Natural Climate Solutions

Natural climate solutions are solutions around all of the ecosystems on the planet, our forests, our grasslands, our wetlands, that can address climate change they already absorb a huge amount of carbon. How can we work with those ecosystems to both reduce emissions from those ecosystems as well as enhance their sequestration. They act as a huge giant sink for carbon. The word "natural" is really important. We didn't have to intervene for all of human history making these systems do what they do. Now though we need them to do more of it. At least 20% of the total climate solutions will come from our lands. They are available today. We don't need to wait for tech fixes that will come decades down the line It makes no sense at all the talk about carbon capture and sequestration as a technological solution without thinking about what that is relative to a natural sequestration. We know there are things that we can be doing to enhance how food is produced and reduce emissions from land use and the agriculture sector we know that there are things that we can do today to be restoring forests to be incentivizing different forestry practices. Decarbonizing energy alone is not sufficient to address the scale of the threat we face with climate change.

We start recognizing what our ecosystems do today to already be absorbing so much carbon, then we start to recognize this is actually a critical biological bridge to be able to get too deeper decarbonisation away from the energy sector that we cannot do without. We've got to get the science for network solutions really watertight that we can demonstrate to politicians, to corporates that this is a serious sector In California we have a comprehensive climate change regulatory program that included cap-and-trade mechanism with a role for forests. This is the first one in the world that actually allows force landowners to produce offets that regulated entities like utilities can submit to meet the requirements of the law. There's a parallel revenue stream that's being generated from the auction of the permits. That is producing more than a billion dollars for Californians. In many other parts of the world you have forest dependent communities, you have indigenous communities. who know very well how to protect their natural environment they see the natural world and their own world is much more integrated.

20 percent of the world's forest carbon is found in Indigenous lands. So this means that if we're gonna be serious about finding solutions to climate and serious about finding solutions to conservation then that means we need to be engaging indigenous people in local communities. We gotta bring multiple parties together to recognize that there are shared objectives. The role of the private sector really coming forward and saying what's good for climate mitigation can also be good for business. This is really not a tradeoff anymore. We have to have policies that stimulate the enabling environment. We need to have a price for carbon. We need to have the right mechanisms where credits can be offered to businesses that are facing steeper costs to abate emissions in other ways. We need to full force, and the full creativity of the financial service industry, to come behind helping us find solutions get from us science-based NGOs, academic organizations. What we all know, because we know a ton. And help us convert that into investable structures.

We need to find new ways of bringing private sector actors in of unlocking the entrepreneurial spirit of people around the world to shape so of these solutions. The Nature Conservancy has relationships, it has land assets, it has field programs around the world. If we can leverage all of that then The Nature Conservancy can play a very very important role in addressing the climate challenge..

Oh, NOW WE CARE ABOUT CLIMATE CHANGE?!

[Music] >> Will: Today the White House our humble overlords has released its National Climate Assessment. Their discoveries are on some M. Knight Shaymalan level of human scary. >> Lee: The Assement states “Climate change, once considered an issue for a distant future, has moved firmly into the present,” and the evidence of man-made climate change “continues to strengthen.” >> Will: This is polite scientist talk for “We have way to much effing information for you to keep ignoring this you high-strung over sensitive uncommunicative supercilious ignorant country bumpkins.” >> Lee: The results of the report are a little terrifying. >> Will: Look, I’m a politician business man sometimes. I’m going to show you how we like to think of it. >> Lee: Some of the interesting high lights of the report are: sea levels have risen by eight inches since 1880 and are expected to rise between one and four feet by the year 2100. >> Will: Oh no! That’s just because there’s more fish in the sea. It has nothing to do with the fact that as water gets warmer it expands.

It’s definitely more fishies in the big water thing. >> Lee: The ocean? >> Will: Whatever you want to call it. >> Lee: Or how 43 of the lower 48 states have set at least one monthly heat record since January 2010. >> Will: Oh no! January 2010? Notice that’s approximately a year after Obama took office. Clearly its because he put some type of voodoo hex on America. >> Lee: Well, Winter storms have increased in intensity and frequency since the 1950s >> Will: Oh no, you idiot. Global warming can’t be real! More intense storms means it’s getting colder! I’m a genius. Buy my book. >> Lee: I don’t think you understand science. >> Will: I understand lobbyists and fortune 500 companies.

