<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<i><font size="+1"><b>August 18, 2021</b></font></i>
<p>[Great news, after 6 years, maybe now I can retire this mailing
list]</p>
<p><b>Majority of climate change news coverage now accurate: study</b><br>
by University of Colorado at Boulder<br>
</p>
<p>Good news: Major print media in five countries have been
representing climate change very factually, hitting a 90 percent
accuracy rate in the last 15 years, according to an international
study out today with University of Colorado Boulder and
Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences
(CIRES) authors. Scientifically accurate coverage of man-made
climate change is becoming less biased—headlining the idea that
print media are no longer presenting climate change as
controversy. But there's one place where the team did find biased
coverage: conservative media. <br>
</p>
<p>"Two decades ago, print media frequently gave equal credence to
both legitimate climate experts and outlier climate deniers. But
we found in more recent years that the media around the globe
actually got it right most of the time. However, facts now
outweigh a debate," said Lucy McAllister, former Ph.D. student at
the University of Colorado Boulder and lead on the study out today
in Environmental Research Letters. "Nine out of ten media stories
accurately reported the science on human contributions to climate
change. It's not portrayed as a two-sided debate anymore."<br>
<br>
The researchers from the Technological University of Munich,
University of New England and the University of Colorado Boulder
analyzed nearly 5,000 newspaper articles from 17 print outlets in
five countries over 15 years (2005-2019). The work updates
previous research by Max Boykoff, CIRES Fellow and coauthor on the
new study, that examined how the journalistic norm of balanced
reporting contributed to biased print media.<br>
<br>
"Many continue to cite the 2004 Max Boykoff and Jules Boykoff
article—with data ending in 2002—as evidence of persistent bias in
the media. An updated analysis was critically needed," added
McAllister, now a postdoctoral researcher at the Technical
University of Munich. <br>
<br>
Even though outlets around the world are becoming increasingly
less biased when it comes to climate news—there's one place it
still continues to fail, the team found: conservative media.
Canada's National Post, Australia's Daily Telegraph and Sunday
Telegraph, and the U.K.'s Daily Mail and Mail on Sunday, all
historically conservative outlets, had significantly less accurate
coverage of climate change. <br>
<br>
World events influenced media accuracy, too: media coverage was
significantly less accurate in 2010 just after the late 2009
University of East Anglia email hacking scandal and U.N.
negotiations of the Copenhagen Accord, the team found. And
coverage was significantly more accurate in 2015, during the time
of the Paris Agreement negotiation.<br>
<br>
"Accurate reporting in these print outlets vastly outweighed
inaccurate reporting, but this is not a cause for complacency,"
said Boykoff, director of the Environmental Studies program at the
University of Colorado Boulder. "The terrain of climate debates
has largely shifted in recent years away from mere denial of human
contributions to climate change to a more subtle and ongoing
undermining of support for specific policies meant to
substantially address climate change."<br>
<br>
The researchers emphasize that people rarely read peer-reviewed
scientific research about climate change, and are more likely to
learn about it through the media. Therefore studies such as this
one are critical to understand ongoing science and policy pursuits
in the public sphere. There are also other competing pressures
that shape our awareness of climate change—such as conversations
with family and friends, entertainment and trusted leaders, the
team says. <br>
<br>
"Achieving consistently accurate media coverage is still not a
silver-bullet solution to spark collective action," Boykoff added.
"Our work helps provide insights on how the media are portraying
human contributions to climate change, yet more clearly must be
done."<br>
</p>
<p><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://phys.org/news/2021-08-majority-climate-news-coverage-accurate.html">https://phys.org/news/2021-08-majority-climate-news-coverage-accurate.html</a><br>
</p>
<p>- - <br>
</p>
[source paper is but one study]<br>
<b>Balance as bias, resolute on the retreat? Updates & analyses
of newspaper coverage in the United States, United Kingdom, New
Zealand, Australia and Canada over the past 15 years</b><br>
Abstract<br>
Through this research, we systematically updated and expanded
understanding of how the print media represent evidence of human
contributions to climate change. We built on previous research that
examined how the journalistic norm of balanced reporting contributed
to informationally biased print media coverage in the United States
(U.S.) context. We conducted a content analysis of coverage across
4856 newspaper articles over 15 years (2005–2019) and expanded
previous research beyond U.S. borders by analyzing 17 sources in
five countries: the United Kingdom (U.K.), Australia, New Zealand,
Canada, and the U.S. We found that across all the years of analysis,
90% of the sample accurately represented climate change. In
addition, our data suggests that scientifically accurate coverage of
climate change is improving over time. We also found that media
coverage was significantly less accurate in 2010 and significantly
more accurate in 2015, in comparison to the sample average.
