<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<font size="+2"><font face="Calibri"><i><b>July</b></i></font></font><font
size="+2" face="Calibri"><i><b> 2, 2023</b></i></font><font
face="Calibri"><br>
</font><br>
<i><font face="Calibri">[ Associated Press calls it the New
Abnormal ]</font></i><br>
<font face="Calibri"><b>Climate change keeps making wildfires and
smoke worse. Scientists call it the ‘new abnormal’</b><br>
</font><font face="Calibri">BY SETH BORENSTEIN AND MELINA WALLING<br>
Published June 30, 2023<br>
It was a smell that invoked a memory. Both for Emily Kuchlbauer in
North Carolina and Ryan Bomba in Chicago. It was smoke from
wildfires, the odor of an increasingly hot and occasionally
on-fire world.<br>
<br>
Kuchlbauer had flashbacks to the surprise of soot coating her car
three years ago when she was a recent college graduate in San
Diego. Bomba had deja vu from San Francisco, where the air was so
thick with smoke people had to mask up. They figured they left
wildfire worries behind in California, but a Canada that’s burning
from sea to warming sea brought one of the more visceral effects
of climate change home to places that once seemed immune.<br>
<br>
“It’s been very apocalyptic feeling, because in California the
dialogue is like, ‘Oh, it’s normal. This is just what happens on
the West Coast,’ but it’s very much not normal here,” Kuchlbauer
said.<br>
</font><br>
<font face="Calibri">As Earth’s climate continues to change from
heat-trapping gases spewed into the air, ever fewer people are out
of reach from the billowing and deadly fingers of wildfire smoke,
scientists say. Already wildfires are consuming three times more
of the United States and Canada each year than in the 1980s and
studies predict fire and smoke to worsen...</font><br>
<font face="Calibri">- -</font><br>
<font face="Calibri">Several scientists told the AP that the problem
of smoke and wildfires will progressively worsen until the world
significantly reduces greenhouse gas emissions, which has not
happened despite years of international negotiations and lofty
goals.<br>
<br>
Fires in North America are generally getting worse, burning more
land. Even before July, traditionally the busiest fire month for
the country, Canada has set a record for most area burned with
31,432 square miles (81,409 square kilometers), which is nearly
15% higher than the old record.<br>
<br>
“A year like this could happen with or without climate change, but
warming temperatures just made it a lot more probable,” said A.
Park Williams, a UCLA bioclimatologist who studies fire and water.
“We’re seeing, especially across the West, big increases in smoke
exposure and reduction in air quality that are attributable to
increase in fire activity.”...</font><br>
<font face="Calibri">- -<br>
Wildfires expose about 44 million people per year worldwide to
unhealthy air, causing about 677,000 deaths annually with almost
39% of them children, according to a 2021 study out of the United
Kingdom.<br>
<br>
One study that looked at a dozen years of wildfire smoke exposure
in Washington state showed a 1% all-ages increase in the odds of
non-traumatic death the same day as the smoke hit the area and 2%
for the day after. Risk of respiratory deaths jumped 14% and even
more, 35%, for adults ages 45 to 64...</font><br>
<font face="Calibri">- -<br>
</font><font face="Calibri">Based on peer-reviewed studies, the
Health Effects Institute estimated that smoke’s chief pollutant
caused 4 million deaths worldwide and nearly 48,000 deaths in the
U.S. in 2019.<br>
<br>
The tiny particles making up a main pollutant of wildfire smoke,
called PM2.5, are just the right size to embed deep in the lungs
and absorb into the blood. But while their size has garnered
attention, their composition also matters, said Kris Ebi, a
University of Washington climate and health scientist.<br>
<br>
