<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>May 16, 2021</b></font></i> <br>
</p>
[DeSmog analysis of Exxon counter-attack and the word ""risk""]<br>
<b>New Study Decodes ExxonMobil’s ‘Modern’ Climate Misinformation</b><br>
Where it’s no longer credible to deny climate change, the fossil
fuel giant puts the focus on ‘risk’ and blame on consumers, in echo
of tobacco industry PR, researchers find.<br>
Sharon Kellyon - May 14, 2021...<br>
- -<br>
According to newly published research from Harvard science historian
Naomi Oreskes and Harvard research associate Geoffrey Supran, it’s a
simple four-letter word, one that carries overtones not only of
danger, but also — crucially — of uncertainty: risk.<br>
<br>
Oreskes and Supran argue in the peer-reviewed study published in the
journal One Earth, that by repeating that word over and over as it
discusses climate change ExxonMobil continues to connect climate
change to uncertainty, even in its most carefully worded and most
scrutinized discussions of the topic.<br>
<br>
That tiny word is one sign of a massive change underway in how
fossil fuel companies talk about climate change in places where it’s
no longer considered credible to contest climate science. Instead,
Oreskes and Supran write, ExxonMobil’s statements subtly shift
responsibility for climate change onto the shoulders of consumers,
while avoiding the need to describe in detail the risks that are
posed by climate change. <br>
<br>
And that, for the record, is a lot to gloss over — not just in terms
of what scientists predict about the future, but in terms of what
climate change has already played a role in bringing about. Last
year, for example, tied with 2016 as the “warmest” year on record,
according to NASA — 2020 brought a brutal drumbeat of climate-linked
calamities, including a record-obliterating wildfire season on the
West Coast that memorably turned skies orange and red and an
extraordinarily intense Atlantic hurricane season. <br>
<br>
The way that ExxonMobil talks about climate change, the paper
suggests, lets the company thread a very specific rhetorical needle,
communicating two ideas that fundamentally benefit their interests.
“On the one hand, ‘risk’ rhetoric is weak enough to allow the
company to maintain a position on climate science that is ambiguous,
flexible, and unalarming,” the researchers write. “On the other, it
is strong enough—and prominent enough, in [New York Times]
advertorials and elsewhere—that ExxonMobil may claim that the public
has been well informed about [anthropogenic global warming].”<br>
<br>
And if that approach feels a little familiar, maybe that’s because
it’s very similar to the tactics used by another industry in the
past: Big Tobacco.<br>
<br>
“Akin to early, tepidly worded warning labels on cigarette packages,
ExxonMobil’s advertorials in America’s newspaper of record help
establish this claim, sometimes explicitly: ‘Most people acknowledge
that human-induced climate change is a long-term risk,’ a 2001
advertorial states (emphases added),” the paper continues. “‘The
risk of climate change and its potential impacts on society and the
ecosystem are widely recognized,’ says another the following year.”<br>
- - <br>
“Our analysis is the first computational study illustrating how the
fossil fuel industry has encouraged and embodied AGW [anthropogenic
global warming] narratives fixated on individual responsibility,”
the paper says. The study used automated methods to analyze 180
ExxonMobil documents, 32 previously published internal company
documents, and 76 New York Times “advertorials” where the company
took positions on climate change. The authors believe that these
methods of efficiently reviewing a large number of company records
could prove useful later in litigation, where larger batches of
documents may need review.<br>
- -<br>
ExxonMobil did not respond to a request for comment about their
study from DeSmog.<br>
<br>
<b>‘Injecting Uncertainty’</b><br>
As it has become less credible to contest the legitimacy of climate
science, the paper notes, the company has shifted its rhetoric on
climate to focus on “risk.”<br>
<br>
“In ExxonMobil Corp’s 2005 Corporate Citizenship Report, for
instance, which extensively questions whether AGW is human caused
and serious, a member of the public [is quoted asking]: ‘Why won’t
ExxonMobil recognize that climate change is real…?’,” Oreskes and
Supran write. “The company replies: ‘ExxonMobil recognizes the risk
of climate change and its potential impact’ (emphases added).”<br>
<br>
That subtle shift lets ExxonMobil “inject uncertainty” into
conversations about climate change, the paper continues, “even while
superficially appearing not to.”<br>
<br>
“We have also observed that, starting in the mid-2000s, ExxonMobil’s
statements of explicit doubt about climate science and its
implications (for example, that ‘there does not appear to be a
consensus among scientists about the effect of fossil fuel use on
climate’) gave way to implicit acknowledgments couched in ambiguous
statements about climate ‘risk’ (such as discussion of lower-carbon
fuels for ‘addressing the risks posed by rising greenhouse gas
emissions,’ without mention of [anthropogenic global warming]),” the
paper reports.<br>
<br>
It’s also a way of talking that also lets ExxonMobil leave out any
description of what, exactly, is being put at risk, the paper notes.