Additionally, Canada's National Post, Australia's Daily Telegraph
and Sunday Telegraph, and the U.K.'s Daily Mail and Mail on Sunday
(all historically conservative outlets) had significantly less
accurate coverage of climate change over this time period than their
counterparts.<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/ac14eb">https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/ac14eb</a><br>
<p><br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
[yes please]<br>
<b>Humans ‘pushing Earth close to tipping point’, say most in G20</b><br>
Global survey finds 74% also want climate crises and protecting
nature prioritised over jobs and profit<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/aug/16/three-quarters-g20-earth-close-to-tipping-point-global-survey-climate-crisis">https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/aug/16/three-quarters-g20-earth-close-to-tipping-point-global-survey-climate-crisis</a><br>
<p><br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
[video fast motion looks like 1 second of video = 1 minute of real
fire time]<br>
<b>Caldor Fire 8/17/21</b><br>
Aug 17, 2021<br>
ALERTWildfire<br>
Caldor Fire in El Dorado County as viewed from the Leek Springs fire
camera.<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EzJXI_3ErD8">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EzJXI_3ErD8</a><br>
<p><br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
[Hayhoe and Otto]<br>
OPINION GUEST ESSAY<br>
<b>Extreme Weather Is the New Normal. We Know Why.</b><br>
Aug. 17, 2021<br>
By Katharine Hayhoe and Friederike Otto<br>
<blockquote>Dr. Hayhoe, an atmospheric scientist, is the chief
scientist The Nature Conservancy. Dr. Otto is the associate
director of the Environmental Change Institute at the University
of Oxford and a co-investigator for World Weather Attribution,
which assesses the human influence on extreme weather.<br>
</blockquote>
Hotter, faster, stronger: That isn’t a tagline for the next
blockbuster superhero movie. This is what climate change is doing to
many extreme weather events. As the planet warms, heat waves are
getting hotter, wildfires are moving faster and burning larger
areas, and storms and floods are becoming stronger.<br>
<br>
These effects are no longer a future or distant concern: They are
affecting us — all of us — here and now. The last week of July, in
Ontario, where one of us, Dr. Hayhoe, was visiting family, the sun
was orange and hazy, and smoke from the wildfires that blazed across
Canada hung in the air. The week before, Dr. Otto anxiously checked
in with family in Rhineland-Palatinate, the region in western
Germany where heavy rainfall caused floods that took more than 150
lives.<br>
<br>
We’re both climate scientists, so when a disaster happens, we’re
often asked: Is this climate change or just bad weather?<br>
<br>
While it is a natural human inclination to want to categorize things
in simple terms, how climate change affects our weather is not an
either/or question. We are already living in a world that is two
degrees Fahrenheit warmer than it was at the outset of the
Industrial Revolution. That means that every weather event is
already superimposed over the background of a changed climate...<br>
- -<br>
The more precise question to ask is this: Did climate change alter
the severity, frequency or duration of this event? Increasingly, the
answer is a resounding yes. And thanks to cutting-edge science,
we’re starting to be able to put some numbers on it, too. This type
of research is called “attribution.”<br>
<br>
How can science tease out the exact contribution of human-caused
climate change to a given event without a separate, otherwise
identical, but human-free earth to compare it to? The first step is
to characterize the event using observations: how long and hot was
the heat wave, or how much rain fell during the storm, or how strong
was the hurricane.<br>
<br>
Then, we turn to our climate models. These are sophisticated
physics-based simulations of the atmosphere, ocean and land surface
that are run on powerful supercomputers. Because we know very well
the amount of greenhouse gases humans have added to the atmosphere,
we can remove the human influence from climate models’ atmospheres
to create a world without climate change. Using the models, we can
then identify how strong, how long, how big, and how likely the same
event would be in that imaginary world.<br>
<br>
The effect of climate change is the difference between what happens
in a world without human influence and what happened in the real
world. When scientists find that, say, what is now a one in a 100
years event in the real world would have occurred only once every
200 years without climate change, this doubled risk can be
attributed to climate change.<br>
<br>
Attribution matters because our human brains prioritize immediacy.
