of the
“hockey-stick graph”, which showed the sharp rise in global
temperatures since the industrial age. This was the clearest
evidence anyone had provided of the link between human emissions and
global warming. This made him a target. He and other scientists have
been subject to “climategate” email hacking, personal abuse and
online trolling. In his new book, The New Climate War, he argues the
tide may finally be turning in a hopeful direction.<br>
<br>
<b>You are a battle-scarred veteran of many climate campaigns.
What’s new about the climate war?</b><br>
For more than two decades I was in the crosshairs of climate change
deniers, fossil fuel industry groups and those advocating for them –
conservative politicians and media outlets. This was part of a
larger effort to discredit the science of climate change that is
arguably the most well-funded, most organised PR campaign in
history. Now we finally have reached the point where it is not
credible to deny climate change because people can see it playing
out in real time in front of their eyes.<br>
<br>
But the “inactivists”, as I call them, haven’t given up; they have
simply shifted from hard denial to a new array of tactics that I
describe in the book as the new climate war.<br>
<br>
<b>Who is the enemy in the new climate war?</b><br>
It is fossil fuel interests, climate change deniers, conservative
media tycoons, working together with petrostate actors like Saudi
Arabia and Russia. I call this the coalition of the unwilling.<br>
<br>
If you had to find a single face that represents both the old and
new climate war it would be Rupert Murdoch. Climate change is an
issue the Murdoch press has disassembled on for years. The
disinformation was obvious last year, when they blamed arsonists for
the devastating Australian bushfires. This was a horrible attempt to
divert attention from the real cause, which was climate change.
Murdoch was taken to task by his own son because of the immorality
of his practices.<br>
<br>
We also have to recognise the increasing roles of petrostate actors.
Saudi Arabia has played an obstructionist role. Russia has perfected
cyber warfare and used it to interfere in other countries and
disrupt action on climate change. MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow has made a
credible case about Russia’s efforts to hijack the 2016 presidential
election and get Trump elected. Russia wanted to end US sanctions
that stood in the way of a half-trillion-dollar deal between Rosneft
and ExxonMobil. It worked. Who did Trump appoint as his first
secretary of state? Rex Tillerson, the former CEO of ExxonMobil.<br>
<br>
Today Russia uses cyberware – bot armies and trolls – to get climate
activists to fight one another and to seed arguments on social
media. Russian trolls have attempted to undermine carbon pricing in
Canada and Australia, and Russian fingerprints have been detected in
the yellow-vest protests in France.<br>
<br>
<b>And WikiLeaks? Your book suggests they were involved?</b><br>
I’m not an expert but there has been a lot of investigative
journalism about the role they played in the 2016 election. Julian
Assange and WikiLeaks helped Donald Trump get elected, and in doing
that they did the bidding of Putin. Their fingerprints are also all
over the climategate affair 10 years ago. UK investigators have
evidence of Russian involvement in that too.<br>
<br>
<b>It’s an unlikely alliance.</b><br>
Yes, it’s a remarkable irony. Who would think you would see a US
republican president, a Russian president and Rupert Murdoch working
together as part of the coalition of the unwilling, doing everything
in their power to prevent action on the defining crisis of our time:
climate change.<br>
<br>
<b>What is in it for Murdoch?</b><br>
The Saudi royal family has been the second-highest shareholder in
News Corporation [Murdoch’s company]. And apparently Murdoch and the
Saudi family are close friends, so that is a potential motive.<br>
<b>You say the deniers are on the back foot and there are reasons to
be hopeful. But we have seen false dawns in the past. Why is it
different now?</b><br>
Without doubt, this is the best chance in the 20 years since I have
been in the climate arena. We have seen false complacency in the
past. In 2007, after the IPCC shared the Nobel peace prize with Al
Gore, there seemed to be this awakening in the media. that felt to
many like a tipping point, though at the time I was very
apprehensive. I knew the enemy wouldn’t give up and I expected a
resurgence of the climate war. That’s exactly what we saw with the
climategate campaign [the leaking of emails to try to tarnish
scientists]. This is different. It feels different, it looks
different, it smells different.<br>
<br>
I am optimistic about a favourable shift in the political wind. The
youth climate movement has galvanised attention and re-centred the
debate on intergenerational ethics. We are seeing a tipping point in
public consciousness. That bodes well. There is still a viable way
forward to avoid climate catastrophe.<br>
<br>
You can see from the talking points of inactivists that they are
really in retreat. Republican pollsters like Frank Luntz have
advised clients in the fossil fuel industry and the politicians who
carry water for them that you can’t get away with denying climate
change any more. It doesn’t pass the sniff test with the public.
