Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
Rachel Wolf
9 July 2019
Annotated Bibliography
In my essay, I will be looking to answer a question that is more pertinent now than ever
question, I will review the science on both sides of the argument to obtain the insight I’m
seeking.
Callery, Susan. “Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet.” Edited by Holly Shaftel, NASA:
Susan Callery is the scientific editor of NASA’s website devoted to the breakdown of
climate change, which was last updated on 12 July 2019. The site is broken into four sections,
Taking a look at evidence throughout history, the Earth’s climate has experienced much
change. In the last 650,000 years alone, there have been numerous cycles of glacial advancement
followed by retreat, seeing the conclusion of the last ice age around 7,000 years ago. The
cessation of the last ice age marked the beginning of what we now know as the modern climate
era, and of human civilization. The contemporary warming trend is of special significance,
quoting a 95% probability of the trend likely being the result of human activity since the mid-20th
century. The signals of climate change have been able to be captured on a larger scale by Earth-
Wolf 2
orbiting satellites, collecting photos and data about our environment and climate on a global
proportion. While there is a normal warming period following an ice age, the paleoclimatic
evidence found in the rings of trees, ocean sediments, coral reefs, and layers of sedimentary
rocks suggest that the current warming trend is taking place around ten times faster than an
The planet’s mean surface temperature has risen a total of around 1.62 degrees Fahrenheit
since the 19th century. This change is largely driven by an increase in carbon dioxide emissions
released into the atmosphere. The bulk of this warming has taken place within the last three
decades, with five of the warmest years on record occurring after the year 2010. The Earth’s
oceans have responded by absorbing a fair amount of this elevated heat, with the top 2,300 feet
of the ocean showing an increased temperature of more than 0.4 degrees Farenheit since the late
1960’s. Two of the Earth’s most notorious ice sheets, in Greenland and Antarctica, have also
diminished in mass. Data from NASA’s Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment reports a loss
of 286 billion tons of ice per year between 1993-2016 for Greenland, and 127 billion tons of ice
in the same time period for Antarctica. Antarctica’s data for this study shows the rate of ice mass
shrinkage to have tripled in the last decade. Sea levels on a global scale have risen a total of
about 8 inches in the last century. In the last two decades, that rate has increased to double that of
what is was in the previous century, and is accelerating slightly annually. Since the inception of
the Industrial Revolution, the acidity of surface waters in the oceans have increased by roughly
30%, as a result of human carbon dioxide emissions being absorbed from the atmosphere. This
The cause of the forementioned statistics is the “greenhouse effect”, where the planet
experiences warming when heat is radiated outward from Earth toward space. Specific gases in
Wolf 3
the Earth’s atmosphere prevent heat from escaping, such as nitrous oxide, methane, water vapor,
and carbon dioxide. Human activities over the last century, such as the burning of coals and oils,
have caused a steady increase in the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Clearing
land for agriculture and industry have also caused an increase in concentration of those
greenhouse gases, but to a lesser extent. This role of human activity was reviewed in a report
issued by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), with the conclusion from
1,300 independent scientists that there’s a “more than 95% probability that human activities over
Changes in the sun’s energy have also been taken into consideration, with the following
takeaway: there are multiple instances of evidence where global warming cannot be explained by
changes originating in the energy from our Sun. The average amount of energy recorded to be
coming from the Sun has either remained consistent, or increased slightly since 1750. If the
Sun’s energy had increased, experts would anticipate trends of warming in all layers of the
atmosphere. Observation shows that the upper layer of the atmosphere is cooling, while the
lower layers of the atmosphere are warming. Finally, climate models that take solar irradiance
changes into consideration have been unable to recreate the noted trend without inclusion of
greenhouse gases.
Future effects of global warming are reviewed by the Third and Fourth National Climate
Assessment Reports, forecasting that the change implemented by global warming will continue
through this century and beyond, the magnitude of which depends on the amount of greenhouse
gases emitted on a global level. Temperatures are anticipated to continue to ascent, the frost-free
season and growing seasons for the agricultural United States are to continue to lengthen,
changes in precipitation patterns are likely to continue in the trend of heavy precipitation events,
Wolf 4
with more droughts and heat waves expected on the opposite side. Hurricanes are proposed to
become more intense, with sea levels anticipated to rise by as much as 1-4 feet by the year 2100.