>> Lee: Also, flooding from Climate Chance could cost as much as 325 billion dollars by 2100 including more than 130 billion in Florida alone. >> Will: Oh no! Florida?! That’s where I get my cocaine from! We need to pay attention to climate stains right now! >> Lee: America. >> Will: I am no longer a Business Man Politican, in Lou of this “new” information I’d just like to say: Oh my Gandhi! We all gon’ die! And when I say “we” I really mean our children’s children. Climate Change is like the Leonardo Dicaprio of science. We know you deserve recognition but somebody out there, some sick twisted individual, lets call him “fate” doesn’t want you to be recognized because they’re scared and weak and clearly unintelligible. >> Lee: What do you think of climate change being considered here now? >> Will: What do you do at home to help the environment? [Music].

Guy Scientist, A “True” Story by a Fictional Character

(Jazz) Host: Ladies and Gentlemen Host: The NASA Climate Scientist Formerly known… as Josh Willis (applause) (laughter) Yeah, I used to be a regular guy. Just an average Joe named Josh. Willis. Sure I was a climate scientist, I worked for NASA, but deep down I was ordinary. Like you people. Then one day I snapped, like an overstretched balloon. I lost all aspects of modesty and humility. I realized I was more than a scientist, and a guy. I… was Guy Scientist! Climate Crusader for Truth, Social Justice and the Environmental Way. It was a bright clear Tuesday afternoon, in a state known for its sunshine. The kind of Southern California day that makes you wished you called in sick, and headed for the Getty with a bottle of two-buck Chuck and a footlong from Subway. But today was no picnic. I was headed right into the belly of the beast. One of the most conservative places known to man. Orange County.

I'd been invited to the Newport Beach Country Club to give a talk on global warming to some group of Good 'ol Boys. They were called the "Bluejays" or "Sparrow Club". Somethin' like that. They were Old World power brokers, CEOs of Fortune 500 companies, rich oil barons. The kind of men who don't drive hybrids and want to make America great again. But I was ready. I've given my global warming talk a thousand times to a thousand different school children and soccer moms and city council members. I showed up early. That way I could clock the old timers and pass judgement on them as they entered The place was fancy. Expensive carpets. Hardwood tables covered in white linen, and more oak on the walls than a barrel of Jack Daniels. My suspicions were confirmed as they started to arrive: they were old alright. They had more pacemakers than Dave Bruebeck's rhythm section. And white, too. I've seen more diversity in a bowl of basmati rice. Matter of fact, everybody in that place with a skin tone darker than Donald Trump's teeth was wearing a tuxedo, and handing out hors d'oeuvres. I had my work cut out for me, alright.

But they were crafty. The fed me prime beef, first. It was delicious. And then it was showtime. I was flying high, I told a few jokes to get 'em in the mood. Like, uh… It's so hot in the Arctic… I said it's SO hot in the Arctic. (How hot is it?) There we go. It's so hot the polar bears are threatening to build a wall to keep the brown bears from moving north. Yeah, you guys get it, but not this crowd. No, no… my punchlines landed like a lead brick on Spanish tile. I moved on. I moved on to some charts and graphs. I provided incontrovertible evidence that the Earth was warming faster now than at any time in the last 10,000 years. I looked out into the audience. They were not impressed. Matter of fact, I've seen more trust in the eyes of five year old on the Metro, clutching an Elmo doll in his tiny, white knuckled hands. It was time to bring out the big guns.

Time for the balloon gag. That's right. The balloon gag, is a simple physics experiment designed to illustrate the heat capacity of You see the oceans absorb more than 95 percent of the heat trapped by greenhouse gases. Why? Because water, that's why. Water sucks up heat faster than a desperate housewife downs mojitos on a hot summer day. And once it gets in the ocean, heat stays for a thousand years– just like your in-laws after dinner. I pulled out my balloon. I inflated it with air. I flipped open my trusty zippo. The tall, lanky flame moved closer and closer to the skin of the skin of the balloon until… Bam! It exploded like a firecracker on Cinco de Mayo. Now I had their attention. I explained that the balloon filled with air, couldn't take the heat. But fill up a balloon with water, it can take more flames than Sean Spicer at a press conference. Simple physics. Flames can't pop a balloon filled with water. I pulled out my water balloon.

I held it up high. This was it. This was the moment I won the hearts and minds of the climate deniers. I opened my trusty zippo. I brought the flame toward the skin of the balloon and… Bam! It exploded like a bottle of cheap champagne across the bow of an oil tanker. Instantly, my arm was soaked and water rained down onto the expensive carpet in a river of liquid shame. A small brown man appeared out of nowhere in a white tuxedo and laid a napkin over the wet spot on the floor. Apparently, these guys were so rich they didn't even have to obey the laws of physics. That was the moment I knew. That nice guy climate scientist, Josh Willis?… His days were numbered. He had to change. After the incident, they peppered me with questions about climate data and natural cycles. I gave 'em all the right answers, but there was no more winning hearts and minds thatday. I packed up my things and headed for the door.