<br>
<br>
The company’s public messaging pits clear-cut descriptions of the
benefits of using fossil fuels against the risks of climate change —
but while it offers examples of the ways people find fossil fuels
useful, ExxonMobil is a lot more vague about what, exactly, the
risks associated with climate change are, the paper argues...<br>
- -<br>
That’s not for a lack of available scientific data. “Today, we are
at 1.2 degrees of warming and already witnessing unprecedented
climate extremes and volatility in every region and on every
continent,” U.N. Secretary General António Guterres said in a
December 2020 address. “The science is crystal clear: to limit
temperature rise to 1.5-degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels,
the world needs to decrease fossil fuel production by roughly 6 per
cent every year between now and 2030.”<br>
<br>
The biggest remaining questions about climate change don’t concern
the ways that our lives will be increasingly disrupted by extreme
weather, wildfires, rising seas and the like. There’s a strong body
of scientific evidence that lets scientists make good predictions
about what happens when we collectively burn fossil fuels at
different rates. And a peer-reviewed study published last year in
the journal Geophysical Research found that climate models dating
back to the 1970s through 2007 have proved remarkably accurate <br>
<br>
The biggest open questions are about policy and products, not about
what the science shows.<br>
<br>
The real source of uncertainty, in other words, is how long we will
continue doing the things that cause climate change.<br>
<br>
<b>‘Modern’ Propaganda</b><br>
Polling shows that Americans’ understandings of climate science have
shifted dramatically in recent years. In 2014, NBC News recently
reported, less than half of Americans polled believed that climate
change was caused by human activity. Polls from 2020, however, show
that now 57 percent of Americans cite human activity as causing
climate change, a jump of roughly ten percent.<br>
<br>
But there may still be times and places where not only is discussion
of risk familiar and habitually framed in terms of risk management,
but also where ExxonMobil’s framing might find a particularly
receptive audience.<br>
<br>
Asked by DeSmog, Supran said that investors may be particularly
vulnerable to what he called ExxonMobil’s “fossil fuel savior”
framing.<br>
<br>
“Within this frame, the company is an innocent supplier, simply
giving consumers what they demand. That is, ExxonMobil are the good
guys who we should trust to address the climate risks that we, the
public, brought upon ourselves,” he said. “It’s also worth noting
that these modern forms of propaganda are increasingly subtle and
insidious, and so being exposed to them ad nauseam, as shareholders
are, could make them more vulnerable to this ‘discursive grooming’.”<br>
<br>
Going forward, the new paper predicts that companies like ExxonMobil
may continue to rely on the strategies developed by the tobacco
industry. <br>
<br>
“In their public relations messaging, industry asserts smokers’
rights as individuals who are at liberty to smoke,” the paper says.
“In the context of litigation, industry asserts that those who
choose to smoke are solely to blame for their injuries.”<br>
<br>
“ExxonMobil’s framing is reminiscent of the tobacco industry’s
effort ‘to diminish its own responsibility (and culpability) by
casting itself as a kind of neutral innocent, buffeted by the forces
of consumer demand,’” it continues. “It is widely recognized that
the tobacco industry used, and continues to use, narrative frames of
personal responsibility—often marketed as ‘freedom of choice’—to
combat public criticism, influence policy debates, and defend
against litigation and regulation.”<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.desmog.com/2021/05/14/study-decodes-exxonmobil-modern-climate-misinformation/">https://www.desmog.com/2021/05/14/study-decodes-exxonmobil-modern-climate-misinformation/</a><br>
<p><br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
[API = American Petroleum Institute]<br>
<b>The API Was Pushing Climate Denial Way Earlier Than Anyone
Thought</b><br>
Drilled<br>
Social Sciences<br>
Audio podcast<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://podcasts.apple.com/ca/podcast/api-was-pushing-climate-denial-way-earlier-than-anyone/id1439735906?i=1000511727404">https://podcasts.apple.com/ca/podcast/api-was-pushing-climate-denial-way-earlier-than-anyone/id1439735906?i=1000511727404</a>
<p>- -<br>
</p>
[Early disinformation paper]<br>
<b>Early oil industry disinformation on global warming</b><br>
Benjamin Franta<br>
Benjamin Franta (2021): Early oil industry disinformation on global
warming,<br>
Environmental Politics, DOI: 10.1080/09644016.2020.1863703<br>
To link to this article:
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://doi.org/10.1080/09644016.2020.1863703">https://doi.org/10.1080/09644016.2020.1863703</a><br>
