<!DOCTYPE html>
<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<font size="+2" face="Calibri"><i><b>January</b></i></font><font
size="+2" face="Calibri"><i><b> 28, 2024</b></i></font><font
face="Calibri"><br>
</font> <br>
<i>[See this 21 min video - Sabine has good words for a difficult
message ]</i><br>
<b>I wasn't worried about climate change. Now I am.</b><br>
Sabine Hossenfelder<br>
Jan 27, 2024 #science #climate<br>
Want to restore the planet's ecosystems and see your impact in
monthly videos? The first 200 people to join Planet Wild with my
code will get the first month for free at
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.planetwild.com/sabinehoss">https://www.planetwild.com/sabinehoss</a>...<br>
<br>
If you want to get to know them better first, check out their latest
video: How 3 Dogs Saved 100,000 Turtles
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.planetwild.com/sabinehoss">https://www.planetwild.com/sabinehoss</a>...<br>
<br>
In this video I explain what climate sensitivity is and why it is
important. Climate sensitivity is a number that roughly speaking
tells us how fast climate change will get worse. A few years ago,
after various software improvements, a bunch of climate models began
having a much higher climate sensitivity than previously. Climate
scientists have come up with reasons for why to ignore this. I think
it's a bad idea to ignore this. <br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4S9sDyooxf4">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4S9sDyooxf4</a>
<p>- -</p>
<i>[ A slow moving disinformation court case ]</i><br>
<b>Michael Mann’s Defamation Case Against Deniers Finally Reaches
Trial</b><br>
After a 12-year journey through the courts, the climate scientist
behind the ‘Hockey Stick’ graph tells a jury that bloggers sullied
his name with a crass comparison.<br>
By Marianne Lavelle<br>
January 25, 2024<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://insideclimatenews.org/news/25012024/michael-mann-defamation-case-reaches-trial/">https://insideclimatenews.org/news/25012024/michael-mann-defamation-case-reaches-trial/</a><br>
<p>- -</p>
<i>[ disinformation battles - audio and text reports ]</i><br>
<b>The New Climate Denial</b> <br>
Air Date: Week of January 26, 2024<br>
A recent report finds that social media platforms like YouTube are
amplifying and sometimes profiting from new forms of climate denial
that falsely claim it’s too late to act on the climate crisis. Imran
Ahmed is the CEO and founder of the Center for Countering Digital
Hate and joins Host Steve Curwood to talk about how climate
disinformation has evolved from attacking science to attacking
solutions.<br>
[ audio play ] <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://megaphone.link/LOE9287945965">https://megaphone.link/LOE9287945965</a><br>
[ clips from the transcript ]<br>
- -<br>
URWOOD: So what kind of money are we talking about, with the
millions of dollars of ads in social media?<br>
<br>
AHMED: So just looking at the 100 channels that we studied, and
there are thousands more, of course, but the 100 that we studied,
which was 12,000 videos, 4,000 hours of content that we studied,
that's worth around $13.4 million, we estimated, a year. Now that's
using figures which are freely available, you know, on how much an
ad costs, how often those ads appear, et cetera, et cetera. We don't
know precisely what the split is, but it's about 55 to 45, 60 to 40,
for the content creator and the platform. So both of them are
profiting lavishly from this kind of content. What we will find,
though, is that there'll be other channels around as well. So
actually, these numbers are a very, very small estimate of the
channels we looked at. We could be talking about $100, $200 million
industry in total.<br>
<br>
CURWOOD: Yeah, I was going to ask, did you look at the
advertisements that happened on Facebook, and other social media
that's out there?<br>
AHMED: You know, this initial study was based on YouTube because
it's a platform that we were able to study using this tool very
easily. However, we are absolutely certain that this is happening
