text:
Chris Mooney | May 3, 2011
By Chris Mooney • Tuesday, May 3, 2011 - 08:52
On climate change, we're politically polarized—which would be bad enough, but that's not all. The hole we've dug is even deeper—as new research clearly suggests.
There's yet another study out on Democrats, Republicans, and climate change, this time from Lawrence Hamilton of the Carsey Institute at the University of New Hampshire. Over the last two years, in a series of regional surveys, Hamilton asked nearly 9,500 people questions about climate change—from Appalachia to the Gulf Coast, and from New Hampshire to Alaska.
Across all these regions, he consistently found the following phenomenon: Democrats and Republicans who claimed to know less about the climate issue were more like one another in terms of whether they accepted the science. Democrats and Republicans who claimed to know a lot about the issue, by contrast, were vastly polarized—with knowledgeable Democrats overwhelmingly accepting the science, and knowledgeable Republicans overwhelmingly denying it.
"Political polarization is greatest among the Republicans and Democrats who are most confident that they understand this issue," writes Hamilton. "Republicans and Democrats less sure about their understanding also tend to be less far apart in their beliefs."
This core finding itself is not new—a 2008 Pew survey also found that Republicans with a college level of education were less likely to accept the science of climate than Republicans who lack such education. Other studies have also underscored this fundamental point. But for precisely that reason, Hamilton's research kind of puts it in the realm of indisputable political fact. Not only are we polarized over climate change, but our knowledge and sophistication, when combined with our politics, make matters worse.
How could this be? For Hamilton, the explanation lies in the interaction between how we get information (from trusted news and Internet sources, we think, but we're actually being selective) and our own biases in evaluating it (objectively, we think, but again, we're actually being selective). "People increasingly choose news sources that match their own views," Hamilton writes. "Moreover, they tend to selectively absorb information even from this biased flow, fitting it into their pre-existing beliefs." In other words, we're twice biased—based on our views and information sources—and moreover, twice biased in different directions.
Thus it really makes a lot of sense that those who are paying less attention to the climate issue, whether nominally Democrat or Republican, are less polarized and less sure of themselves. They're not working nearly as hard at reaffirming their convictions, and refuting the convictions of the other side. (Hamilton's study implies, though, that that they may have a different problem—they know so little that they may be more likely to be buffeted by the weather in terms of how they think about climate. If it's hot out, maybe they'll worry. If it's cold, they'll scoff.)
Overall, the big picture is that our society is not making up its mind in anything like a rational or scientific manner about climate change. That's unfortunate–but it would be a form of denial itself at this point to reject the finding.
"Nonsense, the evidence is
"Nonsense, the evidence is now extremely strong". (worthless, I can point to various credible scientists who disagree, so what does that determine?)
Specifics please, I'd like to be convinced (and please, no more blog references, or appeals to authority, or meaningless cut and paste actions).
Neither am I expecting absolute proof. In the case of the MWP, there are not only numerous studies indicating global warming, but new confirming investigations every month. And there is anecdotal evidence, including the Vikings mapping the entire Greenland coast (not possible unless basically ice free, which is not yet the case even today, graves found beneath the perma frost, antique vineyards found further north than grapes can be grown today, the Thames frozen over to a much greater extent than since, etc. Still not positive proof I would agree, but dam close.
As Joanne Nova nicely puts it: "The only rational response to climate change is to use empirical, observable evidence. Rational people can point to results from 28 million radiosondes, 6000 boreholes, 30 years of satellites, 3000 ARGO ocean diving thermometers, raw data from thousands of surface thermometers, as well as 963 peer reviewed references (all documented at www.co2science.org) which include studies of corals, caves, pollen grains, ocean floor sediments, ice cores, and diatoms."
But you cannot point to ANY specific evidence, only to opinionated blogs. Do you still not recognize that it is the problem of warmists to provide evidence to back up their claims?
The computer model output is not evidence. In fact, even the CRU folks will admit that their models provide "projections", as distinct from even "predictions". The hot spot, (a supposedly necessary condition as evidence of AGW) does not exist. The increase in the planet's temperature has stalled since about 1998 (satellite readings). In terms of surface temperature readings, there may be a very slight gain, but it's so small (and is not based on raw data, but on "revised" data) that it is eclipsed by the inherent errors in estimating a global temperature.
If you think there is evidence, tell me about it in your own words. If you can't, you are merely a believer, not even qualified to discuss the issue.
anonymous replied on Permalink
No, you have avoided any evidence given you
so again you lie when you say "I'd like to be convinced".
"(worthless, I can point to various credible scientists who disagree, so what does that determine?)"
Worthless? When 100x as many scientists can be pointed to who agree that the IPCC is broadly correct, YOU insist on giving equal weight to the lunatic fringe 1%.
"Neither am I expecting absolute proof"
Which is why you keep insisting: Re "Prove it!" repeated ad nauseum from you above.
Lies and more lies.
"The computer model output is not evidence"
And only deniers trying a strawman insist it is.
"The only rational response to climate change is to use empirical, observable evidence."
Then why do Jo and the other obstructionists basking in the limelight and the riches and attention given them by the compliant media and lobby groups ignore all the evidence?
"But you cannot point to ANY specific evidence"
It's been pointed to you before:
but you deny them, ignore them because you DO NOT WANT to be convinced. You want to remain in your comfortable faith that AGW is nonexistent.
"as well as 963 peer reviewed references "
Peer review isn't "My mate Monckton looked it over". He's not even a peer. They are 953 outdated erroneous PR puff pieces repeatedly inferred but never defended against skepticism.
has the science. The WG 1 report has the references to over 5000 papers used in that one report alone, blowing your piddly 953 PR pieces out of the water and, unlike co2science, actually skeptically peer reviewed by real scientists who are looking for the best evidence.
"The hot spot, (a supposedly necessary condition as evidence of AGW)"
The hot spot IS NOT AND NEVER HAS BEEN evidence of AGW.
Despite which, it has been seen.
"The increase in the planet's temperature has stalled since about 1998 "
You cannot determine whether the temperature has stalled since about 1998 because there isn't enough data.
Or do you ask your mum when you want to know how many people eat refried beans?
"there may be a very slight gain, but it's so small that it is eclipsed by the inherent errors in estimating a global temperature
So what you do is:
Then if you look at, say, 30 years data, you get a positive trend.
BECAUSE YOU NEED 30 years data to determine a climate temperature trend.
anonymous replied on Permalink
"you insist on referring to other opinionated blogs"
funny guy!
You keep posting links to a blog whose remit is to debunk AGW no matter what, from someone who has no domain experience and YOU complain about "opinionated blogs"!!!!
And when a science resource is handed to you, you complain that it's just a political UN conspiracy (see how the insanity surfaces with just a tiny prodding).
This is why you're a denier: any site that says AGW might be real is, in your cranium, twisted into a opinionated blog and any site that says AGW is false is the One True Source Of Truth.