<blockquote><b>ABSTRACT</b><br>
Determining the onset of organized disinformation about global
warming is<br>
critical for understanding its political history and evaluating
the responsibilities<br>
of fossil fuel producers and other relevant parties today. A newly
discovered<br>
archival document shows the American Petroleum Institute was
promulgating<br>
false and misleading information about climate change in 1980,
nearly a decade<br>
earlier than previously known, in order to promote public policies
favorable to the<br>
fossil fuel industry. This finding demonstrates early use of
public-facing disinformation about global warming by the petroleum
industry and suggests commercial fossil fuel interests played a
more obstructive role in climate change discourse<br>
and policy throughout the 1980s than previously understood.<br>
</blockquote>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/09644016.2020.1863703">https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/09644016.2020.1863703</a><br>
<p><br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
[Hollywood fire thriller - Angelina Jolie smokejumper/firefighter]<br>
<b>Review of “Those Who Wish Me Dead”</b><br>
Bill Gabbert - May 14, 2021<br>
A movie that features a smokejumper, “Those Who Wish Me Dead”,
premiered today on HBO Max.<br>
[trailer <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://youtu.be/sV6VNNjBkcE">https://youtu.be/sV6VNNjBkcE</a> ]<br>
We asked Smokejumper Bro who appears frequently in the Wildfire
Today comments sections if he would write a review of the movie. It
is below. After that are a few comments from Bill about the movie.<br>
<blockquote>“Those Who Wish Me Dead” is a film about Hannah
(Angelina Jolie), a smokejumper trying to piece her life back
together after tragedy strikes on a fire the year before. She is
floundering through life until a family who knew too much is on
the run from hitmen. Their paths cross on the Bitterroot National
Forest in Montana, and as one family’s life is being ripped apart,
Hannah finds a new purpose and a reason to start living again.<br>
<br>
This movie is a great addition to the wildfire cannon that has
been produced in Hollywood recently. It feels more like a
big-budget thriller with A-list actors than a streaming steamer.
Of course, the fire behavior is a little dramatic, the goggles are
comical, and maybe the HALO Smokejumping operations are a bit
much, but when a smokejumper faceplants on landing, it brought it
back home for me. Overall, it doesn’t take too large of a leap to
make the movie feel realistic, even for firefighters.<br>
<br>
Angelina Jolie gives a great performance, and she really fits the
smokejumper role. She’s kind of crazy and wild, yet professional
and dialed-in when needed. When it really matters, people are
lucky to have her around.<br>
<br>
Jon Bernthal (Walking Dead) is excellent as a local sheriff’s
deputy and Aidan Gillen (Game of Thrones) is perfect in his role
as the not-entirely-emotionless assassin.<br>
<br>
What really sets this film apart from other wildland firefighter
films is Hannah’s story. She’s suffering a mental health crisis
from PTSD developed on the job. Without treatment, she pursues
dangerous, risky behavior that is all too common amongst our
colleagues. Death-defying stunts and alcoholism, coupled with the
US Forest Service ignoring and isolating her during her crisis
really makes this movie the most realistic, and even brought me to
shed a few tears in my early morning viewing. It may not have been
intentional, but the movie is more about mental health than
anything else, and the need to address it.<br>
<br>
I’d say it’s my favorite fictional wildfire film. Definitely worth
putting the phone down and watching the film.<br>
<br>
Smokejumper Bro Rating **** 4/5<br>
(end of review)<br>
</blockquote>
Excellent review by Smokejumper Bro!<br>
<br>
Firefighters, of course, will be able to nitpick about things like
fire behavior and the use of breathing apparatus, and they might
laugh at a lighthearted moment about MREs.<br>
<br>
I agree with Bro — Ms. Jolie is a very good actor and pulled it
off. I could almost visualize her as a smokejumper. Almost.<br>
<br>
The credits included the fact that it was filmed in New Mexico, the
same state where much of “Only the Brave” was made.<br>
<br>
It is very difficult for movie makers to make wildfire flames look
realistic, and that is apparently one of the reasons why they had
about 40 Visual Effects Artists assigned to the project.<br>
<br>
The film is entertaining and worth seeing.<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://wildfiretoday.com/2021/05/14/review-of-those-who-wish-me-dead/">https://wildfiretoday.com/2021/05/14/review-of-those-who-wish-me-dead/</a><br>
<p>- -</p>
[see the trailer]<br>