not just on Meta platforms, so on Facebook, on Instagram, on
TikTok*, but also on X, which is owned by Elon Musk, a man who
recently claimed that no human being on earth has done more for the
planet than he has, but at the same time runs a platform that is
rife with disinformation about climate, and that is helping to
undermine the consensus that we need for action to be taken to
mitigate climate change.<br>
<br>
CURWOOD: What about the issue of censorship, though? I mean,
everyone does have a right to free speech, not the right to shout
"fire" in a crowded theater, but we have pretty strong free speech
rights. Where do you think the limits should be set on this kind of
information?<br>
<br>
AHMED: Everyone has absolutely the right to hold opinions, no matter
how ridiculous or counterfactual they are. People can post it if
they want to. But not everyone has a constitutional right to profit
from it, nor do they have a right to have a megaphone handed to them
so that they can scream it to a billion people. And that's the issue
here. Censorship is about the government saying that you're not
allowed to say something. A private company has every right to say,
I'm not gonna give you money for the content that you've just
produced. That's not censorship. That's just not paying people for
what they say. And so this isn't a question of censorship. This is a
question of rewards. Look, in the past what YouTube has said, and
this is their own rules, not my rules, their own rules, that they've
said that they will not put ads on, nor will they amplify climate
denial content that goes against the scientific consensus on climate
change. Now, what we found was, first of all, that they're not
sufficiently enforcing that policy anyway. And they responded to our
study by saying, whoops, you're right, we'd better take the ads off
these videos that you found. But second, we've said they should
extend their policy, which only applies to the old denial, to the
new denial, too. You simply cannot be calling yourself a green
company, and then commit the stultifying hypocrisy of both profiting
from and amplifying to billions, climate denial content.<br>
<br>
CURWOOD: To what extent can government play a role here in cleaning
up social media? And to what extent is this just something that the
free market is going to have to do?<br>
<br>
AHMED: I think governments can mandate transparency of companies, so
they explain how their algorithms work. They explain how their
content enforcement rules work. I think they can explain how their
economics work, how the advertising works, so we have more
understanding of that as well. And you know, one of the biggest
problems that advertisers have, is they often don't know where
adverts are appearing. Do you know what sorts of organizations were
appearing on these climate denial videos? The United Nations High
Commission for Refugees, Save the Children, the International Rescue
Committee. Three bodies which are dedicated to dealing with climate
change were accidentally having their ads appearing on these climate
denial videos. And they will be furious. And I think that when the
market has more transparency, when people identify problems, as our
research does, then I think that people will take action.<br>
<br>
O’NEILL: That’s Imran Ahmed, CEO and founder of the Center for
Countering Digital Hate. He spoke with Living on Earth host Steve
Curwood. We reached out to YouTube for comment and received a
response from a YouTube spokesperson that reads in part: “Our
climate change policy prohibits ads from running on content that
contradicts well-established scientific consensus around the
existence and causes of climate change.” The full statement is on
the Living on Earth website, loe.org, where you can also find the
rest of our climate disinformation series.<br>
<blockquote>Full YouTube Statement: “Our climate change policy
prohibits ads from running on content that contradicts
well-established scientific consensus around the existence and
causes of climate change. Debate or discussions of climate change
topics, including around public policy or research, is allowed.