Pathetic paranoia.
Pathetic paranoia versus pathetic true believer
(see subject)
Your response(s) are pathetic. You cannot offer even one iota of evidence. You appeal to authority or name call (or chant).
anonymous replied on Permalink
There's no "vs": they're the same person: you.
You TRULY BELIEVE that AGW cannot be real.
You can't even make a null hypothesis up so do a terrible job because you want the null hypothesis to be what you believe in.
Is there anyone at this site who can explain, without referring to blogs, what evidence the proponents of AGW (alias "warmists", alias "alarmists") claim they have?
No ranting, chanting, name-calling, etc., solicited or accepted.
anonymous replied on Permalink
Yes, easily. And for the twentieth time
1) Temperatures are increasing
2) Temperatures are increasing more at the poles than at the equator
3) Temperatures are increasing more at night than daytime
4) Stratosphere is cooling
5) There is more energy coming in than is leaving
6) CO2 is a greenhouse gas in that it traps IR and is transparent in the visible
7) The sun is at a blackbody temperature of 6000K which has a peak intensity in the visible, the earth is at a blackbody temperature of about 290K which has a peak intensity in the IR
'Is there anyone at this site who can explain, without referring to blogs, what evidence the proponents of AGW (alias "warmists", alias "alarmists") claim they have?
No ranting, chanting, name-calling, etc., solicited or accepted.'
I have on a number of occasions and only pointed you at other sites for evidence. But you cannot handle that and still call for evidence. How else can I show you. That is why the WW Award suits you to a T.
As for any supposed name calling I don't but then I do point out errant behaviour.
If you don't like the fire then don't set yourself up as a guy. Simple.
Phil M replied on Permalink
"Is there anyone at this site
"Is there anyone at this site who can explain, without referring to blogs, what evidence the proponents of AGW "
I'm looking for a forest. Can anyone point me to one? There are all these trees in the way.
Badgersouth replied on Permalink
Just the facts...
The World Meteorological Organization (WMO) has published its "Statement on the Status of the Global Climate in 2010."
The year 2010 was especially notable in that global surface temperatures reached record values at the same level as in 1998 and 2005, consistent with the acceleration of the warming experienced over the last 50 years. The year also signaled the closure of the warmest decade on record. Over this decade, warming was markedly more pronounced in some regions, notably so in North Africa and the Arabian Peninsula, South Asia, and the Arctic.
Large and extended climate extremes were recorded in several parts of the world, causing significant socio-economic impacts. In particular the flooding in Pakistan and Australia as well as the summer heatwave in the Russian Federation were among the most remarkable climate extremes of the year.
To access the entire WMO report, go to: http://www.wmo.int/pages/publications/showcase/documents/1074_en.pdf
SirGareth replied on Permalink
I hope that you would agree
I hope that you would agree that in order to quantify anything it must have some unit of measurement or has AGW scientism dispensed with this annoyance?
So if 2010 had increased "extremeness" consistent with its postulations how much did extremeness increase? quantity and units please?
How is all this scaled?
Lets see droughts and floods could be ranked in plus or minus acre-inch-days of surplus or deficit precipitation.
….But wait would a drought cancel out a flood if the figures were equal or would we just take the absolute value of each and add em all up for the whole globe or is there some threshold value that each must pass and would either days or inches be weighted more.
OK on to tornadoes hurricanes how many add up to a drought?
If a hurricane or tornado kills more humans would they be more extreme than one that hit the skeleton coast of Aftrica and didnt kill anyone
Oh and are the deleterious effects on humans more important than the effects on say for instance the speckle-eared titmouse when considering the "extremenessity" of an event?
Oh and then forest fires…are they extremes all by themselves and does it matter how they got set or do they get rolled up into the droughts only just a bit extremer? How 'bout mudslides?
What do AGW scientismists have to say about all this when citing increased extremeness?
anonymous replied on Permalink
More strawmen. This is getting a fire hazzard.
"More extremeness" is something you made up. Nonscientific, but we can't expect any more from you can we.
Rather we use temperature changes over time.
"How is all this scaled?"
By the Celsius or Farenheit as any temperature graph is.
"But wait would a drought cancel out a flood"
No. why would it? An extreme is an extreme. A flood doesn't cancel out a drought and make the weather fine. It makes it unsuitable for farming.
"What do AGW scientismists have to say about all this when citing increased extremeness?"
They say "what the hell are you wibbling on about you insane nutter?"
Badgersouth replied on Permalink
Your posts are becoming increasingly inane and boring!
anonymous replied on Permalink
So you didn't want an answer, then?
because the answers bore you when they're given to you.
So why did you ask?
Are you completely nuts or are you just paid to be one?
anonymous replied on Permalink
Thought that was Gofigure.
Badgersouth replied on Permalink
Yeah, my comment was directed
Yeah, my comment was directed at SirGareth.
disconnected from reality
Evidence that man is causing AGW please?
anonymous replied on Permalink
Easy yet again
Mankind is creating 30billion tons a year of CO2 through burning fossil fuels and so on.
The approximate figures can be attested by asking BP, Texaco and so on how much oil they sell. It isn't being drunk, you know.
No question but what we're creating CO2.
Evidence, please, that CO2 is causing the planet to warm.
anonymous replied on Permalink
CO2 is a opaque to IR
therefore it insulates the earth from energy losses into space. And, like any insulator, when you insulate a body with energy coming in at the same rate as before (we have a sun), the insulated object warms.
Junior-school-level physics.
anonymous replied on Permalink
And that was a redundant question
Since it was already answered with "CO2 is a greenhouse gas that is opaque to IR and transparent to visible".
Phil M replied on Permalink
"Evidence that man is causing
"Evidence that man is causing AGW please?"
Evidence you will accept evidence please.
Badgersouth replied on Permalink
How do we know humans are the primary cause of the warming?
A large body of evidence supports the conclusion that human activity is the primary driver of recent warming. This evidence has accumulated over several decades, and from hundreds of studies. The first line of evidence is our basic physical understanding of how greenhouse gases trap heat, how the climate system responds to increases in greenhouse gases, and how other human and natural factors influence climate.
The second line of evidence is from indirect estimates of climate changes over the last 1,000 to 2,000 years. These estimates are often obtained from living things and their remains (like tree rings and corals) which provide a natural archive of climate variations. These indicators show that the recent temperature rise is clearly unusual in at least the last 1,000 years.
The third line of evidence is based on comparisons of actual climate with computer models of how we expect climate to behave under certain human influences. For example, when climate models are run with historical increases in greenhouse gases, they show gradual warming of the Earth and ocean surface, increases in ocean heat content, a rise in global sea level, and general retreat of sea ice and snow cover. These and other aspects of modeled climate change are in agreement with observations.
"Global Climate Change Indicators", National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Climatic Data Center http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/indicators/
anonymous replied on Permalink
Apparently answers bore him.
Or, more likely, answers he doesn't want to acknowledge bores him.