97% of currently publishing climate scientists concur that “climate-warming trends over the past
century are extremely likely due to human activities”. Most of the authoritative scientific
organizations in the world have announced publicly that they stand behind their stance on this
position, including the American Association for the Advancement of Science, American
Geophysical Union, American Medical Association, U.S. National Academy of Sciences, the
This website is one that I look at as highly credible and reliable, as the information is
sourced from and linked directly to a great number of government and scientific reports relating
to the exact topic I’m researching. The tone is informative, easy to digest, and well organized.
The site is updated on a near daily basis, which lets me know the administrators are keeping the
information up to date.
I plan to utilize this source as a way to support the stance that global warming is a
human-made phenomenon. I will be able to take a great amount of historical and current event
topics to support my stance from the information provided here, and have access to many other
reports and journals cited in the resources from NASA that may help me dive more specifically
Khandekar, M. L., et al. “The Global Warming Debate: A Review of the State of Science.” Pure
& Applied Geophysics, vol. 162, no. 8/9, Aug. 2005, pp. 1557-1586. EBSCOhost, doi:
10.1007/s00024-005-2683-x.
Wolf 5
M.L. Khandekar’s “The Global Warming Debate: A Review of the State of Science” first
appeared in Pure & Applied Geophysics as a review of the present status of global warming
science, finishing with a conclusion that global warming is a natural variation of weather cycles.
This scholarly review takes a look at the link between rising carbon dioxide levels and
the rise in climate change, and states that the link is tenuous. Khandekar cites that the impact of
urbanization and land-use change is such that it is providing climate forcing with an equal to, or
more forceful power than green house gases. Sea level variations are also taken into
consideration, being one of the points that climate change scientists point to. Khandekar cites
another source that states that sea level measurements are “even more biased than weather
stations”, located mainly near Northern Hemisphere ports, and are subject to geological
alterations in both a short and long-term scope. Locations in desolate, low population places, do
not report evidence of changes in sea levels. According to National Tidal Facility (NTF) of
Australia, “the historical record shows no visual evidence of any acceleration in the sea level
trends”. They suggest, alternately, that the coastal deterioration and sinking of islands off of their
coast were the result of environmental changes, not rising ocean levels.
Khandekar goes on to review evidence of the any sea level increases being more likely to
have been a natural progression of the slow melting of ice sheets, stating that the continuing sea
level rise has been occurring for 18,000 years, or since the date of the last glacial period ended.
The author notes that it is important to understand that just like melting ice cubes in a glass of
water won’t make it overflow, that the melting of polar sea ice will not result in ocean level
changes. This is supported by the fact that coastal settlements were not submerged 5,500 years
ago, when the Earth was hotter by 3 degrees Farenheit than it is now.
Wolf 6
The last topic that the author addresses is the popularity of extreme weather events in the
news, and how the public’s perception of them may outweigh the reality of threat. The article
states that American television viewers are three times more likely to see a severe weather
segment on a news station today than they were three decades ago, and that the rising news
coverage of these events and their socio-economic impact have fabricated a perception that these
events are happening more and more. Khandekar cites a survey by Balling & Cerveny that
analyzed the number of severe weather related events in the U.S. and were unable to find an
This scholarly review is well cited and well written. I do consider the source to be
reliable and credible, as it was a collaborative effort between three authors that fairly reflect both
standpoint. This review gives a long list of items to look into for me to ideally be able to dispute
in my own paper.
Lesierowitz, Anthony, et al. “Politics & Global Warming, April 2019.” Yale Program on Climate
climatecommunication.yale.edu/publications/politics-global-warming-april-2019/.
“Politics & Global Warming” is a report that was released by the Yale Program on
Climate Change Communication in partnership with the George Mason University Center for
Climate Change Communication in April 2019. This report was based off the findings of a
Wolf 7
nationally representative survey distributed by the universities titled “Climate Change in the
American Mind”.