“There is emerging evidence that the toxicity of wildfire smoke
PM2.5 is more toxic than what comes out of tailpipes,” Ebi said.<br>
<br>
A cascade of health effects may become a growing problem in the
wake of wildfires, including downwind from the source, said Ed
Avol, professor emeritus at the Keck School of Medicine at
University of Southern California.<br>
</font><font face="Calibri"><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://apnews.com/article/wildfire-smoke-canada-climate-change-new-normal-f22a68e7df9688ef8eccd970efde3baf">https://apnews.com/article/wildfire-smoke-canada-climate-change-new-normal-f22a68e7df9688ef8eccd970efde3baf</a><br>
</font>
<p><font face="Calibri"><br>
</font></p>
<p><font face="Calibri"><br>
</font> </p>
<font face="Calibri"> </font> <font face="Calibri"><i>[ bye bye
burgers ] </i><br>
</font> <font face="Calibri"><b>Why the media too often ignores the
connection between climate change and meat</b><br>
The burger-sized hole in climate change coverage, explained.<br>
By Kenny Torrella@KennyTorrella <br>
</font><font face="Calibri">Jul 1, 2023, <br>
</font><font face="Calibri">Last weekend, Elon Musk posted one of
his more outrageously false tweets to date: “Important to note
that what happens on Earth’s surface (eg farming) has no
meaningful impact on climate change.”<br>
<br>
Musk was, as he has been from time to time, wrong. As climate
experts rushed to emphasize, farming actually accounts for around
a quarter of global greenhouse gas emissions.<br>
<br>
Before you add this to your list of criticisms of Musk, know that
if you’re anything like the average person — or Musk himself — you
too probably underestimate just how much agriculture, especially
meat and dairy production, contributes to climate change and other
environmental problems...</font><br>
<font face="Calibri">- -</font><br>
<font face="Calibri"><b>The food misinformation environment that
reporters swim in</b><br>
Estimates vary, but peer-reviewed research says that animal
agriculture causes between 15 percent to 19.6 percent of
climate-warming emissions. The United Nations’ most recent
estimate puts animal agriculture’s emissions at 11.1 percent, but
it hasn’t been peer-reviewed and has been questioned by some food
and climate researchers.<br>
<br>
Last month, journalist Sophie Kevany explained in detail for Vox
why there’s such a wide range in estimates, but here’s the gist:
It’s hard to measure emissions from farms, there’s evidence these
emissions are undercounted, and different models use different
carbon accounting methods.<br>
<br>
The range of estimates has left room for meat lobbyists to muddy
the waters, creating an environment of misinformation and
exaggeration...<br>
</font><font face="Calibri">- -</font><br>
<font face="Calibri">On top of applying healthy skepticism to claims
made in the food and agriculture sphere, journalists could also be
more specific by naming animal agriculture as the top cause for an
environmental problem when appropriate, not agriculture writ
large. For example, “agriculture” is sometimes cited as a major
cause of the Colorado River water shortage, which could lead
readers to think that the current sky-high levels of water use for
agriculture in the Western US are just an inevitable part of
feeding the world. But at least 70 percent of the water diverted
from the Colorado River for agriculture is used to grow feed for
beef and dairy cows, and animal products generally require much
more water than plant-based foods.<br>
<br>
Covering this huge, complex issue with skepticism and nuance
requires time, resources, and specialization, all luxuries many
reporters don’t have. The problem is a symptom of bigger
challenges in journalism.<br>
<br>
To be sure, in addition to journalists quoted in this article,
there are a number of news outlets, non-profits, and writers that
regularly report on how what we eat contributes to climate change.