<b>THOSE WHO WISH ME DEAD – Official Trailer</b><br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://youtu.be/sV6VNNjBkcE">https://youtu.be/sV6VNNjBkcE</a>
<p><br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
[important book, in the information war]<br>
<b>Author: How Financial Interests Influence News Making Decisions</b><br>
May 14, 2021<br>
The Hill<br>
Author, Ashely Rindsberg, discusses his book "The Gray Lady Winked:
How the New York Times's Misreporting, Distortions and Fabrications
Radically Alter History."<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L0UMrlq0hT0">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L0UMrlq0hT0</a><br>
- -<br>
[buy the book]<br>
<b>The Gray Lady Winked: How the New York Times's Misreporting,
Distortions and Fabrications Radically Alter History</b><br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.amazon.com/product-reviews/B0922WP4VQ">https://www.amazon.com/product-reviews/B0922WP4VQ</a><br>
<p>- -</p>
<p>[interesting tactic]<br>
<b>Exxon Blames You for Climate Change</b><br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://earther.gizmodo.com/exxon-blames-you-for-climate-change-1846882224">https://earther.gizmodo.com/exxon-blames-you-for-climate-change-1846882224</a><br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p> </p>
<br>
[Florida man]<br>
<b>Florida Man Tries to Hold Back the Sea</b><br>
Molly Taft -Thursday <br>
Here’s something you don’t hear every day: there’s good news out of
Florida. Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis signed bills on Wednesday that
make serious efforts to address the impacts of sea level rise in the
state. But don’t take that as a sign that Trump-lite DeSantis is now
some sort of right-wing climate savior. Rather, this is the latest
in his high-wire act to fix some of Florida’s climate problems
without doing anything about their causes.<br>
<br>
The pair of bills establishes an annual fund worth tens of millions
of dollars to help local communities living with sea level rise,
guidelines for regular flood risk assessments and resilience plans,
and forms local “resilience coalitions” to help communities prepare.
“We’re really putting our money where our mouth is when it comes to
protecting the state of Florida and particularly our coastal
communities from the risks of flooding and storms,” DeSantis said at
the signing.<br>
<br>
Most of DeSantis’s political views are pretty guessable from anyone
with an offhand knowledge of the types of stuff Fox News commenters
like to regularly froth themselves into a rage about. In recent
weeks, DeSantis has offered cash to cops and trumpeted that he wants
to “fund the police” (OK?), announced the state would ban vaccine
passports (weird), thrown a fit because a coronavirus panel he
hosted that was full of scientific misinformation was taken off of
YouTube (lol), and said he would sign a bill banning trans girls
from playing women’s sports in the state (fuck you, dude).<br>
<br>
But in a deviation from the normal pablum that passes for Republican
policymaking these days, DeSantis’s environmental and climate record
has some bright spots. In one of his first moves after taking
office, DeSantis signed a sweeping executive order that, among other
things, directed the state to “adamantly oppose” offshore drilling
and fracking and appointed a chief science officer “to help prepare
Florida’s coastal communities and habitats for impacts from sea
level rise.” From the guy who once featured his infant son in a
campaign ad teaching him how to “build a wall” out of blocks and put
the kid in a “Make America Great Again” onesie, it was a stark
departure from the Trumpian blueprint of climate denial. This
unexpected move as well as other motions to protect the Everglades
also got DeSantis accolades about being “bold on climate change”
early in his tenure.<br>
<br>
The most recent bill is a striking illustration of the type of
tightrope DeSantis is seeking to walk that may provide a blueprint
for other Trumpy Republicans wondering how in the world they can
address climate change without being called antifa by the MyPillow
guy making an appearance on Newsmax or whatever. DeSantis told
reporters during his campaign that he’s “not in the pews of the
church of the global warming leftists.”<br>
<br>
But as he prepares to campaign for reelection next year—and possibly
eyes a 2024 presidential run—he seems to understand that he needs to
find some way of talking about the increasingly clear threat that
climate change poses. This recent set of bills talks a big talk on
mitigating the impacts of sea level rise—but does nothing to explore
the causes of why that sea level rise is happening, make any sort of
goals for lowering statewide emissions, or encourage the development
of renewable energy.<br>
<br>
“I think the irony of the proposal was that he listed all the
impacts of climate change but never actually said ‘climate change,’”
state Rep. Anna Eskamani told the Sierra Club Magazine in February.