Instead they are looking at other things they can do.<br>
<br>
<b>Let’s dig into deniers’ tactics. One that you mention is
deflection. What are the telltale signs?</b><br>
Any time you are told a problem is your fault because you are not
behaving responsibly, there is a good chance that you are being
deflected from systemic solutions and policies. Blaming the
individual is a tried and trusted playbook that we have seen in the
past with other industries. In the 1970s, Coca Cola and the beverage
industry did this very effectively to convince us we don’t need
regulations on waste disposal. Because of that we now have a global
plastic crisis. The same tactics are evident in the gun lobby’s
motto, “guns don’t kill people, people kill people”, which is
classic deflection. For a UK example look at BP, which gave us the
world’s first individual carbon footprint calculator. Why did they
do that? Because BP wanted us looking at our carbon footprint not
theirs.<br>
<br>
<b>This leads to the second tactic – division. You argue people need
to focus strategically on system change, but online bots are
stirring up arguments over individual lifestyle choices. That
said, you suggest there is too much emphasis on reducing meat,
which is a relatively minor source of emissions compared with
fossil fuels. Isn’t that likely to be divisive among vegetarians
and vegans?</b><br>
Of course lifestyle changes are necessary but they alone won’t get
us where we need to be. They make us more healthy, save money and
set a good example for others. But we can’t allow the forces of
inaction to convince us these actions alone are the solution and
that we don’t need systemic changes. If they can get us arguing with
one another, and finger pointing and carbon shaming about lifestyle
choices, that is extremely divisive and the community will no longer
be effective in challenging vested interest and polluters.<br>
<br>
I don’t eat meat. We get power from renewable energy. I have a
plug-in hybrid vehicle. I do those things and encourage others to do
them. but I don’t think it is helpful to shame people who are not as
far along as you. Instead, let’s help everybody to move in that
direction. That is what policy and system change is about: creating
incentives so even those who don’t think about their environmental
footprint are still led in that direction.<br>
<br>
<b>Another new front in the new climate war is what you call
“doomism”. What do you mean by that?</b><br>
Doom-mongering has overtaken denial as a threat and as a tactic.
Inactivists know that if people believe there is nothing you can do,
they are led down a path of disengagement. They unwittingly do the
bidding of fossil fuel interests by giving up.<br>
<br>
What is so pernicious about this is that it seeks to weaponise
environmental progressives who would otherwise be on the frontline
demanding change. These are folk of good intentions and good will,
but they become disillusioned or depressed and they fall into
despair. But “too late” narratives are invariably based on a
misunderstanding of science. Many of the prominent doomist
narratives – [Jonathan] Franzen, David Wallace-Wells, the Deep
Adaptation movement – can be traced back to a false notion that an
Arctic methane bomb will cause runaway warming and extinguish all
life on earth within 10 years. This is completely wrong. There is no
science to support that.<br>
<br>
<b>Even without Arctic methane, there are plenty of solid reasons to
be worried about the climate. Can’t a sense of doom also
radicalise people and act as an antidote to complacency? Isn’t it
a stage in understanding?</b><br>
True. It is a natural emotional reaction. Good people fall victim to
doomism. I do too sometimes. It can be enabling and empowering as
long as you don’t get stuck there. It is up to others to help ensure
that experience can be cathartic.<br>
<br>
<b>You also suggest that Greta Thunberg has sometimes been led
astray.</b><br>
I am very supportive of Greta. At one point in the book, I point out
that even she has at times been a victim of some of this bad
framing. But in terms of what she does, I am hugely supportive.