Or, more likely yet, answers he doesn't want to acknowledge scares him.
Here GoFigure
a little while back 'Smokey Joe' Barton wanted something to counter AGW with in congress awhile back and so he commissioned one Edward Wegman to do a report and Wegman chose, ahem, the hockey stick irrespective of the fact that the hockey stick shape for the warming trend over the last millennium with its sharp late 20th century uptick was backed by umpteen different studies. Hint—that is why there is a grey fuzz around the main trend curve.
Those of us who have been following this issue for more than a dog-watch, that is from before WUWT or Nova had an inkling of what was going on, were waiting for the wheels to come off Wegman's bus.
Well it now look like the turkey, which had been exposed awhile back but it has taken GMU (Wegman's seat of sinking professor-ship) some time to respond to complaints about plagiarism amongst other things.
Now that dark brown smelly stuff is starting to hit the fan, and much more has been discovered along the way. DeepClimate and John Mashey have been the champions in exposing this brouhaha and stuff can be found here:
Retraction of Said, Wegman et al 2008, part 1
you should track back through that site to find the trail, that is if you are interested in the truth. Some IF I know!
Joe Romm also chimes in:
Wegman scandal rocks cornerstone of climate denial
and Deltoid also raises awareness:
Wegman scandal: the first retraction
Now I have landed you on the Home page at Deltoid because I want you to take note of another wheel less bus, viz those temperature records that old Watt's has been huffing and puffing about for the last couple of years. We have been waiting eagerly for his (peer reviewed goddammit) paper about all that and after some delay (about a year it would seem) it finally appeared, and guess what – there is no problem of the type he was huffing and puffing about. Well I never! This is explained if you click through:
Anthony Watts contradicted by Watts et al
Oh! Dear! Oh! Dear!
But I guess the denialosphere will paint this as a similar victory as Munchkin did over that failed attempt to get 'An Inconvenient Truth' countered by 'The Global Warming Swindle' in schools court case. You know the one, the one that, but for a minor point or two, exonerated Gores film (a coach and four being able to drive through the hackumentary that was Durkin's effort)
The presiding judge Mr Justice Burton said (from Climate Cover-Up page 147), "There is nothing to prevent (to take an extreme case) there being a strong preference for a theory—if it were a political one—that the moon is not made of green cheese, and hence a minimal, but dispassionate, reference to the alternative theory. The balanced approach does not involve equality."
Just so, but this is how the media portray the AGW debate when 97+% of scientists involved in studies which impinge on climate can understand that AGW is real and why it is happening.
Furthermore the MM trumpeted the denier speil that Gore's Film had been debunked when in fact a few small errors had been criticised but the main thrust of the documentary had been completely vindicated. Now you have the nerve to complain about the media distorting the AGW message. Well yes they do, but not in the way you think.
hockey stick ????
That claim is not even backed anymore by the UN. Wake up!
anonymous replied on Permalink
And we've already seen an alarmist
They've spun themselves into a frightened tizzy with mantras like:
"Untrustworthy: Its a UN political propaganda site run my the worlds despots, the same ones who want the US to transfer more cash to these self-same despots. The UN ignores genocide in Rwanda, did secret oil deals with Iraq's tyrant Saddam, condones rape by its soldiers. And most importantly twists all legitimate science for its benefit in order to promote its political aims."
Of course, missing out that the USA has veto powers in the UN and has been caught trafficking in young boys to have sex with arab "friendlies".
An amusing projection of his own idiocies onto others by… well, go figure it out yourself.
Where's the beef?
Can't you provide just one teensy weensy bit of evidence.
(Incidently the hockey stick graph (generated by Mann with the help of a computer "model") also generates hockey stick graphs when random numbers are used for input. That graph is not evidence of anything apart from demonstrating really questionable research capability by its author.
I'm still waiting for you to provide any evidence that CO2 in the atmosphere is having an effect on temperature. There's lots of evidence that it doesn't.) Do you understand the meaning of "evidence"? (hint: "Joe Blow says it's causing warming is most definitely NOT evidence.)
anonymous replied on Permalink
Yes, plenty of evidence that you throw away
Yes, plenty of evidence that you throw away because you say you want no reference to blogs.
"Incidently the hockey stick graph (generated by Mann with the help of a computer "model")"
It wasn't generated by Mann with the help of a computer model.
"I'm still waiting for you to provide any evidence that CO2 in the atmosphere is having an effect on temperature."
CO2 absorbs IR and doesn't absorb Visible.
There's your evidence.
Attention: Lionel & the potted plant known as "anonymous"
Here's a quote (in email, and verified) by your hero, Jones of CRU infamy.
"The scientific community would come downon me in no uncertain terms if I said the world had cooled from 1998. OK it has but it is only 7 years of data and it isn't statistically significant." - Phil Jones 07/05/05 http://bit.ly/6qYf9a
(The website reference goes directly to that email.)
Apparently even Jones looks at satellite data.
SirGareth replied on Permalink
What did they say about the
What did they say about the number of angles that could dance on the head of a pin. Deniers hold the position that whatever the number is it isn't changing. What do the AGW scientismists have to say
anonymous replied on Permalink
So why should we believe you or it?
Since you and the other denialists have managed to lie about what others have said if it progresses their campaign of terror, lies and greed:
Mojab: In any 10 year period you can see a lower temperature trend if you pick your period carefully
Denialist DJ: An IPCC scientist today said that it was cooling and would be for another 10 years
Denialist DJ flunky: At least!
Denialist DJ: Yeah, 30 years
Look how the denialists treat "one of their own" when that person DARES to suggest that a physical effect really exists: http://www.drroyspencer.com/2010/08/comments-on-miskolczi%E2%80%99s-2010-controversial-greenhouse-theory/
GoFigure spins again!
'Here's a quote (in email, and verified) by your hero, Jones of CRU infamy.
"The scientific community would come downon me in no uncertain terms if I said the world had cooled from 1998. OK it has but it is only 7 years of data and it isn't statistically significant." - Phil Jones 07/05/05 http://bit.ly/6qYf9a'
Oh! Well done. But then I do happen to follow links of others but in this case this was only to remind myself of this particular email's contents.
Now look at the date of that e-mail and consider that if 1998 was used as a starting point then of course in 2006 the average temperatures were lower than that anomalous high of 1998, however the 30 year trend was still up. You see that is why Jones says '.but it is only 7 years of data…'.
Now do you understand what Jones is referring to with, '…it isn't statistically significant..'?
'Apparently even Jones looks at satellite data.'
Of course he does. You did note to whom that e-mail was addressed, didn't you?
But it isn't satellite data alone that Jones relies on to provide 'statistical significance', as you should well know.
Question. What is the main difference between the methodology of HadCRUT and GISTEMP WRT temperature collecting?
With the above in mind it should be remembered that it has been only since 2005 that the confusion of tropospheric and stratospheric satellite temperature measurement, a confusion created by Spencer & Christy, has been sorted. The satellite data now supports the idea that GHGs are causing warming in the atmospheric layers close to the Earth and cooling in the stratosphere.