I looked up, into the sun. At least it was still shining. You win this round, Sparrow-Blue Jay Club, I said. But you haven't heard the last, of Guy Scientist. (Jazz) (Cheers).

Scientific Skepticism | Dr. Steven J. Allen

97% is a number you might have heard a lot in the last few years. That’s the number of scientists who supposedly believe in global warming theory. That 97% claim is questionable, but let’s ask the more important question: why do we find the idea of consensus convincing at all? The terms “Global Warming Skeptic” and “Climate Change Skeptic” are insults, but those who use this line of attack ignore that science only works when there are skeptics. Science is rooted in replicable research and experimentation. A scientist examines an existing set of facts, and concocts a theory that explains those facts. He or she makes a prediction to test that theory. If the prediction comes true, that constitutes evidence to support the theory. If the prediction fails, that undermines the theory, and the scientist goes back to the drawing board. It doesn’t matter whether a scientist is on the payroll of the American Cancer Society or a tobacco company, whether he is a Communist, or a Jew or a Baptist, beats her spouse, or volunteers at a soup kitchen. Only the evidence counts.

But what happens when someone gets the evidence wrong and it needs correction? That’s what critical peer review, aka “skepticism,” is for. In biomedical sciences, non-replication rates are estimated to range between 75 to 90 percent. Venture capital firms now take it for granted that 50 percent of published academic studies cannot be replicated. Imagine what would be done in those cases if there were no skeptics. Business and medicine would be at a standstill. If climate skeptics end up being correct, those attempting to silence them will go down in history alongside the members of the “scientific consensus” that, in years past, agreed that the earth was the center of the universe, that continental drift was impossible, that canals existed on Mars, and that evils such as white supremacy and eugenics were scientifically true.

When told of a publication entitled “100 Authors Against Einstein,” Albert Einstein reputedly said, “Why one hundred? If I were wrong, one would have been enough.” Science cannot function if skeptics are harassed and ostracized. When someone is challenging a scientific consensus with facts and logic, that’s to be encouraged, not dismissed due to politics. Argument, not anathemas, is the way to approach scientific issues surrounding climate changes. To learn more, you can read our study on Climate Change advocacy at climatedollars.org. I’m Dr. Steven J. Allen, thanks for watching..

7 CRAZY Recent Breakthroughs in SCIENCE in 2017

For all those celebrity deaths and insane political shenanigans, 2016 actually gave us some pretty weird scientific developments too. From batteries that run on pee through to the world’s first three parent baby, it was a pretty nutso year. But if January’s developments are anything to go by then 2017 is gonna be even weirder, because in the past month we’ve seen a human pig hybrid, a skin printing machine and the potential discovery of a material theorised over a hundred years ago. This is is our list of seven crazy recent scientific breakthroughs. Number 7: Skin on Demand Making your own human skin suit is tough work these days, what with all the DNA to clear up, the funny looks at the dry cleaners, not to mention the kerfuffle in constructing a watertight alibi to fool the Feds. But thanks to a group of Spanish scientists this problem no longer exists, as they’ve developed the world’s first 3D bioprinter capable of producing fully-functional human skin.

This printer was the result of collaboration between the University Carlos the Third de Madrid and the less flamboyantly named BioDan Group who specialise in regenerative medicines. Their material mimics the structure of skin using a layer of collagen-producing fibroblasts, and it’s so close to the real thing it can be used in a wide range of fields, such as testing cosmetics, creating android epidermis, covering human skin loss, and of course the creation of a snappy little waistcoat for daddy. Number 6: Pig Man In the real-life sequel to Babe nobody wanted or asked for, researchers at California’s Salk Institute announced in late January the successful creation of a human-pig hybrid in the laboratory. Now I’m not sure making a creature that’s addicted to eating strips of its own buttocks is something I’d refer to as a success, but that’s because Johnny Cynical over here doesn’t understand the ramifications of this amazing development. The point of creating a human-pig chimera wasn’t to exhibit it in some circus freak-show; it was to provide a potential new source of human organs for transplant. In this experiment, pig embryos were injected with human cells to see if they could survive, and now that we know they can, we think it may eventually be possible to grow human organs inside animals to make up the organ donor shortfall.