We are wired to feel more concerned about a small leak in our roof
than we are about a few degrees rise in ocean temperature 50 or 500
miles away. But when your home is in Houston, an increase of a few
degrees in ocean surface temperature turns a distant problem into an
immediate catastrophe, as when rain from a storm like Hurricane
Harvey deluges your home for days upon days...<br>
--<br>
That storm hit Houston in August 2017. It wasn’t until December of
that year, though, that the first attribution study was published
showing that climate change made a storm with as much rainfall as
Hurricane Harvey three times more likely. It took until 2020 for
scientists to calculate that three-quarters of the tens of billions
in economic damage suffered during the storm stem from the
additional rainfall amounts attributed to human-caused climate
change. This is a stunning number, but by then, the news cycle had
long since moved on.<br>
<br>
This is why new rapid attribution analyses are so important. Take
the heat wave this summer in the Pacific Northwest and British
Columbia, which resulted in an estimated hundreds of heat-related
deaths, ruined crops and wildfire outbreaks. The town of Lytton,
British Columbia, broke the temperature record for Canada three days
in a row. On the fourth day Lytton was all but destroyed by
wildfire. These events were so extreme that they were very difficult
to imagine, even for climate scientists like us, just two months
ago.<br>
<br>
Dr. Otto was part of an international team of researchers organized
by the World Weather Attribution initiative who conducted a rapid
analysis of the event. They found that human-induced global warming
made the heat wave 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit hotter and at least 150
times more likely to occur. The report garnered headlines in part
because it was released just nine days after the heat wave occurred,
so it was still news.<br>
<br>
The attribution team is working on its next report, analyzing the
heavy rain and flooding in Germany and Belgium in July. We won’t
have exact numbers until the analysis is completed this month, but
we do know from basic physics that in a warmer atmosphere, the
chance of heavy rainfall is higher. The just published report by the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has shown this very
clearly.<br>
<br>
As extreme weather increasingly becomes the new norm, this is how
rapid analysis and attribution science can help us more clearly and
succinctly label and calculate the ways climate change multiplies
the threat of extreme weather and puts us all at risk. But we don’t
need to analyze any more events to know we need to act, and quickly.<br>
<br>
The evidence and the data is already clear: The faster we cut our
emissions, the better off we’ll all be.<br>
<br>
Katharine Hayhoe is a professor at Texas Tech University and the
author of the forthcoming book “Saving Us: A Climate Scientist’s
Case for Hope and Healing in a Divided World." Friederike Otto is a
climate scientist at the University of Oxford and the author of
“Angry Weather: Heat Waves, Floods, Storms, and the New Science of
Climate Change.”<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.nytimes.com/2021/08/17/opinion/extreme-weather-climate-change.html">https://www.nytimes.com/2021/08/17/opinion/extreme-weather-climate-change.html</a><br>
<p><br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
[Here's some history]<br>
<b>Fact check: A 1912 article about burning coal and climate change
is authentic</b><br>
McKenzie Sadeghi<br>
USA TODAY Aug 14, 2021<br>
The claim: An article from 1912 warned coal consumption can have a
negative impact on climate<br>
A viral image of a 1912 newspaper clip circulating on social media
claims scientists have known for more than a century that coal
consumption can have a negative effect on climate.<br>
<br>
The image of the newspaper article, shared to Facebook on Aug. 12 by
the page Historic Photographs, is titled, “Coal Consumption
Affecting Climate,” and it says the coal burned in furnaces around
the world is causing an effect that "may be considerable in a few
centuries." It’s dated Aug. 14, 1912. <br>
<br>
The same photo was shared to Twitter on Aug. 12 in a tweet with more
than 16,000 likes, with the caption, "Climate change prediction from
1912." In the replies, some were skeptical about the authenticity of
the article.<br>
<br>
But the article in question is authentic, originally published more
than 100 years ago. <br>
<br>
And it has proven true, as today the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency says, "the burning of coal, natural gas and oil for
electricity and heat is the largest single source of global
greenhouse emissions."<br>
<br>
USA TODAY reached out to the poster for comment, and they noted
Snopes had previously identified the clipping as legitimate.<br>
<br>
Fact check: Posts falsely claim 95% of energy for charging electric
cars comes from coal<br>
<br>
<b>Article is authentic</b><br>
The text in the article originates from a March 1912 report in the
magazine Popular Mechanics titled, “Remarkable Weather of 1911: The
Effect of the Combustion of Coal on the Climate – What Scientists
Predict for the Future.”<br>
<br>
The same phrasing was published on Aug. 14, 1912, in the New Zealand
newspaper Rodney and Otamatea Times, Waitemata and Kaipara Gazette,
which is the publication shown in the viral image. Prior to that,