We are now in 2011 and the temperature trend is still firmly up and nothing Spencer, Lindzen and Monckton can do to spin the 'low sensitivity' record can counter that. It is notable that the only way they can 'hide the incline' is by rotating the x-axis of the time v temp graph downwards as time extends. This 'trick' has been picked up on several times and being used by various members of the contra-brigade.
I was going to get to this business after dealing with your use of Fred Singer, Roy Spencer, Richard Lindzen, Robert M. Carter, Svensmark, Ball, Mcintyre and the rest of the Motl collection of Orwellspeak scientists as sages.
To get the idea:
And so it is with one of the most enduring denier myths, that the satellite data didn't show the global warming that the surface temperature data did. When this myth was exposed as bad data analysis by scientists at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, it morphed into a narrower claim about supposed discrepancies between the modeled and observed rate of warming in the tropical troposphere — a claim which itself was quickly debunked (see "Should you believe anything John Christy and Roy Spencer say?"). But since that debunking did not come in a peer-reviewed publication, the myth lived on for hard-core deniers.
The fatal blow has come in the form of a new paper, "Consistency of modelled and observed temperature trends in the tropical troposphere," (subs. req'd, RealClimate post here, and a fact sheet with everything you could possibly want to know about the study in laymen's language here). The International Journal of Climatology article has 17 authors, including some of the top climate scientists in the country. Its bottom line:
Using state-of-the-art observational datasets and results from a large archive of computer model simulations, a consortium of scientists from 12 different institutions has resolved a long-standing conundrum in climate science — the apparent discrepancy between simulated and observed temperature trends in the tropics. Research published by this group indicates that there is no fundamental discrepancy between modeled and observed tropical temperature trends when one accounts for: 1) the (currently large) uncertainties in observations; 2) the statistical uncertainties in estimating trends from observations. These results refute a recent claim that model and observed tropical temperature trends "disagree to a statistically significant extent". This claim was based on the application of a flawed statistical test and the use of older observational datasets.
I would say "Ouch" or "D'oh" but since the "et al" in the original flawed Douglass et al paper included the likes of John Christy and S. Fred Singer, the more appropriate one word response is probably "Duh."
found at:
Yet another denier talking point melts down
As I have explained previously, this blog is not conducive to full explanations of the science which underpins our current knowledge of climate change. In the absence of being able to provide equations and diagrams it would take far too many words to even get across the basic principles. Even then with equations and diagrams the posts would be far too long for such a medium. Why should we be expected to do this when the real and reliable science can be found elsewhere?
Engaging with you is wasting my time as I delve deeper into the topic myself.
I find books on Oceanography helpful for a broad picture of Earth's systems and a newly published book:
Principles of Planetary Climate [Hardcover]
Raymond T. Pierrehumbert
covers the science as applied to planets in general. Rohrabacher with his 'Mars' quotes should study that. I have only just started digging in to this.
Another excellent recent publication contains papers from Fourier to recent times, including one on Greenland ice melt:
The Warming Papers
David Archer (Editor), Ray Pierrehumbert (editor)
Now if your physics is a bit rusty then another recent and re-published this time is:
The Feynman Lectures on Physics, boxed set: The New Millennium Edition
which provides a cornucopia of topics including a really informative section on the mechanism of vision including those biological.
Titus replied on Permalink
And meant to add
I guess that your biggest problem is that your predictions are not happening (ie. no catastrophic temp increases, no change in sea level increase etc.). All is quite normal in this respect.
We did not get to this point by saying:
'Oh, it's getting warmer that must be AGW'.
Phil M replied on Permalink
"I guess that your biggest
"I guess that your biggest problem is that your predictions are not happening (ie. no catastrophic temp increases, no change in sea level increase etc.). All is quite normal in this respect."
Please provide the link from AGW scientists that say we will experience catastrophic temp increases.
Please also provide evidence that there is no change in sea level rise. Or do you mean from yesterday?
Can Titus, Go Figure & Gareth explain to me why conservatives in Australia, Canada & the USA are nearly exclusively against AGW? Whereas their conservative friends from other countries are embracing it & have implemented a carbon tax of some sort? In fact some are going nuts for conserving & maintaining the status quo. What would you guys say is the difference?….hint FF.
SirGareth replied on Permalink
RE: "Can Titus, Go Figure &
RE: "Can Titus, Go Figure & Gareth explain to me why conservatives in Australia, Canada & the USA are nearly exclusively against AGW?
Didn't you know that people who appose statism are always "anti- scientism" We are very pro-science as practiced privately but we've never been quick to embrace "state-scientism" or "state-religion" as it is otherwise known.
So let me reverse the question somewhat and ask you what sort of signal could the climate give us that would indicate to you that it's time to declare peace with "climate change" and stand down the armies of bureaucrats waging war against it?
Phil M replied on Permalink
"Didn't you know that people
"Didn't you know that people who appose statism are always "anti- scientism" We are very pro-science as practiced privately but we've never been quick to embrace "state-scientism" or "state-religion" as it is otherwise known."
Nice attempt at diversion Gareth. If you didn't know already, I suspect you realize now that you have not arrived at your opposition to AGW through independent thinking at all. You are a rusted on political animal stuck in it's ways & will be dictated to whatever ideology your political party presents to you. America, Canada & Australia are almost the only countries where conservatives are exclusively opposed to AGW. This is due to the funding FF companies provide conservatives & the misinformation they are allowed to peddle in these countries due to their vast FF interests in these countries. You just tow the party line.
Amazing how the conservative UK government are cutting carbon pollution by half by 2025.
The conservative governments of Germany & France are arguably the leaders inthe world at either low CO2 (France) emissions or leader in renewable energies (Germany.)
New Zealands conservative government went to the polls & won with an ETS. Many conservative european countries already have a carbon tax.
Strange how conservative politicians not dependent on hand outs from FF companies switch from being anti AGW to become pro AGW & believe in conserving our planet, maintaining the status quo of the life we have now, not screwing it up by ruining the climate & supporting business….not just one type of business.
It's sad but you are conned by the interests of FF companies & your political parties re-election plans to save their salaries & funding.
"So let me reverse the question somewhat and ask you what sort of signal could the climate give us that would indicate to you that it's time to declare peace with "climate change" and stand down the armies of bureaucrats waging war against it?"
Ohhh the bureaucrats!! Another dog whistle for conservatives. Oh the regulations, the big government, the taxes, our rights, the immigrants…the bureaucrats!….but they are ok if conservatives are in gov eh?
Like I have said before, my mind will change when the majority of scientists & major scientific institutes say they were wrong & AGW does not exist, ok?
anonymous replied on Permalink
Simple. But will you answer the same question.
"what sort of signal could the climate give us that would indicate to you that it's time to declare peace with "climate change""
A statistically significant difference between the temperature of the earth and the temperature expected under the currently understood theory of climate.