Wow, meat, milk, skin and now organs? Thanks animals, you do a lot for us. Those damn vegetables have got a lot of catching up to do, haven’t you Mr Aubergine. Number 5: A Fitting End To Fillings I hate going to the dentist, which is why I’ve pulled out all of my own teeth and now I pay strangers to chew my food for me. But if you still own all your original chompers then a trip to the mouth doctor may soon be a lot less painful, thanks to a strange discovery made just a few weeks back. Researchers at King’s College London found that a drug used to help treat Alzheimers has a nifty little side effect, namely, it can encourage your teeth to repair themselves. Your teeth already do this on their own using dentine, but they don’t produce enough to fill large holes or cracks. However, with a kick up the pants from a drug called Tideglusib an enzyme which prevents dentine formation is turned off, and damage can be repaired naturally within as little as six weeks. I mean, that sounds great and all, but it’s not as much fun as paying a guy down the bus station to spit up food in your mouth like a little baby bird. Number 4: A New Type of Life Ever wonder why the movie Gattaca was called Gattaca? It’s because the letters G, T, A and C are the initials of the four natural bases, Guanine, Thymine, Cytosine and Adenine.

These pair up to form the base pairs of the DNA ladder, and different arrangements of these pairs create different lifeforms when arranged together. Everything from bacteria and baboons through to people and Penelope Cruz – who is not a person, she is a Goddess – everything is based on just four natural bases; until some crazy scientists decided to add two more. On 23rd January 2017, Researchers at The Scripps Research Institute announced the creation of an organism which held two artificial bases within its genetic code, making it the world’s first semi-synthetic organism. Such a development has many possible applications, including the creation of organisms tailored to fight certain diseases. But right now I’m more worried about the title of that movie. Gaxyttaxcy? Xygattyaxca? It’s like they didn’t even think about the ramifications of what they were doing to Ethan Hawke’s finest work? Number 3: An End to Old Age? In another piece of scientific razzle dazzle from the guys and girls at the Scripps Research Institute, we may have just made one of the key discoveries in the fight against cancer and aging.

In Mid-January a protein was identified which is responsible for determining the length of your telomeres, which is important, as this in turn dictates how quickly your cells age and whether they’re likely to mutate into cancer. Telomeres are like your cell’s little clocks, and this protein named TZAP could be seen as some form of battery, determining how long the clock runs for. If we can stretch your telomeres we may be able to delay the aging process, but if they’re unnaturally long they then begin to pose an increased cancer risk. It’s like riding a see saw with whirring blades above and a pit of sex-raptors beneath you – you wanna aim for somewhere in the middle. Thankfully, TZAP naturally prevents your telomeres growing too much by trimming them to keep them nice and short, and a further understanding of how they do this could help us get rid of tumours and wrinkles all at once.

Awesome, those are two of the top three things I hate the most…along with sex-raptors of course. Number 2: Hot Damn Did you know that the Red Hot Chili Peppers can reduce your chances of death? Unfortunately we’re talking about the food and not those delightful LA funk-monkeys, but that’s not gonna stop me using a bazillion song-title puns in this entry. So how does it work? Tell me baby. Well if you listen to me for One Hot Minute I will. Researchers at the Larner College of Medicine in Vermont used data taken from 16,000 Americans over 23 years, and they discovered that those who Dosed their food with spicy chilies enjoyed a 13% reduction in mortality rates from heart disease and stroke. Obviously you Can’t Stop death forever, because passing over to the Otherside is inevitable. But even if you survive a stroke you can be left in a seriously debilitating condition, as each one leaves Scar Tissue on your brain which can trigger seizures, leaving your life’s Fortune Faded. So the knowledge that we can reduce strokes and heart attacks is clearly no Minor Thing.

By The Way, this revelation is old news to some, as historically, many people Around The World already believed that spices contains mystical healing properties. But this is the first time it’s been confirmed scientifically. And do you know who’s excited about this the most? Me and my me and my me and my me and my me and my friends. We love spicy food. Number 1: Metallic hydrogen The existence of a metallic form of hydrogen was first theorised in 1935 by Eugene Wigner and Hillard Bell Huntington, with the knowledge that if the lightest of all elements could be turned into a metal it would prove to be a revolutionary breakthrough for technology. Super-efficient vehicles, improved electricity grids, stupidly fast computers and even space-faring craft are just some of the possible applications for metallic hydrogen, so you can understand why the scientific community collectively soiled itself on January 27th 2017, when one group of Harvard scientists claim they’d managed to create some.

Their experiment used two diamonds to crush liquid hydrogen at a temperature far below freezing point, because the pressure needed to create this substance is greater than you’d find at the centre of the Earth. The metallic hydrogen is still stuck between the two diamonds at the time of writing, as it must be released gradually to see if it can exist in a stable form at room temperature, so it remains to be seen whether this potentially ground-breaking material actually can be used with purpose. And furthermore, some physicists doubt whether the results of this experiment even prove anything at all, saying that further evidence needs to be submitted to give this discovery credence. But I guess we’ll find out soon enough if those naughty boys are telling porky pies or not. So that’s our list, but if you’re after more science-based intrigue of a different flavour, why not check out our recent video on the seven most devastating things mankind could discover, because these are the kind of breakthroughs you better hope we never make in our lifetimes.