However, when content crosses the line to climate change denial,
we stop showing ads on those videos. We also display information
panels under relevant videos to provide additional information on
climate change and context from third parties.” - YouTube
Spokesperson<br>
</blockquote>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.loe.org/shows/segments.html?programID=24-P13-00004&segmentID=3">https://www.loe.org/shows/segments.html?programID=24-P13-00004&segmentID=3</a>
<p><br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<i>[ Well established service - a few new fields ]</i><br>
<b>National Assessment of Coastal Vulnerability to Sea-Level Rise:
Preliminary Results for the U.S. Atlantic Coast<br>
Coastal Vulnerability Index (CVI)</b><br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://pubs.usgs.gov/of/1999/of99-593/pages/cvi.html">https://pubs.usgs.gov/of/1999/of99-593/pages/cvi.html</a><br>
<p><br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<i>[ a few well-informed adults and climate scientists in
conversation ]</i><br>
<b>Energy vs 1.5°C - Breaking Down the 1.5C Warming Target | Energy
vs Climate S5E2</b><br>
Energy vs Climate<br>
Oct 5, 2023 Energy vs Climate Podcast<br>
Energy vs 1.5°C - Breaking Down the 1.5C Warming Target | Energy vs
Climate S5E2<br>
<br>
The overall goal of the Paris Agreement, an international treaty on
climate change adopted by 196 Parties at COP21 in Paris, is to hold
“the increase in the global average temperature to well below 2°C
above pre-industrial levels” and pursue efforts “to limit the
temperature increase to 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels.” Since
coming into force in 2016, world leaders have increasingly
emphasized the need to keep warming to the 1.5°C target by the end
of this century, in order to avoid more dangerous impacts from
climate change.<br>
<br>
Yet temperature readings around the globe show that the world has
already warmed by roughly 1°C on average above pre-industrial
levels. Many models suggest we will very likely exceed 1.5°C of
warming, possibly in the next 5-10 years, in the absence of
aggressive worldwide action to reduce emissions and (perhaps)
engineer the climate. While we have made much progress,
unfortunately the world is nowhere close to that level of action.<br>
<br>
So does the 1.5°C target still make sense if overshoot seems almost
certain? Is it a science-based target or a political target - and
even a reasonable and just target in the first place? Is the target
about holding the line at 1.5°C or getting it back down to 1.5°C by
2100? When are we likely to exceed it, how will we know, and what
will be the physical and political consequences of missing it?<br>
David, Sara, Ed, and climate scientist Zeke Hausfather of Stripe and
Berkeley Earth discuss all things 1.5°C on Season 5 Episode 2 of
Energy vs Climate.<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e0k_cIsr4OI&">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e0k_cIsr4OI&</a><br>
<p>- -<br>
</p>
<i>[ more thoughtful content, more discussion ]</i><br>
<b>Stranger than (climate) fiction?</b><br>
Energy vs Climate <br>
29. Nov. 2023<br>
In The Ministry for the Future, sci-fi author Kim Stanley Robinson
approaches the question of how the world might tackle dangerous
climate change through presenting what The Guardian calls a
“chilling yet hopeful vision of how the next few decades might
unfold.” Its harrowing opening chapter has already achieved
legendary status for Robinson’s portrayal of the devastating effects
of an extreme heat event.<br>
<br>
What is the role of literature in the climate policy and technology
discussion? How does the genre allow us to explore uncomfortable
climate scenarios, including those to do with heat death and direct
action? While ultimately successful, the path laid out in the book
is very bumpy, volatile, and rife with violence – strikingly
different from the smooth and orderly transition often offered up by
politicians and techno-optimists.<br>
<br>
On Season Five, Episode Seven of Energy vs Climate, David, Sara, Ed,
and New York Times bestselling author Kim Stanley Robinson as they
discuss how science fiction can help us explore different climate
scenarios and solutions.<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.energyvsclimate.com/">https://www.energyvsclimate.com/</a><br>
<p><br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<i>[ Disinformation battles ]</i><br>
<b>Q&A: How YouTube Climate Denialism Is Morphing</b><br>