Now, since this hasn't happened, will you stand down the armies of mindless drones and ultra-rich misanthropes that intend to see humanity suffer than see one iota of responsibility for their personal actions rebound onto them?
anonymous replied on Permalink
Only alarmist denialists predicted catastrophic
Only alarmist denialists predicted catastrophic temperature changes.
CO2 has increased 35%. A 3C doubling will, after equilibrium is reached (and, since there is less heat going out than coming in, we are NOT at equilibrium), the temperatures should have increased by ln(1.35)*3C = 0.9C We've seen a little over 0.8C warming.
Far more accurate than anything the deniers have managed.
anonymous replied on Permalink
No, we didn't get there.
We got there by "the climate changed in the past, what caused it".
And that results in CO2 being a big factor in explaining the climate of the past. And since we're producing lots of extra CO2 that wasn't there before and isn't all being taken up, we are now causing climate change.
However, you, like all other denialists get to your point by starting with "Capitalism and Greed are the BEST THINGS EVAH and can never make a mistake" plus the corollary that "The government is ALWAYS BAD and can't do anything right".
Then work from that to "The UN is trying to take away our money", "The IPCC is trying to take away our money", "The scientists are trying to take away our money" and "The government want to take away our money".
Then from those first principles of Ayn Randianism, "AGW is false" is the conclusion.
Badgersouth replied on Permalink
Ancient words of wsidom
"There is growing evidence from the real world that climate changes are accelerating faster than we originally feared and that impacts – already appearing – will be more widespread and severe than expected. This makes the arguments against taking actions against climate change not just wrong, but dangerous. We cannot expect climate deniers to change their tune: they've made up their minds, despite all new evidence. As Epictetus said, 'It is impossible for a man to learn what he thinks he already knows.' "
Peter Glieck, Co-founder/President, Pacific Institute http://www.huffingtonpost.com/peter-h-gleick/the-
There is growing evidence ?
Funny, you cannot yourself provide anything even faintly resembling evidence. On the other hand, you believe you can recognize it, and point to various bogus websites. You are offering anything constructive to the conversation. All you're doing is making general (unproven) statements. C
Climate changes are "accelerating faster than we originally feared….". Hm…. not tornados, not hurricanes, not sea level, temperature has been flat for the past couple of decades. What exactly is your perception of climate change? (Keep in mid, that this term is, itself, no more than a political construct to replace the term "global warming". That one wasn't working out very well for the Church members.)
anonymous replied on Permalink
Funny, the evidence has been provided.
Many times the evidence has been handed to you.
All you've done is repeat "you cannot provide any evidence".
Also odd is that you've NEVER ONCE provided any evidence of your claims.
All you're left with is pounding on the table. With your head.
Badgersouth replied on Permalink
Scientific Evidence that the Globe is Warming
The 2009 State of the Climate report released by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration in July of last year draws on data for 10 key climate indicators that all point to the same finding: the scientific evidence that our world is warming is unmistakable.
More than 300 scientists from 160 research groups in 48 countries contributed to the report, which confirms that the past decade was the warmest on record and that the Earth has been growing warmer over the last 50 years.
Based on comprehensive data from multiple sources, the report defines 10 measurable planet-wide features used to gauge global temperature changes. The relative movement of each of these indicators proves consistent with a warming world. Seven indicators are rising: air temperature over land, sea-surface temperature, air temperature over oceans, sea level, ocean heat, humidity and tropospheric temperature in the "active-weather" layer of the atmosphere closest to the Earth's surface. Three indicators are declining: Arctic sea ice, glaciers and spring snow cover in the Northern hemisphere.
"For the first time, and in a single compelling comparison, the analysis brings together multiple observational records from the top of the atmosphere to the depths of the ocean," said Jane Lubchenco, Ph.D., under secretary of commerce for oceans and atmosphere and NOAA administrator. "The records come from many institutions worldwide. They use data collected from diverse sources, including satellites, weather balloons, weather stations, ships, buoys and field surveys. These independently produced lines of evidence all point to the same conclusion: our planet is warming,"
Source: "NOAA: Past Decade Warmest on Record According to Scientists in 48 Countries – Earth has been growing warmer for more than fifty years," NOAA News Release, July 28, 2010. http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2010/20100728_stateoftheclimate.html
Please keep in mind that the total warming for the planet for the past several decades is a fraction of a degree, so consider how small the variations have been over just the past 10 or 20 years – namely a fraction of that fraction of a degree. Hansen himself admits that the recent variation between "hottest" and "2nd hottest" is so small as to be meaningless. (And, in that regard, the 1930s are still competitive.) Satellite temperatures show basically no warming since 1998. Are you gonna believe those quotes you've provided or your own eyes? There are graphs showing the satellite measurements. But you choose to deny them because the site is obviously not in good standing as a member of your Church of AGW. (Of course not, if that site were, then there'd be no recognition by it of those graphs!)
Yes, it HAS been warming since the low point in the little ice age (in the 1600s), but …. so what? Just before that 500 years of cooling, and just before that 400 to 500 years of the MWP. Climate indeed changes. Always has.
But, again, so what? Why is this current warming period any different than the earlier warming periods? To claim otherwise it is necessary to provide EVIDENCE that man is causing this warming and there is no evidence. (once again, computer models which project warming are NOT evidence.)
You obviously can't find any evidence that man is causing this warming, or you'd be front and center with it. The so-called scientists claiming AGW obviously would not be bashful if they had any hard facts.
The onus is on the warmist/alarmists to show some evidence that man is at fault for our current temperatures. There's none. And changing the operational phrase to "climate change" or "climate disruption" won't get you off the hook.
Incidentally, sea temperature measurements using the newest equipment are now evidently showing a cooling ocean.
anonymous replied on Permalink
So it's fractions of a degree. So what?
It still warming, it's still outside the bounds of natural variability. It's still a trend.
Do you think that the story about the man falling off a skyscraper, passing the second floor saying "So far, so good" is real?
"Yes, it HAS been warming since the low point in the little ice age"
And why has it been warming? The weather isn't like a waterbed that rebounds when you get your fat ass off it.
tip: AGW is the reason why it's warming. "the end of the ice age" isn't a reason to warm.
"The onus is on the warmist/alarmists to show some evidence that man is at fault for our current temperatures."
The IPCC has done so, I've done so here too.
Prove your point that it isn't CO2 from man's actions. The onus is on you to refute the evidence supplied with evidence of your own.
anonymous replied on Permalink
Plus more idiocy from the village idiot
"so consider how small the variations have been over just the past 10 or 20 years"
However, unlike a varation, a trend is accumulative. A variation is subtractive.
Hence the trend of 30 years shows that the variation is nil, the trend positive.
Or does this complete farcical lunatic think that just because the difference between day and night temperatures can be 20C that there's no such thing as summer?