But an enormous coverage gap remains. It may just take time for
stakeholders in the climate crisis — journalists, policymakers,
environmentalists, and consumers — to catch up.<br>
<br>
“The food conversation is probably about 20 years behind the
energy conversation, and it is catching up, but it’s not visceral
to people in the way energy is — that they immediately know energy
is a climate issue,” said Michael Grunwald, a food and agriculture
columnist for Canary Media, in the Sentient Media panel
discussion.<br>
<br>
But time is in short supply. Experts say that if we don’t change
what we eat — especially reducing beef and dairy — we can’t meet
the Paris climate agreement of limiting global warming to 2
degrees Celsius or less. Journalists have risen to the occasion
before: Coverage of climate change has increased in recent
decades, especially in the last few years. Hopefully reporting on
the emissions from what we put on our plate will follow a similar
trajectory.<br>
</font><br>
<font face="Calibri"><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/23778399/media-ignores-climate-change-beef-meat-dairy">https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/23778399/media-ignores-climate-change-beef-meat-dairy</a><br>
</font>
<p><font face="Calibri">- -</font></p>
<font face="Calibri"><i>[founded by Dr Sailesh Rao]</i><br>
</font><font face="Calibri"><b>Climate Healers </b>is focused on
promoting a New Story of human belonging in Nature and a New phase
of humanity as we evolve to a Vegan World by 2026.<br>
Our manifesto<br>
Put on your Chrysalis avatar and leave your Caterpillar past
behind. Let us join together as true equals. We can use our
individual unique gifts in a cooperative effort to depollute and
regenerate the Earth in preparation for the birth of the Butterfly
(Homo Ahimsa) stage of humanity.<br>
</font><font face="Calibri"><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://climatehealers.org/">https://climatehealers.org/</a><br>
</font>
<p><font face="Calibri"><br>
</font></p>
<p><font face="Calibri"><br>
</font> </p>
<font face="Calibri"> <i>[ Place your bets on predicting hurricane
tracks ]</i></font><br>
<b>Which hurricane models should you trust in 2023?</b><br>
How the models did last year, what’s new this year – and why you
should pay the most heed to the National Hurricane Center forecast.
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://www.noaa.gov/news-release/2023-atlantic-hurricane-season-outlook">https://www.noaa.gov/news-release/2023-atlantic-hurricane-season-outlook</a><br>
Jeff MastersBob Henson<br>
by JEFF MASTERS and BOB HENSON<br>
JUNE 30, 2023<br>
For those puzzling over the various hurricane computer forecast
models to figure out which one to believe, the best answer is: Don’t
believe any of them. Put your trust in the National Hurricane
Center, or NHC, forecast.<br>
<br>
It’s always been the case that a particular forecast model may
outperform the official NHC forecast in some situations. However,
the 2022 NHC Forecast Verification Report reiterates a longstanding
truth: overall, it is very difficult for any one model to
consistently beat the NHC forecasts for track and for intensity...<br>
- -<br>
Track forecasts: New levels of accuracy<br>
During the 2022 Atlantic hurricane season, NHC track forecasts had
accuracies notably better than the five-year average. New records
for track accuracy were set at time frames of 1, 1.5, 2, 2.5, 4, and
5 days....<br>
- -
<blockquote>Here is a list of some of the top hurricane forecast
models used by NHC:<br>
<br>
<b>Euro: </b>The European Center for Medium-range Weather
Forecasting (ECMWF) global forecast model<br>
<br>
<b>GFS: </b>The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
(NOAA) Global Forecast System model<br>
<b><br>
</b><b>UKMET:</b> The United Kingdom Met Office’s global forecast
model<br>
<br>
<b>HAFS: </b>Hurricane Analysis and Forecast System (newly added
in 2023; see below)<br>
<br>
<b>HMON:</b> Hurricanes in a Multi-scale Ocean-coupled
Non-hydrostatic regional model, initialized using GFS data<br>
<br>
<b>HWRF: </b>Hurricane Weather and Research Forecasting regional
model, initialized using GFS data<br>
<br>
<b>COAMPS: </b>COAMPS-TC regional model, initialized using GFS
data...</blockquote>
- -<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://yaleclimateconnections.org/2023/06/which-hurricane-models-should-you-trust-in-2023/">https://yaleclimateconnections.org/2023/06/which-hurricane-models-should-you-trust-in-2023/</a><br>
<br>
<br>
<p><br>
</p>
<br>
<i>[ trending heat ]</i><br>
<b>El Niño could push global warming past 1.5℃ – but what is it and
how does it affect the weather in Europe?</b><br>
Published: June 29, 2023<br>
Scientists have warned that 2024 could mark the year when global
warming exceeds 1.5℃ above pre-industrial levels. They attribute
these predictions, at least in part, to the emergence of an El Niño
event.<br>
<br>
An El Niño is declared when the sea surface temperature in large
parts of the central or eastern equatorial regions of the Pacific
Ocean warms significantly – sometimes by as much as 2℃. This
additional heat in turn warms the atmosphere. During El Niño years,
this warming contributes to a temporary rise in the global
temperature by a fraction of a degree.<br>
- -<br>
But even then, the underlying warming trend caused by climate change
is making higher temperatures more probable in all seasons.