The message may be evolving, but the company and YouTubers are still
making millions off of it.<br>
Interview by Steve Curwood, Living on Earth<br>
January 27, 2024<br>
Climate science has been under attack for decades. But some climate
deniers are no longer refuting the fact that Earth is warming
because of human activity. Now, their message focuses on doom: They
admit our planet is running a fever, but shrug and say there’s not
much we can do about it. <br>
<br>
A new report from the Center for Countering Digital Hate takes a
close look at this new form of climate denial and how it shows up in
videos on one of the internet’s most popular content sharing
platforms, YouTube. When ads run on those videos, the climate
deniers and YouTube often pocket the profits.<br>
STEVE CURWOOD: How long did you work on this study looking at how
social media is, in some cases—maybe many cases—promoting
disinformation about climate change?<br>
<br>
<b>IMRAN AHMED: This has actually been one of the longest and most
complex studies we’ve ever done. We worked with university
researchers who developed an AI model that allows them to identify
what type of climate denial claim is being made in this piece of
text. <br>
<br>
We used that tool to analyze thousands of hours of YouTube videos
produced by prominent climate deniers, and study the evolution of
the types of claims they’ve been making between 2018 and 2023. And
what we saw was startling: a real collapse in the volume of claims
being made that anthropogenic—man-made—climate change is not
happening at all or that it’s not man-made; and an explosion in
the volume of claims that climate change may be happening, but the
solutions don’t work. <br>
<br>
Climate deniers have transitioned from the old climate denial,
which is rejecting anthropogenic climate change, to a new climate
denial, which is casting doubt on solutions.</b><br>
<br>
CURWOOD: Talk to me more about this question of old denial and new
denialism. Your report says that climate denial folks have moved
beyond trying to say that climate change isn’t happening and humans
aren’t related to this. But moving into the area that the solutions
won’t work—why is that new? Because from day one, people opposed to
climate action said, oh, it costs too much, that won’t work, the
technology is too expensive, and you know, we’re gambling way too
much on “iffy” technology. What’s new about what you call “new
denial?”<br>
<br>
<b>AHMED: As solutions have developed to become more sophisticated,
as the world has become more convinced of the dangers of climate
change, as political actors and companies and as others have taken
action, what you have seen is the battleground shifting. <br>
<br>
In 2018, over two-thirds of all the claims made were rejecting the
reality, the scientific consensus, on climate change. Now, that’s
less than 3 in 10. So less than a third. What is now two-thirds of
all claims made are these other forms of denial. <br>
<br>
The three major families in the new denial are: that climate
solutions won’t work, that the impacts of global warming are
beneficial or harmless, or that the climate science and the
climate movement are unreliable. Because let’s be absolutely frank
about this: This has never been a debate about the science. This
has been a debate between scientists and those who want to stop
action being taken on climate change because that would destroy
the oil and gas industry. <br>
<br>
They are implacably opposed to climate solutions being put in
place. They don’t care whether it is by persuading people that
climate change isn’t real, or even more cynically, by dashing
their hope that climate change can be dealt with.</b><br>
<br>
CURWOOD: How do they sell this notion that nothing can be done about
climate through social media? How do they tell that story?<br>
<br>
<b>AHMED: One of the things that you learn after studying
disinformation and conspiracy theories and this kind of content
over years and years, as my team has, not just in climate, but
also public health, is that underpinning every conspiracy theory,
every bit of misinformation, is fundamentally a lie. <br>
<br>
The lie is that there’s nothing we can do about it. The lie is
that solar power, wind power, tidal power, switching to electric
vehicles couldn’t substantially help to mitigate the worst ravages
of climate change. <br>
<br>
What they then claim is that well, sure, you might want to switch
to an EV. But did you know that throughout the supply chain of an
EV, that EV actually uses more CO2? Now, that’s actually nonsense.