.

Stop Soot, Black Carbon, and Global Warming – Earthjustice

[Music playing] Sometimes it’s the little things that can make big things happen. Fleas and the plague, atoms and nuclear bombs. Diminutive leaders in world history. [Man laughs] Soot is one of these little things. Soot also known as black carbon is released when you burn dung, coal, diesel fuel and wood. [Trunk horn] From Los Angeles to Mumbai, soot causes respiratory illnesses like lung cancer and asthma [Man coughs] and contributes to one point six million premature deaths every year. Mostly among the poor. And it gets worse. Atmospheric currents carry soot thousands of miles from where it is produced, to the Himalayas and the arctic. Black carbon being black, absorbs sunlight, so even a little soot on snow makes it melt faster. And when snow melts global sea levels rise, threatening our freshwater indigenous communities and polar bears who hunt on the arctic ice. [Fish squeaks] Climate Change has been a big thing for awhile and carbon dioxide has been it’s main cause. Scientists estimate that soot causes twenty five percent of human caused global warming.

It’s the second leading cause of arctic warming after carbon dioxide. Let’s not underestimate the impact of this tiny particle. But there’s good news, reducing black carbon maybe the fastest way to slow global warming. Buy time for the arctic. Yes even more so than changing a light blub. Since black carbon only stays in the atmosphere for a couple of weeks, reducing it will produce results immediately. Of course reducing soot alone won’t solve global warming, but solving our soot problem now will help buy time for the arctic and allow us to deal with the bigger problem of carbon dioxide. We have the cleaner industries, cook stoves, and diesel now we have to use them. In developed nations, we’ve significantly reduced our black carbon, but we still have much more to do. [car horn] We need to tighten our standards at home and invest in cleaner technologies in developing nations.

In a world going on seven billion people, you might feel rather little yourself. But if you urge the US government and the European Union to take the lead on black carbon reduction, you can make a big difference. Go to www.stopsoot.org And help stop these little things from causing big trouble. [Music ends].

The Bright Side History – The Benefits of Global Warming – @midnight with Chris Hardwick

We all know that global warming is perhaps the biggest threat facing humanity over the next 50 years, but it's not all bad news according to Yahoo. According to a recent study, rising temperatures will actually be good for getting folks in North Dakota out of the house. You never even thought about that part of it. -(applause and cheering) -We never even thought about it. You, selfish, underwater Hawaiians, it's not all about you all of the time! ORLANDO JONES: Yeah. -What about North Dakota? -Yeah. -Yeah. -Yeah. For some people, global warming is a good thing. There are at least 40 meth-addicted frackers and a dozen or so buffalo veterinarians who stand to benefit from it being a little nicer outside for once. -So maybe open your (bleep) minds… -(applause, cheering) …and think of some of the benefits of global warming. I mean sure, sure, the mosquito population will skyrocket and give most of the southern hemisphere super Ebola, but for a lucky few, they'll get to sit out on their porch on a balmy February night in North Dakota and get radiated by the sunset with their pet polar bear who now will look like this, -and great, I say.

Fun. -(laughter, applause) That's what they look like when you shave them. -Every polar bear. -(cheers and applause) Polar bears look all scary, but underneath, just a little wiener. -Just… -(laughter) So, comedians, I've listed a couple, but I'm sure there are a lot more ways to approach this very optimistically. What are some other benefits of global warming? -Orlan… I'm sorry. Nimesh. -Donald Trump will spend his winters in Swamp Mar-a-Lago. -HARDWICK: Yes. Points. Very good. -(laughter) -(applause and cheering) -Orlando. Well, if it's hot as balls, we know nudist colonies are gonna be lit. -HARDWICK: All right. Points. -(laughter) -Yeah. -Very good. -Lit! -(applause and cheering) -Arden. -Um, it'll only take 15 minutes to fly from coast to coast, Chris. -HARDWICK: Yes. -(laughter) -Points. -Yes! -Finally.

In-flight movie's just gonna be a clip -of the Cash Me Outside Girl. -HARDWICK: Nope. -(laughter).