The survey findings listed in this report are descriptive of how Democratic, Independent,
and Republican registered voters view topics such as: climate policies, energy policies, global
The following percentages will be based on the survey results for the category of “Global
Warming Beliefs and Attitudes”. 70% of registered voters surveyed believe that global warming
is happening. That 70% included 95% of liberal democrats, 87% of conservative democrats, 63%
surveyed, at 55%, believe that global warming is caused by mostly human activities. That 55%
republicans, and 21% of conservative republicans. When asked whether they were “worried”
about global warming, 6 in 10 (61%) registered voters said yes. That 61% was comprised of 93%
of liberal democrats, 81% of conservative democrats, 54% of moderate republicans, and 21% of
conservative republicans. There has been an increase of 5 percentage points since March 2018’s
survey in liberal democrats worry of global warming, and 9 percentage point decrease in
conservative republican’s worry of global warming since the same time period.
The following percentages will be based on the survey results for the category of “Global
Warming Energy Policies”. Respondents were asked how much they support three varying
strategies the government could use to curtail the emissions that cause global warming. 87% of
all respondents were in favor of investing in renewable energy research to cut down on pollution
by making clean energy more affordable. 82% of all respondents were in favor of regulation
pollution by requiring companies by law to put a cap on the amount of pollution they emit. 72%
Wolf 8
of all respondents were in favor of taxing pollution by way of requiring companies to pay a
mandated tax on their emissions, encouraging them to reduce the amounts they produce. Some
other categories worth mentioning were the notion of a policy to regulate carbon dioxide as a
pollutant, coming in with support from 74% of all respondents. The idea of funding more
research for renewable energy (i.e. solar, wind power) had 86% of all respondents votes in favor.
45% of all respondents supported the idea of a U.S. president declaring global warming a
The following percentages will be based on the survey results for the category of “Acting
on Global Warming & Individual and Collective Action”. 72% of respondents across party lines
agreed that corporations and industries should do more to respond to the threats of global
warming. Of that 72%, 89% were democrats, 77% were independents, and 53% were
republicans. At minimum, over half of the respondents think that citizens (67%), U.S. Congress
(63%), the Republican Party (62%), President Trump (62%), their own member of Congress
(61%), their governor (58%), local government officials (58%), the Democratic party (57%),
and/or the media (53%) should be doing more to address global warming. Concerning individual
and collective action, 51% of the respondents surveyed said that a candidate’s position on global
warming would be enough to warrant a vote from them. Much fewer respondents said they
would engage in efforts to address global warming, with 31% saying they would personally be
willing to contact a government official about the topic, 29% saying they would personally
volunteer for an organization working for the cause, and 30% saying they would personally
This survey was crafted by two well respected educational institutions, Yale and George
Washington University, and the subsequent report was put together as a representation of the data
Wolf 9
collected from over 1,100 respondents of varying political party affiliations. I look at this data as
straight forward, unbiased, offering a look at how different parties view the topic of global
climate change.
I plan to use this source to help give some numbers and percentages to my paper to
support evidence that have been collected from other sources. Specifically, these numbers show
that everyone, regardless of party association, sees and recognizes that global warming is an
issue and that regulations need to be put in place. It also shows that although that statement is
true, only 30% of those surveyed would ever give an iota of their personal time to the cause. I
think this source raises some interesting questions that are going to be easy to address with the
information provided, and clearly discusses the belief of climate change being man made.
Miller, Keith B. “The Nature of Science and the Public Debate over Anthropogenic Global
Warming.” Perspectives on Science & Christian Faith, vol. 64, no. 4, Dec. 2012, pp.
direct=true&db=a9h&AN=83722757&site=ehost-live.
Keith Miller’s “The Nature of Science and the Public Debate over Anthropogenic Global
Warming” appeared in Perspectives on Science & Christian Faith in December of 2012, where
the author reviews common misconceptions about the nature of science, and how those
misunderstandings of the root of science can alter the public’s opinion of anthropogenic global
warming.