GoFigure - just makes stuff up
'Please keep in mind that the total warming for the planet for the past several decades is a fraction of a degree,'
Have you not seen the charts of recent temperature anomalies and noted the huge increase in the Arctic?
If you have not, that is only because by not being able to include diagrams here we have to cite other sources for such evidence. Then you moan about lack of evidence because you cannot, or will not bother to visit those sources. This is where you equate exactly to Wendy Wright in that Dawkins video.
'Satellite temperatures show basically no warming since 1998. Are you gonna believe those quotes you've provided or your own eyes? There are graphs showing the satellite measurements.'
Untrue as shown in my previous.
'Why is this current warming period any different than the earlier warming periods? To claim otherwise it is necessary to provide EVIDENCE that man is causing this warming and there is no evidence.'
Because different factors were causing earlier periods of warming. Once again you have been shown where to find the evidence but which your obstinate pursuit of deliberate ignorance eschews so you can keep repeating 'Show me the evidence'. Wendy Wright rides again!
Titus replied on Permalink
OMG It's worse than we thought!!
"More than 300 scientists from 160 research groups in 48 countries contributed to the report"
Joe public is: So IMPRESSIVE…..
"which confirms that the past decade was the warmest on record"
Joe public says: As it's been warming steadily for the last 200 years I guess you would expect this. I kind of like it.
"and that the Earth has been growing warmer over the last 50 years"
Joe public says: Well, yes, kind of follows doesn't it?
"Based on comprehensive data from multiple sources"
Joe public says: Hmmm. I guess I'll have to believe that….
"For the first time, and in a single compelling comparison, the analysis brings together multiple observational records from the top of the atmosphere to the depths of the ocean,"
Joe public is: OVERWHELMINGLY IMPRESSED…..
Joe public says: Your 2009 indictors have been updated by real world events. Do I need to go through your list as they are so obviously out of whack and I do not want to embarrass you unnecessarily? Joe public is not seeing them.
Is this really the best you can provide? If it is you got more problems with this AGW than I thought you had…..
BTW: How are my blogging skills coming along? Tried some of your formating ideas out on this one.
anonymous replied on Permalink
And it's been warming because of CO2 humans produce
Something that seems to have passed titas by, the industrial revolution.
"Your 2009 indictors have been updated by real world events."
I note that your joe public (e.g. just a handful who are trying desperately to make themselves a group rather than a fringe) can't say what that is.
I also note that your joe public doesn't agree with your assertion that it's been cooling since 1995 since that figure has been updated by real world events.
Joe public isn't listening to you, titas.


text: I just got an email that included a link to some info about the pending release of The Omen Machine. I read a few of this series several years ago but became annoyed by some of the 'preachy', incongruous, monologues from the main character about private enterprise and such. I admit I did not finish the series and so am not in a position to judge the series. For those of you who had the fortitude to get through the series... is The Omen Machine a book you are looking forward to reading? Part of the reason I ask is that when I walked away from this series before I next read Game of Thrones, then poured through the next 3 in that series. Then I read Abercombie's Best Served Cold then attacked the First Law series with relish, Lynch's The Lies of Locke Lamora, Sanderson's Mistborn Series, and a few other things. The transition I made before from Goodkind to Martin, Abercrombie, Sanderson, and Lynch was like a shot of steroids to my desire to read. These books and authors energized me to the genre and I have been ripping through many other authors, series, and stand-alones since. My concern is this... if leaving Goodkind and finding those writers to be so compelling would it be a huge mistake to bounce out of A Dance with Dragons to give Goodkind another try? It could be that those authors I mentioned have energized me to the genre to the point that I would perhaps enjoy Goodkind more than I did before... OR ... they may have spoiled me in a way that will make me dislike Goodkind's story and Richard Rahl even more than I did before. Anyone in a similar situation?

subset: commoncrawl


text:
The new Volvo FH series
Volvo FH16 Classic
The new Volvo FMX
Volvo FMX Classic
The new Volvo FM
Volvo FM Classic
Thanks to the telematics gateway, the workshop can access information such as engine data, mileage, fuel consumption, diagnostic trouble codes, driving conditions and status of crucial components (brake pads, clutch, battery, air dryer etc.). That means we can alert you in time, before you risk an unplanned stop. But most importantly, we're always perfectly prepared when you enter the workshop. So you'll be back on the road before you know it.
Some things shouldn't require a workshop visit. And now they don't. With Features Online, a service technician can access your vehicle remotely to calibrate displayed fuel consumption, fuel tank size (if you've fitted extra tanks) and your preferred speed limit. It's even possible to enable the load indicator function from a distance. All you have to do is stop at the roadside for a short while. Service has never been quicker.
As a Volvo customer, you have access to our comprehensive service network, where highly-trained personnel stand ready to assist you. So even if you're far from home, you're never far from help.
Find your closest workshop here.


text:
Funeral services for Garland Leon Steudeman, 45, will be 2 p.m. Wednesday, Oct. 10, 2012 at the New Covenant Fellowship with Reverend Bill Freeman officiating. Interment will follow at Provence Cemetery.
The son of Joyce LaWayne Steudeman and Barbara (Smith) Steudeman, Garland was born on May 9, 1967 in Ardmore, Oklahoma and passed away on Oct. 4, 2012 in Ardmore, Okla.
Mr. Steudeman had been a resident of the Ardmore area his whole life. He was a mechanic for 15 years with B & B Truck Service. Garland enjoyed hunting and fishing.
He is survived by his mother, Barbara Huff of Ardmore; sons, Keith and Joshua Steudeman both of Ardmore and Timothy Steudeman of Ada; daughter, Amber of Ardmore; brothers, Vernon, Michael and Mark Steudeman; sisters Melanie George and husband Jeff, Loretta Steudeman and Amanda Cox.
Garland was preceded in death by his father, sister, Joyce Wheeler, grandparents, Mary and William Steudeman and Grace Taylor.
Pallbearers will be: Tim Steudeman, Aaron Steudeman, Jason Freeman, Utah Shockley, Brent Beane and Mike Johnson.
Condolences may be made online to the family at www.hdouglasfuneralhome.com
Location, ST | website.com


text:
- May 20:
- Apple vs. Samsung: Imminent settlement prospects appear dim
- May 5:
- Apple vs. Samsung: Jury foreman says verdict not meant to send big message
- May 2:
- 2014: Apple vs. Samsung: Jury delivers mixed verdict in patent feud
- May 1:
- Apple vs. Samsung jury heads to third day of deliberations
- Apr 30:
- Apple vs. Samsung: Jury sends queries about late CEO Steve Jobs
- Apr 29:
- Apple vs. Samsung: Jury begins deliberations in epic patent feud
- Apr 22:
- Apple vs. Samsung: Google agreed to protect Samsung against some of Apple's patent claims
- Apr 15:
- Apple v. Samsung: Samsung resumes defense against iPhone maker's patent case
When an eight-member federal jury retreats behind closed doors this week to decide the outcome of the latest Apple v. Samsung patent showdown, a phantom Silicon Valley behemoth lurking in the room will play a decisive role in the verdict.