What Exxon Knew

Clearly, there's going to be an impact so I'm not disputing that increasing CO2 emissions in the atmosphere is going to have an impact. It'll have a warming impact. How large it is, is very hard for anyone to predict and depending on how large it is then projects how dire the consequences are. In the fall of 2015, an investigation by the Pulitzer Prize winning Inside Climate News as well as the Los Angeles Times and the Colombia School of Journalism revealed a trove of documents from scientists inside oil giant ExxonMobil, showing that Exxon scientists understood the mechanisms and consequences of human caused climate change as early as the late 1970s and early 1980s. New York State Attorney General Eric Schneiderman recently subpoenaed oil giant ExxonMobil, apparently seeking documents that might show the company had downplayed the risks to profits and therefore to investors of stronger regulations on burning fossil fuels. The documents show Exxon understood a clear scientific consensus existed on the greenhouse effect, that the build-up of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere could become a serious problem and mentioned the distinct possibility of effects that could be catastrophic for a substantial fraction of the Earth's population.

Exxon scientists stated their research was in accord with the scientific consensus on the effect of increased atmospheric CO2 on climate. Multiple documents mentioned potential adverse impacts such as flooding of coastal land masses due to the melting Antarctica sheets. Our view of this very complex subject over the years, over the decades, has mirrored that of the broader scientific community. In the early 1980s, the scientific community was just beginning to sound the alarm about increasing buildup of gases like carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Researchers say increasingly large amounts of CO2 are accumulating in the atmosphere. They fear the earth will gradually become warmer, causing as yet uncertain but possibly disruptive changes in the Earth's climate 50 to 70 years from now. The discussions that have taken place inside our company among our scientists mirror the discussions that have been taking place in the work that's been taking place by the broader scientific community.

That's what the facts show. Scientists and a few politicians are beginning to worry that global energy planning does not take the greenhouse effect seriously enough. Those same computer models correctly predict the past climate of the Earth. They correctly predict the present climate of the Earth. It is reasonable that they are correctly predicting the future climate on the Earth, given the amount of CO2 and other greenhouse gases that were pouring into the atmosphere. Internal briefing documents for Exxon executives showed a science effort that was on the very cutting edge for its time. Graphs showed projections of temperature rise derived from increasingly complex atmospheric models, much like temperatures that have now been observed in the real world. Using global climate models developed by NASA, Exxon scientists agreed with the mainstream projections of approximately 3 degrees global average temperature rise for a doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide with a rise of more than 10 degrees projected for polar regions, a phenomenon called polar amplification, which has now been actually observed. Exxon state-of-the-art climate modeling predicted a pattern of planetary warming, projecting the lower atmosphere to warm, while the upper atmosphere cooled, a telltale fingerprint of human-caused warming that has now also been observed in the real world.

This table from 1982 predicts conditions looking well into the future including the current year of 2015 where Exxon predicted atmospheric carbon levels for our time to within nine parts per million and a temperature rise to within a few tenths of degree of the best current observations. But in the following years, something happened at Exxon. The company seem to have forgotten the findings of its own experts. Proponents of the global warming theory say that higher levels of greenhouse gases are causing world temperatures to rise and the burning fossil fuels is the reason. The scientific evidence remains inconclusive as to whether human activities affect global climate. You know, there was no doubt that fossil fuels were the main driver of higher CO2 emissions and that CO2 emissions will lead to the climate change, right.

What Exxon was trying to figure out in the 70s and 80s was, when is it gonna hit and how bad is it gonna be but they knew it was gonna be bad like they admitted it is going to be bad, they used the word 'catastrophic' over and over again in documents. Fifteen years later, as the science became more certain, Exxon backed away from that and Lee Raymond talked about that. Many scientists agree there's ample time to better understand climate systems and considered policy options so there's simply no reason to take drastic action now. It's a pretty startling walk back from what, you know, the scientists said 15 years earlier. What he's concerned about and wants to know, is whether Exxon was using one set of scientific models to do its work in the Arctic, for example, where Exxon has been engaged in drilling and on the other hand, telling the public, telling its shareholders a very different set of facts about the state of climate change.

When you're making public disclosures to investors and when you're making public disclosures to government officials, there are laws regulating whether or not that's something that you really need to stand by so if there's evidence demonstrating purposeful concealment and it's too early to say then it really could be a big cloud over the company site. Exxon has funded a number of organizations that he said have been openly climate change deniers, he mentioned the American Enterprise Institute… Take for example, this hold 97% of scientists agree on global warming. That is an utterly fraudulent number. Has Exxon been funding these organizations? Well, the answer is yes, and I'll let those organizations respond for themselves. They're basically saying you and your industry are hiding the risks of climate change just like the tobacco companies hid the risks of smoking.