Some of the common misconceptions surrounding the nature of climate change are issues
such as
II. failure to recognize the importance of scale in reference to time and space when
discussing trends
It’s important to understand that there are very few true “facts” in science, more so highly
methodical observations in which our understanding of the world is built. Observations are
fueled by the questions that are being asked – and the limited scope of what one single individual
can observe is why science requires repeated and independent confirmation of observational
findings. This fact also clarifies why the continued diversity of the scientific community is
absolutely vital to its success as a society. To apply meaning and explanation to an observation, it
requires the recognition of pattern. These patterns, these regularities in our world, begin to
suggest underlying, consistent causes of change when they are observed and recognized, which
There are some poignant differences between the way that scientists and nonscientists use
the word “theory” – someone not of the science field would often describe the word theory to
mean an “unsubstantiated guess”. Scientists, on the other hand, describe theory as “natural cause-
and-effect explanations for the regularities we observe in the world around us.” Scientific
theories merge differentiating independent observations by recognizing these patterns and trends
A prominent authority often cited by climate change skeptics, The Skeptics Handbook,
offers some insight into the nonscientist vs. scientist view of theory, models, and observations:
“Computer models are sophisticated, put together by experts, getting better all the time. But even
if they could predict the climate correctly (they can’t), even if they were based on solid proven
theories (they aren’t), they still wouldn’t count as evidence. Models are based on scores of
assumptions and estimates piled on dozens of theories.” Theories are, in fact, the only way to
Wolf 11
give observations meaning. Models and observations are simply the recording of pattern – theory
is what gives the data meaning, and context. Theory is how we apply the observations and the
models now, in a way that allows us to predict future observations. In other words, an
The emphasis on the demand for proof from that passage in The Skeptics Handbook is
shown clearly in the statement concerning theories that cannot be proven. Emphasis should be
placed on not waiting for an unattainable measure of “proof”; but acting on the best present
understanding of the evidence that is available to us. In reality, it is that very uncertainty that
makes up the true nature of theoretical science. Even the most widely agreed upon theories in the
scientific community are not “proven” to an absolute degree; rather held in different degrees of
acceptance based on the explanation of the theory, and the theories’ predictive power. It is the
culmination of the complete body of evidence, and the weight it holds, not the agreement of
every observation, that allows a theory to be rejected or accepted. Continuing to test current
understanding of a theory against new observations is the sole way to seek out any existing errors
The importance of scale and context when talking about anthropogenic global warming is
straightforward. Often, discussions amongst the public regarding the topics of evolution and
climate change are not talked about with any sense of the relevant scale. Trends can only be truly
understood when they have been given the context of time and space. Scientific theories are
virtually always dependent on scale. Where things start to get misapplied and misunderstood is
when the public believes that the reality of short-term trends will predict long-term trends. For
instance, in 2012, the CWS forecast predicted we’d finish the year without any warming, making
for a total of eleven years without warming, where emissions from carbon also didn’t decline in a
Wolf 12
momentous way. This led skeptics to the question, “How does one begin to explain that?”. That
decade long interval is just a small portion of a century-long trend of rising global temperatures,
in which the timeframe is also representative of a decline in solar irradiance that occurs as a
natural and cyclical change in solar activity. Even with that being said, nine of those eleven years
were contenders for the top ten warmest years reflected in the modern instrumental record.
Single data points, or singular extreme weather events, should not be used as points to refute a
long-term trend.
This article was published in a journal of The American Scientific Affiliation, and targets
readers who are interested in science and religion. The article takes an informative tone, laying
out some common misconceptions that the public faces concerning global warming, and
addresses each issue individually with skeptic evidence and competing scientific evidence. I find
I plan to implement this source into my research paper by using the article to offer a fair
view of both sides of the argument on anthropogenic global warming, using the scientific
evidence and knowledge of theory to combat skeptic arguments while showing an unbiased
glimpse at both.
Plumer, Brad; Fountain, Henry. “Gist of Latest Report on Global Warming: Fears Are Now
Reality.” New York Times, vol. 168, no. 58156, 24 Nov. 2018, p. A17. EBSCOhost,
search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=133198103&site=ehost-live
Brad Plumer and Henry Fountain’s “Gist of Latest Report on Global Warming: Fears Are
Now Reality” was first published by The New York Times in November of 2018, detailing the
Wolf 13
current observed effects of global warming based on prior predictions by the National Climate
Assessment.
