Posted on 15 September 2019 by John Hartz

Story of the Week...

'Going to the streets again': what you need to know about Friday's climate strike

Organisers expect a stronger presence from unions, workers and companies as student activists reach out to adults

Australian school students are set to walk out of classrooms again to call for climate action as part of a global strike three days before a UN summit. Photograph: Dan Peled/AAP

Thousands of Australian school students are again preparing to walk out of classrooms across the country to demand action on the climate crisis.

The global mass day of action will take place on Friday 20 September, three days before the United Nations climate summit in New York.

It follows strikes in March this year in which 150,000 people marched in Australia and 1.5 million took part worldwide.

Organisers expect next week’s global strikes will be bigger and, this time there will be a much stronger presence from unions, workers and companies that have signed up to strike in solidarity with the young activists.

Here’s a guide to what’s happening.

'Going to the streets again': what you need to know about Friday's climate strike by Lisa Cox, Environment, Guardian, Sep 14, 2019

Click here to access the entire article as posted on the Guardian website.

Editorial of the Week...

Can we please base our climate change discussions on facts?

One flawed assumption about global warming is that nuclear power has to be part of the solution. (Allen J. Schaben / Los Angeles Times)

In the debate about global warming, as last week’s climate change town hall on CNN made clear, policy discussions are often based on false premises. In Thursday’s debate, the Democratic presidential candidates will again discuss climate issues. Here are a few faulty assumptions they should reject.

One oft-repeated canard is that we won’t be able to reach zero net carbon dioxide emissions without re-embracing nuclear power. Several candidates responded to this claim last week by saying they could not support nuclear power because it was too expensive and we haven’t solved the waste disposal problem. Both those things are true, but they leave a crucial point out of the discussion.

If it were really the case that we couldn’t meet our energy needs without nuclear power, then we could certainly suck up the cost (currently about double that of solar, and as much as three times that of wind) and get back to work on waste disposal. But the assertion that we can’t decarbonize the energy system without additional nuclear power is flawed.

Can we please base our climate change discussions on facts?, Opinion by Naomi Oreskes, Los Angeles Times, Sep 12, 2019

Click here to access the entire Op-ed as published on the Los Angeles Times website.

Toon of the Week...

Coming Soon on SkS...

• Skeptical Science New Research for Week #37, 2019 (Doug Bostrom)
• Climate change and food (Yale Climate Connections)
• Skeptical Science to join the Global Climate Strike (Baerbel)
• The Consensus Handbook: Download and (German) translation (Baerbel)
• 2019 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #38 (John Hartz)
• 2019 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #38 (John Hartz) 

Climate Feedback Reviews...

[To be added.] 

Poster of the Week...

SkS Week in Review... 

• 2019 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #37 by John Hartz
• Climate denier scientists think these 5 arguments will persuade EU and UN leaders by Dana Nuccitelli
• Skeptical Science New Research for Week #36, 2019 by Doug Bostrom
• Key facts about the new EPA plan to reverse the Obama-era methane leaks rule by Dana Nuccitelli (Yale Climate Connection)
• 2019 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #36 by John Hartz