It’s been shown by the EPA and by a raft of scientists that
actually the lifetime emissions of an electric vehicle is
significantly lower. But what they’re doing is, they’re selling a
lie, which is don’t buy an EV because it’s worse for the
environment.<br>
</b><br>
CURWOOD: Let’s talk about how this works in part to appeal to a
sense of “doomerism” among young people, that, yeah, well, climate’s
a problem, but hey, we’re over the edge. So we might as well party
until the asteroid or whatever hits.<br>
<br>
<b>AHMED: I can’t think of anything more cynical than telling young
people that, yes, the world’s climate is changing in potentially
catastrophic ways, but there’s no hope, and nothing that you can
do could help, so may as well live with it. <br>
<br>
We did some polling to go alongside this study, just to check what
the acceptance levels are of different types of climate denial
with young people. What we found is that acceptance of the old
climate denial is incredibly low. What’s been replacing it is more
acceptance of the new climate denial. <br>
<br>
There is a really important message. Science won that first
battle. Scientists, journalists, politicians, communicators have
persuaded and explained to the public and young people that
climate change is real. <br>
<br>
But the opponents of action on climate change have opened a new
front. It’s vital that this message is heard by the climate
advocacy movement, because we’re going to have to refocus our
efforts, our counter narratives, our resources on explaining why
climate solutions are viable, how we can save our planet and save
our ecosystems.<br>
</b><br>
CURWOOD: What do these videos look like; how do they feel? What kind
of strategies are these YouTubers using to make their information
seem legit?<br>
<br>
<b>AHMED: They bring on “experts.” They have the appearance of
academic or research neutrality, they have visuals, graphs.
Sometimes the presenters even wear a tweed jacket to make it look
as though they’re erudite—it’s a trick I have used in the past
myself. And cherry-picked data, which is not representative of the
whole. So all the tricks that you expect from shysters and snake
oil salesmen. <br>
<br>
It’s a toxic melange of lies and truth that make it very difficult
to discern what on earth is going on, often delivered at a fevered
pace that, if you’re trying to fact check it, you’re overwhelmed
by the next lie before you’ve even managed to consume or work out
the truth behind the last lie. <br>
<br>
It’s a sophisticated industry, and they learn from each other.
They learn from other sectors. There is an enormous amount of
disinformation around public health, around vaccines. One of the
things that we always find with this is that there is an asymmetry
when it comes to disinformation. It takes no effort at all. It
takes no science, it takes no education, it takes no thinking to
actually come up with a lie. The problem is that debunking that
lie often requires effort, expertise and resources. <br>
<br>
And so you get this asymmetric tidal wave of disinformation, in
particular on social media, because social media is the
environment where bad actors can promulgate, can spread this
disinformation, these lies, very easily. But also, ironically,
they get amplification, and they get economic reward for it. So
they get amplification because people engage with that content,
often in anger, saying this is nonsense. But that actually signals
to the platform, this is high-engagement material, and they
publish it to more and more people and more and more timelines. <br>
<br>
Second, the platforms like YouTube in our study, place ads on this
content. Those ads make money for YouTube, millions of dollars a
year, in spreading disinformation about climate, but also for the
producers as well, who get a take of all of that. So actually,
there is this sick industry that is profiting from making people
feel there is no hope on climate change.<br>
</b><br>
CURWOOD: What kind of money are we talking about, with the millions
of dollars of ads in social media?<br>
<br>
<b>AHMED: Just looking at the 100 channels that we studied—and there
are thousands more, of course—but of the 100 that we studied,
which was 12,000 videos and 4,000 hours of content, that’s worth
around $13.4 million, we estimated, a year. That’s using figures
which are freely available—how much an ad costs, how often those
ads appear, et cetera, et cetera. We don’t know precisely what the
split is, but it’s about 55-45, 60-40, for the content creator and
the platform. So both of them are profiting lavishly from this
kind of content. These numbers are a very, very small estimate of
the channels we looked at. We could be talking about a $100
million to $200 million industry in total.<br>
</b><br>
CURWOOD: Did you look at the advertising on Facebook or other social
media that’s out there?<br>
<b>AHMED: This initial study was based on YouTube because it’s a
platform that we were able to study using this tool very easily.