Together, these other factors make any climatic signals from El Niño
harder to detect and forecast. Caution must therefore be exercised
before attributing anomalies in European winter weather to El Niño
alone.<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://theconversation.com/el-nino-could-push-global-warming-past-1-5-but-what-is-it-and-how-does-it-affect-the-weather-in-europe-208412">https://theconversation.com/el-nino-could-push-global-warming-past-1-5-but-what-is-it-and-how-does-it-affect-the-weather-in-europe-208412</a><br>
<br>
<p><br>
</p>
<font face="Calibri"> <i>[ after the Australian fires ]</i></font><br>
<font face="Calibri"> </font> <font face="Calibri"><b>"Radically
Local" - Margi Prideaux, live with David B.</b><br>
Collapse Club<br>
Streamed live on Mar 30, 2022<br>
For 30 years, Margi Prideaux created conservation policy on a
large scale, writing international treaties to protect wildlife
and natural systems. Then, on January 3, 2020, the "Ravine" fire
on Kangaroo Island, Australia, destroyed her home and farm, in the
midst of a two-week-long firestorm that consumed 47 million acres
of vegetation, 89 homes, 650 farm buildings, and millions of wild
animals. <br>
<br>
"Pain makes people change," Margi says. "For thirty years my
raison d’être has been as a voice for nature in human affairs. I
believed in progressive, incremental change. In protected areas
and big laws. I believed in hope. Now, I know it is too late." See
her website at: <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://wildpolitics.co/">https://wildpolitics.co/</a><br>
<br>
Margi now advocates for a "radically local" approach to
conservation, putting power in the hands of the people who live on
the land, who know the plants and animals, and who can create a
realistic vision for survival. <br>
<br>
"We have no choice left but to do what was obvious all along — to
empower radically local conservation, immediately — not
incrementally, aiming for ten- or twenty-years’ time," Margi says.
"We need local roundtables of planning and decision, populated by
those who carry the knowledge of our land, and of fire, flood, and
drought — First Nations, farmers, fishers, and conservation
landholders — with science there to educate and empower."<br>
</font><br>
<font face="Calibri"><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_LfmxmQly0Y">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_LfmxmQly0Y</a><br>
</font><br>
<p><i><font face="Calibri"><br>
</font></i></p>
<font face="Calibri"><i>[ humor, Larry David confronts the
weatherman ]</i><br>
</font><font face="Calibri"><b>Larry David and the Weatherman</b><br>
Jul 31, 2009<br>
Larry David suspects that the local weatherman is predicting rain
just so he can have the golf course to himself. Priceless.<br>
This clip features one of my all-time favorite television quotes:
"There's a jet stream of bullshit coming out of your mouth, my
friend!"<br>
</font><font face="Calibri"><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5oX-8TbQhk0">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5oX-8TbQhk0</a><br>
</font>
<p><font face="Calibri"><br>
</font></p>
<p><font face="Calibri"><br>
</font> </p>
<font face="Calibri"><i>[The news archive - looking back -- at an
infamous academic consistently paid by Exxon <a
class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://www.desmog.com/richard-lindzen/">https://www.desmog.com/richard-lindzen/</a>
I don't like to print disinformation -- but he is a notorious
disinformer. ]</i></font><br>
<font face="Calibri"> <font size="+2"><i><b>July 2, 2006</b></i></font>
</font><br>
<font face="Calibri">July 2, 2006: Notorious climate denier Dick
Lindzen whines, moans, kvetches and complains about "An
Inconvenient Truth" in a piece for the Wall Street Journal's
OpinionJournal.com. <br>
</font><br>
[ see also Info from DeSmog <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://www.desmog.com/richard-lindzen/">https://www.desmog.com/richard-lindzen/</a>]<br>
<blockquote><font face="Calibri">Don't Believe the Hype</font><br>
<b><font face="Calibri">Al Gore is wrong. There's no "consensus"
on global warming.</font></b><br>
<br>
<font face="Calibri">BY RICHARD S. LINDZEN</font><br>
<font face="Calibri">Sunday, July 2, 2006 12:01 a.m. EDT</font><br>
<br>
<font face="Calibri">According to Al Gore's new film "An
Inconvenient Truth," we're in for "a planetary emergency":
melting ice sheets, huge increases in sea levels, more and
stronger hurricanes, and invasions of tropical disease, among
other cataclysms--unless we change the way we live now.</font><br>
<br>
<font face="Calibri">Bill Clinton has become the latest evangelist
for Mr. Gore's gospel, proclaiming that current weather events
show that he and Mr. Gore were right about global warming, and
we are all suffering the consequences of President Bush's
obtuseness on the matter. And why not? Mr. Gore assures us that
"the debate in the scientific community is over."</font><br>
<br>
<font face="Calibri">That statement, which Mr. Gore made in an
interview with George Stephanopoulos on ABC, ought to have been
followed by an asterisk. What exactly is this debate that Mr.