it appeared in The Braidwood Dispatch and Mining Journal, an
Australian newspaper, on July 17, 1912.<br>
<br>
“The furnaces of the world are now burning about 2,000,000,000 tons
of coal a year,” the article reads. “When this is burned, uniting
with oxygen, it adds about 7,000,000,000 tons of carbon dioxide to
the atmosphere yearly. This tends to make the air a more effective
blanket for the earth and to raise its temperature. The effect may
be considerable in a few centuries."<br>
<br>
Reports about coal burning and its effect on the atmosphere date
back to the 1800s, according to The New York Times.<br>
<br>
In an April 1896 paper titled, "On the Influence of Carbonic Acid in
the Air upon the Temperature of the Ground," Svante Arrhenius, a
Swedish scientist, suggested a link between carbon dioxide levels
and temperature. <br>
<br>
<b>Our rating: True</b><br>
The claim that an article from 1912 warned coal consumption can have
a negative impact on climate is TRUE, based on our research. The
article first appeared in Popular Mechanics in March 1912, then was
republished in other newspapers that same year. <br>
Our fact-check sources: <br>
<blockquote>Popular Mechanics, March 1912, Remarkable Weather of
1911<br>
The Braidwood Dispatch and Mining Journal, July 17, 1912, Coal
Consumption Affecting Climate<br>
Rodney and Otamatea Times, Waitemata and Kaipara Gazette, Aug. 12,
1912, Coal Consumption Affecting Climate<br>
The New York Times, Oct. 21, 2016, Coverage of Coal's Link to
Global Warming, in 1912<br>
Philosophical Magazine and Journal of Science, April 1896, On the
Influence of Carbonic Acid in the Air upon the Temperature of the
Ground<br>
Snopes, Oct. 18, 2016, Did a 1912 Newspaper Article Predict Global
Warming?<br>
Thank you for supporting our journalism. You can subscribe to our
print edition, ad-free app, or electronic newspaper replica here.<br>
</blockquote>
Our fact-check work is supported in part by a grant from Facebook.<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2021/08/13/fact-check-yes-1912-article-linked-burning-coal-climate-change/8124455002/">https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2021/08/13/fact-check-yes-1912-article-linked-burning-coal-climate-change/8124455002/</a><br>
<p><br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<br>
[The news archive - looking back]<br>
<font size="+1"><b>On this day in the history of global warming
August 18, 2015</b></font><br>
August 18, 2015:The New York Times reports:<br>
<br>
"The Obama administration is expected to propose as soon as Tuesday
the first-ever federal regulation to cut emissions of methane, a
powerful greenhouse gas that contributes to global warming, by the
nation’s oil and natural-gas industry, officials familiar with the
plan said on Monday.<br>
<br>
"The proposed rule would call for the reduction of methane emissions
by 40 to 45 percent over the next decade from 2012 levels, the
officials said. The proposal was widely expected, after the
Environmental Protection Agency said in January that it was working
on such a plan.<br>
<br>
"The new rules are part of Mr. Obama’s broad push for regulations
meant to cut emissions of planet-warming gases from different
sectors of the economy. This month, Mr. Obama unveiled the
centerpiece of that plan, a regulation meant to cut emissions of
carbon dioxide by 32 percent from 2005 levels by 2030, a move that
could transform the way the nation produces and consumes electric
power.<br>
<br>
"The new rules on methane could create a tougher regulatory scheme
on the nation’s fossil fuel production, particularly on the way that
companies extract, move and store natural gas.<br>
<br>
"Environmental advocates have long urged the Obama administration to
crack down on methane emissions. Most of the greenhouse gas
pollution in the United States comes from carbon dioxide, which is
produced by burning coal, oil and natural gas. Methane, which leaks
from oil and gas wells, accounts for just 9 percent of the nation’s
greenhouse gas pollution — but it is over 20 times more potent than
carbon dioxide, so even small amounts of it can have a big impact on
global warming."<br>
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/18/business/us-is-set-to-propose-regulation-to-cut-methane-emissions.html">http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/18/business/us-is-set-to-propose-regulation-to-cut-methane-emissions.html</a>
<br>
<br>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>/-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------/</p>
<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"
moz-do-not-send="true"><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"
moz-do-not-send="true">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"
moz-do-not-send="true"><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. This is a hobby production curated by Richard
Pauli<br>
By regulation, the .VOTE top-level domain 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" moz-do-not-send="true">contact@theclimate.vote</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E"
href="mailto:contact@theclimate.vote" moz-do-not-send="true"><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"
moz-do-not-send="true">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"
moz-do-not-send="true">http://TheClimate.Vote</a> <a
class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="http://TheClimate.Vote/"
moz-do-not-send="true"><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>