(It’s true in the final bills, too: The phrase “climate change”
doesn’t appear once in either bill.) “And so we’re going to continue
to spend money on resiliency over the years where we could also be
making investments in taking the state off fossil fuels and actually
tackling the climate change crisis in front of us.”<br>
<br>
Ultimately, what may be pushing DeSantis “left” on climate change is
the simple fact that sea level rise is hitting Florida, well, now. A
report published last year found Miami “faces the largest risk of
any major coastal city in the world.” When one of your major cities
is projected to be one-fifth underwater by 2045 (Miami, it was nice
to know you), it’s ignorant to not address that elephant in the
room.<br>
As more and more Republican politicians try to figure out how to
seem concerned about climate change, DeSantis is showing one way to
do it: Talk big on cleaning up the mess, but stay quiet about what
caused it in the first place.<br>
<br>
Molly Taft<br>
Writing about climate change, renewable energy, and Big Oil/Big
Gas/Big Everything for Earther. Formerly of the Center for Public
Integrity & Nexus Media News. I'm very tall & have a very
short dog.<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://earther.gizmodo.com/florida-man-tries-to-hold-back-the-sea-1846889174">https://earther.gizmodo.com/florida-man-tries-to-hold-back-the-sea-1846889174</a><br>
<br>
<p><br>
</p>
[Splash rescue message from Double Down News]<br>
<b>Mental Health & Why It's Good To Talk | DMC from Run DMC on</b><br>
May 10, 2021<br>
Double Down News<br>
Mental Health problems affect everyone, even the mighty King of
Rock. This is why it's good to talk...<br>
#MentalHealthAwarenessWeek #ItsOkayToNotBeOkay<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mEgUdObiWZQ">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mEgUdObiWZQ</a><br>
<p><br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
[positive view of change]<br>
<b>What 2050 could look like if we don’t do anything about climate
change: Hot, a constant cough, regular mask-wearing</b><br>
May 14 2021<br>
Catherine Clifford<br>
It’s 2050.<br>
<br>
A climate change worst case scenario has come to pass.<br>
<br>
The air is polluted, making you cough. You have to check the air
quality before even opening a window. When you do go outside, your
eyes water and you have to wear a mask — on bad days, a high tech
mask, that is if you can afford it.<br>
<br>
Depending where you live, the temperature can be as hot as 140
degrees Fahrenheit for more than a month each year. In public
restrooms, you have to pay to use water.<br>
- -<br>
“If we can decarbonize our economy rapidly ... down to near zero by
mid-century, we can ... maintain a livable planet and a vibrant
economy at the same time,” says Mann.<br>
<br>
In that future, write Figueres and Rivett-Carnac, city streets will
have more trees and fewer cars and Americans can travel via
high-speed electric railroads.<br>
<br>
Instead of fossil fuels, countries will rely on things like
renewable energy (wind, solar, geothermal and hydro), according to
the book, while artificial intelligence in machines and appliances
will make them more energy efficient.<br>
<br>
The air will be “cleaner than it has been since before the
Industrial Revolution,” the co-authors write.<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.cnbc.com/2021/05/14/what-2050-could-look-like-if-we-dont-do-anything-about-climate-change.html">https://www.cnbc.com/2021/05/14/what-2050-could-look-like-if-we-dont-do-anything-about-climate-change.html</a><br>
<p>- -</p>
[here's the book]<br>
<b>The Future We Choose</b><br>
THE STUBBORN OPTIMIST'S GUIDE TO THE CLIMATE CRISIS<br>
By CHRISTIANA FIGUERES and TOM RIVETT-CARNAC<br>
Paperback $16.00<br>
Apr 06, 2021 | ISBN 9780593080931<br>
ABOUT THE FUTURE WE CHOOSE<br>
In The Future We Choose, Christiana Figueres and Tom
Rivett-Carnac—who led negotiations for the United Nations during the
historic Paris Agreement of 2015—have written a cautionary but
optimistic book about the world’s changing climate and the fate of
humanity.<br>
<br>
The authors outline two possible scenarios for our planet. In one,
they describe what life on Earth will be like by 2050 if we fail to
meet the Paris Agreement’s climate targets. In the other, they lay
out what it will be like to live in a regenerative world that has
net-zero emissions. They argue for confronting the climate crisis
head-on, with determination and optimism. The Future We Choose
presents our options and tells us what governments, corporations,
and each of us can, and must, do to fend off disaster...<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/books/623543/the-future-we-choose-by-christiana-figueres-and-tom-rivett-carnac/">https://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/books/623543/the-future-we-choose-by-christiana-figueres-and-tom-rivett-carnac/</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 May
16, 2004 </b></font><br>
<p>May 16, 2004: In the Washington Post, Koch acolyte Patrick
Michaels launches a preemptive strike against the upcoming film
"The Day After Tomorrow."<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A28338-2004May14.html">http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A28338-2004May14.html</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>