Gore is referring to? Is there really a scientific community
that is debating all these issues and then somehow agreeing in
unison? Far from such a thing being over, it has never been
clear to me what this "debate" actually is in the first place.</font><br>
<br>
<font face="Calibri">The media rarely help, of course. When
Newsweek featured global warming in a 1988 issue, it was claimed
that all scientists agreed. Periodically thereafter it was
revealed that although there had been lingering doubts
beforehand, now all scientists did indeed agree. Even Mr. Gore
qualified his statement on ABC only a few minutes after he made
it, clarifying things in an important way. When Mr.
Stephanopoulos confronted Mr. Gore with the fact that the best
estimates of rising sea levels are far less dire than he
suggests in his movie, Mr. Gore defended his claims by noting
that scientists "don't have any models that give them a high
level of confidence" one way or the other and went on to
claim--in his defense--that scientists "don't know. . . . They
just don't know."</font><br>
<br>
<font face="Calibri">So, presumably, those scientists do not
belong to the "consensus." Yet their research is forced, whether
the evidence supports it or not, into Mr. Gore's preferred
global-warming template--namely, shrill alarmism. To believe it
requires that one ignore the truly inconvenient facts. To take
the issue of rising sea levels, these include: that the Arctic
was as warm or warmer in 1940; that icebergs have been known
since time immemorial; that the evidence so far suggests that
the Greenland ice sheet is actually growing on average. A likely
result of all this is increased pressure pushing ice off the
coastal perimeter of that country, which is depicted so
ominously in Mr. Gore's movie. In the absence of factual
context, these images are perhaps dire or alarming.</font><br>
<br>
<font face="Calibri">They are less so otherwise. Alpine glaciers
have been retreating since the early 19th century, and were
advancing for several centuries before that. Since about 1970,
many of the glaciers have stopped retreating and some are now
advancing again. And, frankly, we don't know why.</font><br>
<br>
<font face="Calibri">The other elements of the global-warming
scare scenario are predicated on similar oversights. Malaria,
claimed as a byproduct of warming, was once common in Michigan
and Siberia and remains common in Siberia--mosquitoes don't
require tropical warmth. Hurricanes, too, vary on multidecadal
time scales; sea-surface temperature is likely to be an
important factor. This temperature, itself, varies on
multidecadal time scales. However, questions concerning the
origin of the relevant sea-surface temperatures and the nature
of trends in hurricane intensity are being hotly argued within
the profession.</font><br>
<font face="Calibri">Even among those arguing, there is general
agreement that we can't attribute any particular hurricane to
global warming. To be sure, there is one exception, Greg Holland
of the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder,
Colo., who argues that it must be global warming because he
can't think of anything else. While arguments like these, based
on lassitude, are becoming rather common in climate assessments,
such claims, given the primitive state of weather and climate
science, are hardly compelling.</font><br>
<br>
<font face="Calibri">A general characteristic of Mr. Gore's
approach is to assiduously ignore the fact that the earth and
its climate are dynamic; they are always changing even without
any external forcing. To treat all change as something to fear
is bad enough; to do so in order to exploit that fear is much
worse. Regardless, these items are clearly not issues over which
debate is ended--at least not in terms of the actual science.</font><br>
<br>
<font face="Calibri">A clearer claim as to what debate has ended
is provided by the environmental journalist Gregg Easterbrook.