With the four-week trial winding to a close, it has become crystal clear that this courtroom conflict has been about Mountain View-based Google as much as the irreconcilable feud between Apple and Samsung over the rights to smartphone and tablet technology.
Lawyers for Apple and Samsung will present their closing arguments on Monday or Tuesday with billions of dollars at stake -- and Google will no doubt be mentioned as often as iPhones and iPads.
The reason? Unlike 2012's first trial between the two companies, Samsung this time invoked Google as its primary defense, flatly telling the jury that Apple's true legal beef is with Google and its Android operating system, which runs the nine Samsung smartphones and one Galaxy tablet targeted in Apple's patent lawsuit. In essence, Samsung says, this trial has the wrong defendant.
Although Apple has dismissed that defense, suggesting Samsung is trying to hide behind Google, legal experts say the jury may be more receptive to Samsung's position than in the first trial. A federal jury sided with Apple in that trial, involving an older line of products, and Samsung was hit with nearly $1 billion in damages.
But, trial observers say, Samsung bringing Google and its omnipresent Android system to the defense case may be a smart move with a Silicon Valley jury perhaps reluctant to find the search giant copied Apple. In a stark departure from the first trial, when no Google executives took the stand for Samsung, Google executives such as Hiroshi Lockheimer, vice president of engineering, this time vouched for the originality of Google technology in Samsung devices and repeatedly told the jury they never stole ideas from Apple.
In the first trial, Samsung could not as readily exploit the Google defense because the Apple patents generally dealt with the "look and feel" of Samsung-designed products. Google declined to comment on the current trial.
"The Apple-Samsung courtroom clashes have always been about messaging -- messaging for the jury and beyond," said Robin Feldman, a Hastings College of the Law professor. "In the first trial, Samsung struggled to craft a simple message that the jury could grab on to. The defense-by-proxy argument in this one could be easier for a jury to absorb."
Added Brian Love, a Santa Clara University law professor: "(Google executives') very presence suggested to the jury that Apple is picking on the wrong company. Google's involvement in the case seriously undermines Apple's narrative that Samsung is a blatant copier."
Nevertheless, experts also say Apple has presented another strong case, deluging the jury with powerful evidence that Samsung took to copying to keep pace with its rival. Apple attorneys showed the jury memos calling the iPhone threat "urgent" and declaring that "beating" Apple is the South Korean company's top priority.
Apple contends Samsung devices have violated five iPhone and iPad software patents such as those for the slide-to-unlock and auto-search features, hammering on the point that Samsung -- not Google -- controls the technology it sells and includes in its smartphones and tablets.
"Apple is right that if Samsung adopts the infringing technology, it is liable for doing so," said Mark Lemley, a Stanford University law professor. Apple dropped a bit of a bombshell as the trial's evidence phase wrapped up last week, introducing documents showing that Google is so intertwined with Samsung that it has agreed to cover part of the legal costs if the South Korean manufacturer loses to Apple. As a result, legal experts also say the jury could look at Apple's bid for $2.2 billion in damages with a view that it is reaching not only into Samsung's deep pockets, but also Google's, a company with a market capitalization of $395 billion.
The closing arguments this week are expected to recap this debate over whether Apple has a right to collect from Samsung if much of the software at issue -- in smartphones such as the Galaxy S3 -- is Google's doing.
In the end, when the jury returns its verdict, there is plenty of middle ground. Apple has asked for more than $2 billion; Samsung experts valued Apple's patent claims around $38 million.
John Quinn, Samsung's lead lawyer, told the jury at the trial's outset that "this is really about Apple vs. Google's Android." And Samsung has introduced internal Apple documents discussing the Android threat, including late Apple CEO Steve Jobs' declaration of a "holy war" against Google, which he considered a copier of Apple software.
But Apple's lawyers told the jury Samsung's argument is smoke and mirrors. That theme is expected to resurface in the closing arguments.
Samsung "crossed into the dark side of intentional copying," Apple lawyer Harold McElhinny said on the trial's first day.
Howard Mintz covers legal affairs. Contact him at 408-286-0236 or follow him at Twitter.com/hmintz


text:
Warren Station Center for the Arts in Keystone presents the third in its Cupcakes & Canvases series on Sunday. The instructor-led "mommy and me" class invites children to create masterpieces and, yes, eat cupcakes, too. The instructor is "Maria Spots," and the cupcakes are by Keystone's executive pastry chef Ned Archibald. The session runs from 10 a.m. to noon and includes a canvas ($15) and art supplies for the children.
Back to: News
March 8, 2013
Follow News


text:
The server is working. I'm sorry for the "server busy" messages; the server is working, but if it gets too busy, it gets overloaded, and so you get that message. There's not much I can do about it right now. If you get that message, just be patient and try again later.
Vinyl Record Generator
Make your own 78 vinyl record
Make your very own simulated stacks of wax! Just enter some text and click the 'Go' button. A picture of a record will be generated for you. Collect 'em, trade 'em, put 'em on your website, or e-mail 'em to your friends.
Note: this website only makes fake pictures of records. If you want real records with music on them, try Single Piece Slate.
Vinyl record information
From Wikipedia:
A gramophone record (also phonograph record, or simply record) is an analogue sound recording medium consisting of a flat disc with an inscribed modulated spiral groove. Gramophone records were the primary technology used for personal music reproduction for most of the 20th century. They replaced the phonograph cylinder in the 1900s, and although they were supplanted in popularity in the late 1980s by digital media, they continue to be manufactured and sold as of 2006.
The terms LP record (LP or 33), 16 rpm record (16), 45 rpm record (45), and 78 rpm record (78) each refer to specific types of gramophone records. LPs, 45s, and the exceedingly rare, spoken word only, 16s are usually made of polyvinyl chloride (PVC), and hence may be referred to as vinyl records or simply vinyl.
Copyright © 2016 Says-It.com :: Sites :: Frequently Asked Questions :: Links :: Contact


text:
Crisps Celebrate 50th Wedding Anniversary
Published: Sunday, August 19, 2012 at 4:30 a.m.
Last Modified: Friday, August 17, 2012 at 3:04 p.m.
Jack and Myra Crisp celebrated their 50th wedding anniversary with family and friends at the Town Park in Mills River. They were married at Mills River United Methodist Church on August 18, 1962.
The Crisps have three children, Pete Crisp of Troy, Michigan, Kathy Clark and her husband Tim of Asheville, and Deron Crisp and his wife Vickie of Mills River. They also have six grandchildren, Brittany Crisp, Rebecca Clark, Kyle Crisp, Cameron Crisp, Bailey Clark and Logan Crisp.
Jack is retired from ABF trucking company, and Myra is a lifelong homemaker. They enjoy gardening and their grandchildren. Both are natives of Henderson County.