.. and then using tactics that are very similar to what the cigarette industry or tobacco industry used for many years even though the overwhelming scientific consensus was that smoking cigarettes is bad for you, they would find a few scientists that would disagree and then they would say, look, scientists disagree so that's essentially how they would try to trick the public into thinking that smoking is not that bad. There are allegations that ExxonMobil also funded research from somebody for example at the Smithsonian Institution without disclosing and without that person disclosing that he was going on a certain path whereby there were other scientists within ExxonMobil that might have had beliefs to the contrary. You have received over a million dollars and funds from coal and oil interests. The last grant you received from a funder with no ties to the energy industry was in 2002. That's over a decade ago. In recent weeks, ExxonMobil has accused Columbia School of Journalism of ethical misconduct in reporting this story. In response, Steve Coll, the Dean of the Columbia School of Journalism, has refuted those allegations in a detailed letter since published in The New York Times.

Meanwhile, 2015 will soon go down in history as the hottest year globally in the modern record with indications that 2016 will be even warmer. We can't be a 100% sure, but which is more prudent? Which is wiser? …to do nothing and hope that a mistake has been made, or to take these predictions seriously even if there's a chance the precautions you will take will be unnecessary..

Why humans are so bad at thinking about climate change

"We are hurtling toward the day when climate change could be irreversible." "Rising sea levels already altering this nation’s coast." "China’s capital is choking in its worst pollution of the year." "5% of species will become extinct." "Sea levels rising, glaciers melting." Okay. Enough. I get it. It’s not like I don’t care about polar bears and melting ice caps. I’m a conservation scientist, so of course I care. I’ve dedicated my entire career to this. But over the years, one thing has become clear to me: We need to change the way we talk about climate change. This doom-and-gloom messaging just isn’t working; we seem to want to tune it out. And this fear, this guilt, we know from psychology is not conducive to engagement. It's rather the opposite. It makes people passive, because when I feel fearful or guilt-full, I will withdraw from the issue and try to think about something else that makes me feel better. And with a problem this overwhelming, it’s pretty easy to just turn away and kick the can down the road. Somebody else can deal with it.

So it’s no wonder that scientists and policymakers have been struggling with this issue too. So I like to say that climate change is the policy problem from hell. You almost couldn't design a worse problem as a fit with our underlying psychology or the way our institutions make decisions. Many Americans continue to think of climate change as a distant problem: distant in time, that the impacts won't be felt for a generation or more; and distant in space, that this is about polar bears or maybe some developing countries. Again, it’s not like we don’t care about these things — it’s just such a complicated problem. But the thing is, we’ve faced enormous, scary climate issues before. Remember the hole in the ozone layer? As insurmountable as that seemed in the 1970s and ’80s, we were able to wrap our heads around that and take action.

People got this very simple, easy to understand, concrete image of this protective layer around the Earth, kind of like a roof, protecting us, in this case, from ultraviolet light, which by the way has the direct health consequence of potentially giving you skin cancer. Okay, so now you've got my attention. And so then they came up with this fabulous term, the “ozone hole.” Terrible problem, great term. People also got a concrete image of how we even ended up with this problem. For decades, chlorofluorocarbons, or CFCs, were the main ingredient in a lot of products, like aerosol spray cans. Then scientists discovered that CFCs were actually destroying the atmospheric ozone. People could look at their own hairspray and say, “Do I want to destroy the planet because of my hairspray? I mean, god no.” And so what's interesting is that sales of hairspray and those kinds of products and underarm aerosols started dropping quite dramatically.

People listened to scientists and took action. Now scientists predict that the hole in the ozone layer will be healed around 2050. That’s actually pretty amazing. And while stopping the use of one product is actually pretty easy, climate change caused by greenhouse gases … that’s much trickier. Because the sources are more complicated, and for the most part, they’re totally invisible. Right now, there is CO2 pouring out of tailpipes, there is CO2 pouring out of buildings, there is CO2 pouring out of smokestacks, but you can't see it. The fundamental cause of this problem is largely invisible to most of us. I mean, if CO2 was black, we would have dealt with this issue a long time ago. So CO2 touches every part of our lives — our cars, the places we work, the food we eat.

For now, let’s just focus on one thing: our energy use. How do we make that visible? That was the initial goal of UCLA’s Engage project, one of the nation’s largest behavioral experiments in energy conservation. What we're trying to do is to figure out how to frame information about electricity usage so that people save energy and conserve electricity. The idea is that electricity is relatively invisible to people. The research team outfitted part of a student housing complex with meters that tracked real-time usage of appliances and then sent them weekly reports. So you can see how much energy the stove used versus the dishwasher or the fridge. We realized, because of this project, the fridge was like the monster. So lucky for them, their landlord upgraded their fridge to an energy-efficient one. They also learned other energy-saving tips, like unplugging their dishwasher when not in use and air-drying their clothes during the summer months. And researchers, in turn, discovered where people were willing to cut back. The Engage project wanted to know what types of messaging could motivate people to change their behavior. We wanted to see over time over a year and with repeated messages, how do people, behave? How does that impact the consumer behavior? And what we found is that it's very different.