Global warming is a phenomenon that is becoming more tangible to the average person,
putting the risk of current and future disasters higher on the pedestal than ever. From crop
failures all across the Midwest, to coastal flooding, Volume Two of the latest National Climate
Assessment continues to explore the impacts of climate change. The National Climate
Assessment is a scientific report that is released every four years. 13 federal agencies produced
the 2018 document and it was distributed by the Trump administration. 2018’s report came to
many similar conclusions cited in 2014’s assessment. The findings were that temperatures are
continuing to rise, predicting a positive correlation between wildfires on the Western coast of the
USA. The report details that prior predictions have materialized, with and increasing number of
As an example, the 2014 assessment predicted that coastal cities would see a rise in
flooding in the years to come as sea levels continue to rise. This prediction would appear to no
longer be only theoretical, as there have been a record number of documented cases of “nuisance
flooding” in coastal cities such as Charleston, SC, and Miami, FL. A direct quote from the 2018
assessment says, “High tide flooding is now posing daily risks to businesses, neighborhoods,
infrastructure, transportation, and ecosystems in the Southeast.” As the seas continue to warm,
US fisheries are now experiencing the long-predicted disruptions to their businesses due to
The report goes into further detail than just our own backyard, citing climate change as an
international concern that is affecting American companies overseas, and the development in less
prosperous countries. The focus of the 2018 report has turned to prevention along with
Wolf 14
prediction, stating that in order to limit the physical and monetary damages brought by instances
of deadly heat waves, coastal flooding, and increased likelihood of extreme weather,
communities will need to band together and take precautionary measures to prepare beforehand.
2014’s assessment cautioned that few cities and states were making strides to adapt to the
implications of climate change, but that trend is slowly changing with more and more
communities preserving wetlands along the coasts to act as a buffer during storms. That being
said, there are not many coastal communities that are trying to restructure new and existing
In conclusion, the 2018 report tells a cautionary tale that the United States is “particularly
underprepared” for the result of rising sea and swamp levels on our coasts, stating, “the potential
need for millions of people and billions of dollars of coastal infrastructure to be relocated in the
future creates challenging legal, financial, and equity issues that have not yet been addressed.
This article was published in the New York Times, reviewing the findings of the most
recent (2018) National Climate Assessment. The New York Times’ target audience is probably a
young to middle-age urban or liberal, but the article doesn’t read very biased, sticking with an
informative and preventative tone. The information of the National Climate Assessment appears
I will implement the findings from this source in my research paper by using it to bring
the latter half of my paper to current times. It’s important to review the past before coming full
circle to present, and future predictions. This source is a fair description of some current tangible
impacts of global warming that have been predicted in recent years by the same association.
Wolf 15
Robinson, Mary. “Why Climate Change is a Threat to Human Rights.” TED: Ideas Worth
www.ted.com/talks/mary_robinson_why_climate_change_is_a_threat_to_human_rights.
Mary Robinson’s speech “Why Climate Change is a Threat to Human Rights” first
appeared in May of 2015 as a part of a Ted Talk women’s series. Mary describes growing up
sandwiched in between two older and two younger brothers in the west of Ireland, where she
jokes she had to have an interest in human rights and equality to make it through being the
middle child and the only girl. Her childhood convictions stayed with her through adulthood, and
when she was elected President of Ireland from 1990-1997, she devoted her presidency to
bringing together communities in Ireland and trying to build peace. She describes the
accomplishments in her presidency, and the normal issues she faced during that time, such as
helping to create jobs, stimulate the economy, build their healthcare system and their education
system. What she says she didn’t have to do as President, was think about the implications of
climate change on her own land, the way President Tong of the Republic of Kiribati has. Her
learning of leaders having to deal with immediate implications of global warming was what
Upon visiting Africa, Mary started to learn of climate shocks and changes in weather that
had already been affecting the country. She met with a woman named Constance who had
created a women’s group in Uganda, who shared with her how the periods of drought and flash
floods have laid their long-used methods of predictions to rest. It used to be that the seasons
would come as predicted, and the families knew exactly when to sow and harvest, so food was
available. Now, with the extreme changes in season, harvests and livelihoods have been
destroyed. What struck Mary the most was that the woman telling her this information was not
Wolf 16
someone who was responsible for the emissions into the atmosphere that were causing the
problem. The average person in Malawi, the area she met Candace in, emits about 80kg of
carbon dioxide a year, whereas the average U.S. citizen emits about 17.5 metric tons. It was
striking to Mary that some of the people who were experiencing this anguish were people who
don’t drive vehicles, do not have electricity, and do not consume in a significant way, yet they
are experiencing the impacts of climate change in ways that aren’t allowing them to grow food
properly. She says, “I think it was really the importance of the injustice that really struck me very
forcibly”.