Those I call out really are those who should know better. In
particular, I tried to document mis-statements about the science. If
the science objectively demonstrated it was too late to limit
warming below catastrophic levels, that would be one thing and we
scientists would be faithful to that. But science doesn’t say that.<br>
<br>
<b>Ten years ago, you and other climate scientists were accused of
exaggerating the risks and now you are accused of underplaying the
dangers. Sometimes it must seem that you cannot win</b>.<br>
It is frustrating to see scientists blamed. We also are told that we
didn’t do a good enough job communicating the risks. People forget
we were fighting the most well-funded, well-organised PR campaign in
the history of human civilisation.<br>
<br>
<b>Another development in the “climate war” is the entry of new
participants. Bill Gates is perhaps the most prominent. His new
book, How to Prevent a Climate Disaster, offers a systems analyst
approach to the problem, a kind of operating system upgrade for
the planet. What do you make of his take?</b><br>
I want to thank him for using his platform to raise awareness of the
climate crisis. That said, I disagree with him quite sharply on the
prescription. His view is overly technocratic and premised on an
underestimate of the role that renewable energy can play in
decarbonising our civilisation. If you understate that potential,
you are forced to make other risky choices, such as geoengineering
and carbon capture and sequestration. Investment in those unproven
options would crowd out investment in better solutions.<br>
<br>
Gates writes that he doesn’t know the political solution to climate
change. But the politics are the problem buddy. If you don’t have a
prescription of how to solve that, then you don’t have a solution
and perhaps your solution might be taking us down the wrong path.<br>
<br>
<b>What are the prospects for political change with Joe Biden in the
White House?</b><br>
Breathtaking. Biden has surprised even the most ardent climate hawks
in the boldness of his first 100 day agenda, which goes well beyond
any previous president, including Obama when it comes to use of
executive actions. He has incorporated climate policy into every
single government agency and we have seen massive investments in
renewable energy infrastructure, cuts in subsidies for fossil fuels,
and the cancellation of the Keystone XL pipeline. On the
international front, the appointment of John Kerry, who helped
negotiate the Paris Accord, has telegraphed to the rest of the world
that the US is back and ready to lead again. That is huge and puts
pressure on intransigent state actors like [Australian prime
minister] Scott Morrison, who has been a friend of the fossil fuel
industry in Australia. Morrison has changed his rhetoric
dramatically since Biden became president. I think that creates an
opportunity like no other.<br>
<b>The book provides a long list of other reasons to be hopeful –
rapid take-up of renewable energy, technology advances, financial
sector action and more. Even so, the US, like other countries, is
still far short of the second world war-level of mobilisation that
you and others say is necessary to keep global heating to 1.5C.
Have the prospects for that been helped or hindered by Covid?</b><br>
I see a perfect storm of climate opportunity. Terrible as the
pandemic has been, this tragedy can also provide lessons,
particularly on the importance of listening to the word of science
when facing risks. That could be from medical scientists advising us
on the need for social distancing to reduce the chances of
contagion, or it could be from climate scientists recommending we
cut carbon emissions to reduce the risk of climate catastrophe.
There is also awareness of the deadliness of anti-science, which can
be measured in hundreds of thousands of lives in the US that were
unnecessarily lost because a president refused to implement policies
based on what health scientists were saying. Out of this crisis can
come a collective reconsideration of our priorities. How to live
sustainably on a finite planet with finite space, food and water. A
year from now, memories and impacts of coronavirus will still feel
painful, but the crisis itself will be in the rear-view mirror
thanks to vaccines. What will loom larger will be the greater crisis
we face – the climate crisis.<br>
<br>
• The New Climate War by Michael E Mann is published by Scribe <br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/feb/27/climatologist-michael-e-mann-doomism-climate-crisis-interview">https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/feb/27/climatologist-michael-e-mann-doomism-climate-crisis-interview</a><br>
<p><br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
[Twice in the last 150,000 years]<br>
<b>The Arctic Ocean was covered by a shelf ice and filled with
freshwater</b><br>
Date: February 3, 2021<br>
Source: Alfred Wegener Institute, Helmholtz Centre for Polar and
Marine Research<br>
Summary:<br>
<blockquote>The Arctic Ocean was covered by up to 900 m thick shelf
ice and was filled entirely with freshwater at least twice in the
last 150,000 years. This surprising finding is the result of
long-term research. With a detailed analysis of the composition of
marine deposits, the scientists could demonstrate that the Arctic
Ocean as well as the Nordic Seas did not contain sea-salt in at
least two glacial periods. Instead, these oceans were filled with