However, we are absolutely certain that this is happening not just
on Meta platforms, so on Facebook, on Instagram, on TikTok—but
also on X, which is owned by Elon Musk, a man who recently claimed
that no human being on Earth has done more for the planet than he
has, but at the same time runs a platform that is rife with
disinformation about climate, and that is helping to undermine the
consensus that we need for action to be taken to mitigate climate
change.</b><br>
CURWOOD: What about the issue of censorship? I mean, everyone does
have a right to free speech, not the right to shout “fire” in a
crowded theater, but we have pretty strong free speech rights. Where
do you think the limits should be set on this kind of information?<br>
<br>
<b>AHMED: Everyone has absolutely the right to hold opinions, no
matter how ridiculous or counterfactual they are. People can post
it if they want to. But not everyone has a constitutional right to
profit from it, nor do they have a right to have a megaphone
handed to them so that they can scream it to a billion people. <br>
<br>
And that’s the issue here. Censorship is about the government
saying that you’re not allowed to say something. A private company
has every right to say, ‘I’m not gonna give you money for the
content that you’ve just produced.’ That’s not censorship. That’s
just not paying people for what they say. And so this isn’t a
question of censorship. This is a question of rewards. <br>
<br>
In the past, what YouTube has said—and this is their own rules,
not my rules—is that they will not put ads on, nor will they
amplify climate denial content that goes against the scientific
consensus on climate change. <br>
<br>
What we found was, first of all, that they’re not sufficiently
enforcing that policy. And they responded to our study by saying,
whoops, you’re right, we’d better take the ads off these videos
that you found. <br>
<br>
Second, we’ve said they should extend their policy, which only
applies to the old denial, to the new denial, too. You simply
cannot be calling yourself a green company, and then commit the
stultifying hypocrisy of both profiting from and amplifying to
billions [of users] climate denial content.<br>
</b><br>
CURWOOD: To what extent can government play a role here in cleaning
up social media? And to what extent is this just something that the
free market is going to have to do?<br>
<br>
<b>AHMED: Governments can mandate transparency of companies, so they
explain how their algorithms and content enforcement rules work.
They can explain how their economics work, how the advertising
works, so we have more understanding of that as well. Advertisers
often don’t know where ads are appearing. Do you know what sorts
of organizations were appearing on these climate denial videos?
The United Nations High Commission for Refugees, Save the
Children, the International Rescue Committee. Three bodies which
are dedicated to dealing with climate change were accidentally
having their ads appearing on these climate denial videos. And
they will be furious. I think that when the market has more
transparency, when people identify problems, as our research does,
then I think that people will take action.<br>
<br>
Living on Earth reached out to YouTube for comment and received a
response from a YouTube spokesperson that reads in part: “Our
climate change policy prohibits ads from running on content that
contradicts well-established scientific consensus around the
existence and causes of climate change.” The full statement is on
the Living on Earth website.<br>
</b><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://insideclimatenews.org/news/27012024/youtube-climate-denialism/">https://insideclimatenews.org/news/27012024/youtube-climate-denialism/</a><br>
<p><br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<font face="Calibri"><i>[The news archive - BIG Calif oil spill ]</i></font><br>
<font face="Calibri"> <font size="+2"><i><b>January 28, 1969 </b></i></font>
</font><br>
<font face="Calibri"> </font> January 28, 1969: <b>The notorious
Santa Barbara, California oil spill takes place.</b><br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://youtu.be/jqd_VTADHzM">http://youtu.be/jqd_VTADHzM</a><br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/06/30/3453277/oil-spill-heard-round-the-world/">http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/06/30/3453277/oil-spill-heard-round-the-world/</a><br>
<p>- --<br>
</p>
<p><b>1969 Santa Barbara Oil Spill (Stories of the Spill -
Documentary, Full Length)</b><br>
Our Story Your Story</p>
<p> 2012 Stories of the Spill<br>
How Santa Barbara's Beach Catastrophe<br>
Became a Lesson in Democracy<br>
</p>
<p><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jqd_VTADHzM">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jqd_VTADHzM</a><br>
</p>
<p><font face="Calibri"> <br>
</font><font face="Calibri"><br>
=== Other climate news sources
===========================================<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 -- and carries no
images or attachments which may originate from remote servers.
Text-only messages 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>