Mary concludes her speech starting with some changes that need to happen in the world
for us to work toward zero carbon by the year 2050, listing California and Hawaii as states that
have already pledged to start working towards being carbon neutral with ambitious targets to cut
emissions. She goes on to say that industrialized countries must start cutting their emissions,
work towards becoming more energy efficient, and move as quickly as possible into the direction
of renewable energy. This task requires the support of the international community to provide
systems, finances, and technology, because no country can make itself safe from the imminent
This TED speech has a target audience of people, maybe even specifically women, who
have some interest in injustice in the world, or who are interested in policy, or following the
debate on climate change. TED is a pretty nonpartisan platform, and I don’t see much bias in this
speech, just a relaying of facts from Mary’s presidency in Ireland, to her time as a U.N. human
rights commissioner. I find this source to be very reliable and credible, given her background
alone.
Wolf 17
I would implement some of the information from Mary’s speech into my report as a way
to put a human touch to some of the theories and percentages that are going to be thrown around.
The story of Mary and Candace is incredible to listen to, and it’s a touching way to show that
climate change is not just what we can see outside of our back door, or just here in the U.S. It
gives a real insight to the immediate effects of climate change on people who are not producing
the bulk of the emissions causing the issue in the first place. I believe this will contrast well with
Towards Political Literacy”. Cultural Studies of Science Education, vol. 9, no. 3, Sept.
Before the Flood. Directed by Fisher Stevens, performed by Leonardo DiCaprio, Appian Way
Productions, 2016.
Before the Flood is a 2016 film on climate change that was directed by Fisher Stevens
and performed by Leonardo DiCaprio. This film has several take-home points on climate change,
accompanied by some incredible and stark footage of places that have been affected all around
the world. The film follows Leonardo on a journey to at-risk nations, the Arctic, Greenland, the
Sumatran rainforest, India, China, Miami, and many other places that are showing the signs of
climate change.
On his journey, Leonardo meets with various people around the globe, seeing first-hand
what they are experiencing in their day-to-day lives and operations, and what they are observing.
One observation is that Greenland and the Arctic are on course to melt altogether. He interviews
Dr. Enric Sala, who compares the Arctic to an air conditioning unit large enough to cool the
Wolf 18
entire Northern Hemipshere, and says that if that goes away, it will alter currents and weather
patterns. Another observation made in the film is that although China is currently the world’s
largest source of pollution, it also sustainable energy’s largest investor, coming in in 2015 with
36% of all of the world’s investment for renewable energy sources. There is also discussion of
the recent trend of coral reef loss, citing that 50% of all coral has been lost within the last 30
years.
DiCaprio meets with Michael E. Mann, Penn State Earth System Science Center Director
who is responsible for the “hockey stick graph” that was published in 2001 reflecting the recent
spike in the global temperature. Mann tells DiCaprio during his interview that he was “vilified…
called a fraud, was being attacked by Congressman.” The FBI even had to be involved at one
point to examine an envelope that was sent to him that contained some kind of pattern. Mann and
DiCaprio discuss how the population growth over the last several decades makes climate change
After visiting China to firsthand see the smog and speak to authorities on pollution date,
Leonardo finds himself in India. In India, he meets with Sunita Narain, the Director of the Center
for Science and Environment. Their conversation revolves around the climate question that keeps
cropping up – “how do developing nations with fast-rising populations raise standards of living
for all without emitting vast volumes of greenhouse gases?” Narain shares that there are 300
million people without power in India, which DiCaprio equates to being the equal to the entire
population of the United States of America. Their conversation concludes with Narain telling
DiCaprio that American’s consumption is putting a hole in our planet, based on electricity alone.
This film was created to appeal to those who are looking to join or learn more about the
conversation on modern climate change. The people interviewed are doctors, scholars, and
Wolf 19
experts in their fields, leading me to believe that the information relayed is credible and reliable.
The film was released in 2016, which makes it one of the more recent cinematic takes on global
warming.
I plan to use some of the personal stories and experiences documented in this film to try
and give the reader another real world, global view of what is happening in the world. Again, I
find that the scope and scale can become small when we talk about what we personally have
noticed with climate change, which is why it’s so important to hear from people in other pockets
of the globe who are dealing with the consequences of global warming.