Some households were sent personalized emails with their energy bill about how they could save money; others learned how their energy usage impacted the environment and children’s health. Those who received messages about saving money did nothing. It was totally ineffective because electricity is relatively cheap. But emails sent that linked the amount of pollutants produced to rates of childhood asthma and cancer — well, those led to an 8% drop in energy use, and 19% in households with kids. Now, in a separate study, researchers brought social competition into the mix. First, they hung posters around a dorm building to publicly showcase how students were really doing: red dots for energy wasters, green for those doing a good job, and a shiny gold star for those going above and beyond. This social pressure approach led to a 20% reduction in energy use. This strategy was also used at Paulina’s complex, and it definitely brought out her competitive streak. For me, the competition was what motivated me, because seeing your apartment number and telling you that you are doing at the average, but you are not the best, was like, Why? I’m doing everything you are telling me to do.

I always wanted the gold star, because it was like, “Oh, my god, I want to be like the less consumption of energy in the whole building.” And psychology studies have proved this. We are social creatures, and as individualistic as we can be, turns out we do care about how we compare to others. And yes, we do like to be the best. Some people don’t want to say, Oh, I'm like the average. No, my usage is different and I want to be able to act on it. And people can act on it because with these meters, they can now see their exact impact. A company called Opower is playing with this idea of social competition. They work with over 100 utility companies to provide personalized energy reports to millions of customers around the world. Now consumers can not only see their energy use but how it compares to their neighbors’. Like the UCLA study found, this subtle social pressure encourages consumers to save energy.

It’s been so effective that in 2016, Opower was able to generate the equivalent of two terawatt-hours of electricity savings. That’s enough to power every home in Miami for more than a year. And they’re not alone. Even large companies are tapping into behavioral science to move the dial. Virgin Atlantic Airways gave a select group of pilots feedback on their fuel use. Over the course of a year, they collectively saved over 6,800 tons of fuel by making some simple changes: Adjusting their altitudes, routes, and speed reduced their carbon dioxide emissions by over 21,000 tons. These behavioral “nudges” do seem to be advancing how we as a society deal with some pretty complicated climate change issues, but it turns out we’re just getting started. There is no “quick fix.” We need people changing their companies, changing their business models, changing the products and services they provide. This is about broader-scale change. And part of this change includes embracing what makes us human.

That it can’t just be a guilt trip about dying polar bears or driving around in gas guzzlers. We need to talk about our wins, as well — like how we’re making progress, really being aware of our energy use, and taking advantage of that competitive spirit we all have in order to really move us from a state of apathy to action. Global warming is by far the biggest issue of our time. Climate Lab is a new series from Vox and the University of California, and we’ll be exploring some surprising ways we can tackle this problem. If you want to learn more, head to climate.universityofcalifornia.edu..

Weather Channel Founder Backs Trump, Tells The TRUTH About Global Warming

Weather Channel Founder Backs Trump, Tells The TRUTH About Global Warming President Donald Trump has been excoriated for his decision to have the United States exit the Paris Climate Accord. However, one very influential man � John Coleman, founder of the Weather Channel � has his back. TAA reports: In a series of tweets and emails Coleman sent to Al Gore and various Democratic supporters and organizations, he called out climate alarmists with a barrage of facts based on actual science and not wishful thinking As it turns out, if you chart global temperatures back into the �70s, there are absolutely no signs of global warming. There�s been less than one degree temperature change since 1978 and no warming to speak of since 1998. So where is the government getting their information from? It turns out that the government has been manipulating climate computer models.

This means that the American tax payers are being charged $4.7 billion a year in taxes that are being used to fund organizations that carry out meaningless studies based on bad science. Basically, the American people are paying fake scientists to lie to them. Find out more in the video below. Government actions to counter �carbon pollution� have raised the cost of fuel, electricity and food by an average of $1000 per year for an average American family of four. If that family of four would only open their Internet browsers and see that the Antarctic Sea is at an all time high and sea levels are rising at an �alarming� rate of around 6 inches per century, they would feel outraged that they�re being taken advantage of, at least one would hope. President Trump was right to leave the Paris Climate Accord � they lie to American taxpayers and waste trillions of dollars..