He concludes that the scientific community now agrees that
significant warming is occurring, and that there is clear
evidence of human influences on the climate system. This is
still a most peculiar claim. At some level, it has never been
widely contested. Most of the climate community has agreed since
1988 that global mean temperatures have increased on the order
of one degree Fahrenheit over the past century, having risen
significantly from about 1919 to 1940, decreased between 1940
and the early '70s, increased again until the '90s, and
remaining essentially flat since 1998.</font><br>
<br>
<font face="Calibri">There is also little disagreement that levels
of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere have risen from about 280
parts per million by volume in the 19th century to about 387
ppmv today. Finally, there has been no question whatever that
carbon dioxide is an infrared absorber (i.e., a greenhouse
gas--albeit a minor one), and its increase should theoretically
contribute to warming. Indeed, if all else were kept equal, the
increase in carbon dioxide should have led to somewhat more
warming than has been observed, assuming that the small observed
increase was in fact due to increasing carbon dioxide rather
than a natural fluctuation in the climate system. Although no
cause for alarm rests on this issue, there has been an intense
effort to claim that the theoretically expected contribution
from additional carbon dioxide has actually been detected.</font><br>
<br>
<font face="Calibri">Given that we do not understand the natural
internal variability of climate change, this task is currently
impossible. Nevertheless there has been a persistent effort to
suggest otherwise, and with surprising impact. Thus, although
the conflicted state of the affair was accurately presented in
the 1996 text of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change,
the infamous "summary for policy makers" reported ambiguously
that "The balance of evidence suggests a discernible human
influence on global climate." This sufficed as the smoking gun
for Kyoto.</font><br>
<br>
<font face="Calibri">The next IPCC report again described the
problems surrounding what has become known as the attribution
issue: that is, to explain what mechanisms are responsible for
observed changes in climate. Some deployed the lassitude
argument--e.g., we can't think of an alternative--to support
human attribution. But the "summary for policy makers" claimed
in a manner largely unrelated to the actual text of the report
that "In the light of new evidence and taking into account the
remaining uncertainties, most of the observed warming over the
last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in
greenhouse gas concentrations."</font><br>
<br>
<font face="Calibri">In a similar vein, the National Academy of
Sciences issued a brief (15-page) report responding to questions
from the White House. It again enumerated the difficulties with
attribution, but again the report was preceded by a front end
that ambiguously claimed that "The changes observed over the
last several decades are likely mostly due to human activities,
but we cannot rule out that some significant part of these
changes is also a reflection of natural variability." This was
sufficient for CNN's Michelle Mitchell to presciently declare
that the report represented a "unanimous decision that global
warming is real, is getting worse and is due to man. There is no
wiggle room." Well, no.</font><br>
<br>
<font face="Calibri">More recently, a study in the journal Science
by the social scientist Nancy Oreskes claimed that a search of
the ISI Web of Knowledge Database for the years 1993 to 2003
under the key words "global climate change" produced 928
articles, all of whose abstracts supported what she referred to
as the consensus view. A British social scientist, Benny Peiser,
checked her procedure and found that only 913 of the 928
articles had abstracts at all, and that only 13 of the remaining
913 explicitly endorsed the so-called consensus view. Several
actually opposed it.</font><br>
<br>
<font face="Calibri">Even more recently, the Climate Change
Science Program, the Bush administration's coordinating agency
for global-warming research, declared it had found "clear
evidence of human influences on the climate system." This, for
Mr. Easterbrook, meant: "Case closed." What exactly was this
evidence? The models imply that greenhouse warming should impact
atmospheric temperatures more than surface temperatures, and yet
satellite data showed no warming in the atmosphere since 1979.