large amounts of freshwater under a thick ice shield. This water
could then be released into the North Atlantic in very short
periods of time. Such sudden freshwater inputs could explain rapid
climate oscillations for which no satisfying explanation had been
previously found.<br>
</blockquote>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2021/02/210203123449.htm">https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2021/02/210203123449.htm</a><br>
- -<br>
[2 videos by Paul Beckwith]<br>
<b>Beckwith Updates and Lead-in to an Amazingly Awesome New Finding
on a Completely Fresh Water Arctic</b><br>
Feb 27, 2021<br>
Paul Beckwith<br>
I just filmed a whole bunch of videos on the Arctic.<br>
This video is kind of an overall series introduction, where I
discuss some personal stuff in my life, the awesome books that I am
reading, and then the Arctic. Basically I am just shooting the
breeze, but I think you will find some interesting nuggets and hints
on an enormously significant new finding. Namely, from about 60,000
to 70,000 years ago, and from 130,000 to 150,000 years ago, the
Arctic Ocean basin was composed of completely fresh water, with the
frozen ice on the surface. <br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IB971Vbnyn0">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IB971Vbnyn0</a><br>
- -<br>
[tremendous temperature increases]<br>
<b>Profound Implications of a Completely Salt-Free Arctic Ocean as
recently as 60,000 Years Ago</b><br>
Feb 28, 2021<br>
Paul Beckwith<br>
A ground-breaking new finding in climate recently just occurred, and
it seems blindingly obvious, in retrospect. In fact I became very
close to figuring this out all by myself, many years ago. <br>
<br>
During extremely cold, long duration ice ages, at two different
periods in the last 150,000 years; namely (a) 60,000 to 70,000 years
ago, and (b) 130,000 to 150,000 years ago; the entire Arctic Ocean
was fresh liquid water, entombed underneath a thick ice layer, and
separated from the Pacific Ocean by land, and from the Atlantic
Ocean by a combination of land and grounded ice shelves, with only
small passages where fresh water would exit, keeping salt water from
entering. How was this possible?<br>
<br>
During these exceptionally cold, long duration cold periods there
was so much water stored within the glacial ice that global sea
levels were lower by 130 meters (430 ft). With sea levels this low,
the Bering Strait sea floor became dry land, as well as all the gaps
within the Canadian Archipelago and the Nares Strait. There was no
water channel connection to the Pacific Ocean at all. <br>
<br>
On the Atlantic Ocean side of the Arctic, the ocean passages become
greatly reduced by the lower sea level exposing the continental
shelves. Very thick ice sheets on Greenland and Europe created
extensive ice shelves on the coastlines that extended far out into
the Arctic Ocean, and these ice shelves, up to 900 meters thick (90
meters above sea level, 810 meters below sea level) almost
completely blocked off the remaining ocean passages between the
Arctic Ocean and the Atlantic Ocean, between Greenland and northern
Scotland. <br>
<br>
Lots of fresh water still entered the Arctic Ocean, from meltwater,
northern rivers, rainfall, and snow melt. Therefore, over time
freshwater built up in the Arctic Ocean basin, floating above and
eventually forcing out the remaining salt water near the ocean
floor. Clearly, this led to an entirely fresh Arctic Ocean.<br>
<br>
When these ice ages ended due to Milankovitch Cycle changes in
Earth’s orbit around the Sun, and the Earth started warming, the sea
level rose again and the ice shelves thinned, releasing huge amounts
of fresh water back into the Atlantic Ocean and then the Pacific,
causing enormous wrenching temperature swings and abrupt climate
oscillations until the climate system again reached stability. The
Arctic Ocean once again became a salty ocean.<br>
<br>
Wow!!!<br>
One of my subsequent videos goes through the peer reviewed paper on
this with a fine toothed comb...<br>
video - <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JgF8Krun7Jw">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JgF8Krun7Jw</a><br>
- -<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://paulbeckwith.net/2021/02/28/profound-implications-of-a-completely-salt-free-arctic-ocean-as-recently-as-60000-years-ago/">https://paulbeckwith.net/2021/02/28/profound-implications-of-a-completely-salt-free-arctic-ocean-as-recently-as-60000-years-ago/</a><br>
<p><br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<br>
[Digging back into the internet news archive]<br>
<font size="+1"><b>On this day in the history of global warming -
March 1, 2001 </b></font><br>
<p>Syndicated columnist Robert Novak suggests that President George
W. Bush will side with EPA Administrator Christine Todd Whitman
and Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill regarding the need to combat
carbon pollution. By the end of the month, Bush would declare that
he would not move to regulate carbon emissions, nor would he
embrace the Kyoto Protocol.<br>
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://townhall.com/columnists/robertnovak/2001/03/01/bushs_global_warming">http://townhall.com/columnists/robertnovak/2001/03/01/bushs_global_warming</a>
<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 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>