The report showed that selective corrections to the atmospheric
data could lead to some warming, thus reducing the conflict
between observations and models descriptions of what greenhouse
warming should look like. That, to me, means the case is still
very much open.</font><br>
<br>
<font face="Calibri">So what, then, is one to make of this alleged
debate? I would suggest at least three points.</font><br>
<font face="Calibri">First, nonscientists generally do not want to
bother with understanding the science. Claims of consensus
relieve policy types, environmental advocates and politicians of
any need to do so. Such claims also serve to intimidate the
public and even scientists--especially those outside the area of
climate dynamics. Secondly, given that the question of human
attribution largely cannot be resolved, its use in promoting
visions of disaster constitutes nothing so much as a
bait-and-switch scam. That is an inauspicious beginning to what
Mr. Gore claims is not a political issue but a "moral" crusade.</font><br>
<br>
<font face="Calibri">Lastly, there is a clear attempt to establish
truth not by scientific methods but by perpetual repetition. An
earlier attempt at this was accompanied by tragedy. Perhaps Marx
was right. This time around we may have farce--if we're lucky.</font><br>
<br>
<font face="Calibri">Mr. Lindzen is the Alfred P. Sloan Professor
of Atmospheric Science at MIT.</font><br>
</blockquote>
<font face="Calibri"> <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="http://web.archive.org/web/20060705111127/http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110008597">http://web.archive.org/web/20060705111127/http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110008597</a>
</font><br>
<p>[ be sure to see DeSmog <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.desmog.com/richard-lindzen/">https://www.desmog.com/richard-lindzen/</a>
for a detailed analysis of Mr Lindzen's work]<br>
</p>
<font face="Calibri"> <br>
<br>
</font>
<p><font face="Calibri">======================================= <br>
</font> <font face="Calibri"><b class="moz-txt-star"><span
class="moz-txt-tag">*Mass media is lacking, many </span>daily
summaries<span class="moz-txt-tag"> deliver global warming
news - a few are email delivered*</span></b> <br>
</font> <font face="Calibri"><br>
=========================================================<br>
</font> <font face="Calibri"><b>*Inside Climate News</b><br>
Newsletters<br>
We deliver climate news to your inbox like nobody else. Every
day or once a week, our original stories and digest of the web’s
top headlines deliver the full story, for free.<br>
</font> <font face="Calibri"><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://insideclimatenews.org/">https://insideclimatenews.org/</a><br>
--------------------------------------- <br>
*<b>Climate Nexus</b> <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://climatenexus.org/hot-news/*">https://climatenexus.org/hot-news/*</a>
<br>
Delivered straight to your inbox every morning, Hot News
summarizes the most important climate and energy news of the
day, delivering an unmatched aggregation of timely, relevant
reporting. It also provides original reporting and commentary on
climate denial and pro-polluter activity that would otherwise
remain largely unexposed. 5 weekday <br>
================================= <br>
</font> <font face="Calibri"><b class="moz-txt-star"><span
class="moz-txt-tag">*</span>Carbon Brief Daily </b><span
class="moz-txt-star"><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://www.carbonbrief.org/newsletter-sign-up">https://www.carbonbrief.org/newsletter-sign-up</a></span><b
class="moz-txt-star"><span class="moz-txt-tag">*</span></b> <br>
Every weekday morning, in time for your morning coffee, Carbon
Brief sends out a free email known as the “Daily Briefing” to
thousands of subscribers around the world. The email is a digest
of the past 24 hours of media coverage related to climate change
and energy, as well as our pick of the key studies published in
the peer-reviewed journals. <br>
more at <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://www.getrevue.co/publisher/carbon-brief">https://www.getrevue.co/publisher/carbon-brief</a>
<br>
================================== <br>
*T<b>he Daily Climate </b>Subscribe <a
class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://ehsciences.activehosted.com/f/61*">https://ehsciences.activehosted.com/f/61*</a>
<br>
Get The Daily Climate in your inbox - FREE! Top news on climate
impacts, solutions, politics, drivers. Delivered week days.
Better than coffee. <br>
Other newsletters at <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://www.dailyclimate.org/originals/">https://www.dailyclimate.org/originals/</a>
<br>
<br>
</font> </p>
<font face="Calibri">
/-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------/
<br>
/Archive of Daily Global Warming News <a
class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://pairlist10.pair.net/pipermail/theclimate.vote/">https://pairlist10.pair.net/pipermail/theclimate.vote/</a><br>
<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. This is a personal 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
moz-txt-link-freetext" 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. </font><font
face="Calibri"><br>
</font>
</body>
</html>