Reader comments posted to this article may be published in our print edition. All rights reserved. This copyrighted material may not be re-published without permission. Links are encouraged.


text:
Parkinson's Disease Clinical Trials Center - Port Arthur, TX
- WebMD Physician Directory of Port Arthur Neurologist Doctors
- Related Parkinson's Disease Clinical Trials Articles
- Port Arthur Emergency Contacts
- Nearby Port Arthur Hospitals
- Find a Local Pharmacy on RxList - Port Arthur
Port Arthur Neurologist Doctors for Parkinson's Disease Clinical Trials
Type of Physician: Neurologist
What is a Neurologist? A certification by the Board of Psychiatry & Neurology; practitioners focus on the diagnosis and treatment of all categories of disease or impaired function of the brain, spinal cord, muscles and nervous system, as well as the blood vessels that relate to these structures. The neurologist is often the primary physician but also serves as a consultant to other physicians and may render all levels of care, including the continuing care of outpatients and/or inpatients. The neurologist will often perform and interpret tests that relate to the nervous system or muscles.
Specialty: Neurology
Common Name:
Neurologist Doctors in Port Arthur * results
- 2
Marwan Purghol
Neurology Associates Of Southeast Texas
2001 9th Ave Ste 201
Port Arthur, TX 77642
(409) 729-6700
- 30 years experience
- 1 office location(s)
- 3
Gilberto P. Agustin
Medical Neurology PA
3780 Memorial Blvd
Port Arthur, TX 77640
(409) 983-2711
- 37 years experience
- 1 office location(s)
- 4
Emem D. Udonta
Medical Neurology PA
3780 Memorial Blvd
Port Arthur, TX 77640
(409) 983-2711
- 27 years experience
- 1 office location(s)
- 5
Elias M. Ntsoane
Medical Neurology PA
3780 Memorial Blvd
Port Arthur, TX 77640
(409) 983-2711
- 11 years experience
- 1 office location(s)
- 6
Joseph A. Oommen
Joseph Oommen MD
810 Hospital Dr Ste 301
Beaumont, TX 77701
(409) 347-8870
- 15 years experience
- 1 office location(s)
- 7
Kandasami Senthilkumar
Kandasami Senthilkumar MD
740 Hospital Dr Ste 100
Beaumont, TX 77701
(409) 838-4338
- 23 years experience
- 1 office location(s)
- 8
William L. High
William L High MD
2910 Fannin St Ste B
Beaumont, TX 77701
(409) 833-0093
- 42 years experience
- 2 office location(s)
- 9
Julius F. Deiparine
Southeast Texas Medical Associates
2929 Calder St Ste 100
Beaumont, TX 77702
(409) 833-9797
- 27 years experience
- 1 office location(s)
- 10
Nestor C. Punay
Punay Md PA
755 N 11th St Ste P3900
Beaumont, TX 77702
(409) 347-1600
- 26 years experience
- 1 office location(s)
- 11
Charles B. Clark III
Health & Medical
324 N 23rd St Ste 201
Beaumont, TX 77707
(409) 839-4600
- 43 years experience
- 2 office location(s)
Don't see your city? Use the WebMD Physician Directory to expand your search.
Parkinson's Disease Clinical Trials
Introduction to Clinical Trials for Parkinson's Disease
You may have heard about clinical trials from your doctor, read or heard advertisements in the newspaper or on the radio, or found out about trials in your area through a support gr...
Other Related Parkinson's Disease Clinical Trials Articles
Emergency Contact for Port Arthur
- In case of Emergency, call 911
Nearby Port Arthur Hospitals results
- 1Christus Hosp St Mary Campus
3600 Gates Blvd
Port Arthur, Texas 77642
(409) 985-743
- 2Dubuis Hospital At Port Arthur
3600 Gates Blvd
Port Arthur, Texas 77642
(409) 989-530
- 3Renaissance Hospital
5500 39th St
Port Arthur, Texas 77619
(409) 962-573
- 4Medical Center SE Texas Hosp
2555 Jimmy Johnson Blvd
Port Arthur, Texas 77640
(409) 724-738
- 5Baptist Hospital Of Southest Tx
3080 College St
Port Arthur, Texas 77701
(409) 835-378
- 6Baptist Hospital Behavior Hlth
3250 Fannin St
Port Arthur, Texas 77701
(409) 212-700
- 7Baptist Orange Hospital
608 Strickland Dr
Port Arthur, Texas 77630
(409) 883-936
- 8Christus Hospital St Elizabeth
2830 Calder St
Port Arthur, Texas 77702
(409) 892-717
- 9Dubuis Hospital At Beaumont
2830 Calder St
Port Arthur, Texas 77702
(409) 899-768
- 10Healthsouth Rehab Hosp Beaumnt
3340 Plaza I-10 Dr
Port Arthur, Texas 77707
(409) 835-083
- 11Winnie Community Hospital
538 Broadway
Port Arthur, Texas 77665
(409) 296-600
* Provider Directory Terms of Use:
The WebMD 'Provider Directory' is provided by WebMD for use by the general public as a quick reference of information about Providers. The Provider Directory is not intended as a tool for verifying the credentials, qualifications, or abilities of any Provider contained therein. Inclusion in the Provider Directory does not imply recommendation or endorsement nor does omission in the Provider Directory imply WebMD disapproval.
You are prohibited from using, downloading, republishing, selling, duplicating, or "scraping" for commercial or any other purpose whatsoever, the Provider Directory or any of the data listings or other information contained therein, in whole or in part, in any medium whatsoever.
The Provider Directory is provided on an "AS-IS" basis. WebMD disclaims all warranties, either express or implied, including but not limited to the implied warranties of merchantability and fitness for particular purpose. Without limiting the foregoing, WebMD does not warrant or represent that the Provider Directory or any part thereof is accurate or complete. You assume full responsibility for the communications with any Provider you contact through the Provider Directory. WebMD shall in no event be liable to you or to anyone for any decision made or action taken by you in the reliance on information provided in the Provider Directory.
The use of WebMD Provider Directory by any entity or individual to verify the credentials of Providers is prohibited. The database of Provider information which drives WebMD Provider Directory does not contain sufficient information with which to verify Provider credentials under the standards of the Joint Commission on Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations (JCAHO), National Committee for Quality Assurance (NCQA) of the Utilization Review Accreditation Committee (URAC).
By using the WebMD Provider Directory, you agree to these Terms and Conditions.


text:
TRUCKEE — Truckee-based artist Carole Sesko is opening her downtown studio to the public on Friday, Saturday, and Sunday, July 20-22, 11-5 p.m. View Carole's latest collection of vibrant contemporary paintings and functional art, and see the workspace where they are made. A graduate of the University of California Davis, Carole has worked with acrylic and mixed media for more than two decades. Her artwork celebrates her never-ending fascination with color, form, and texture, and her love for design.
Carole's art studio is located at 10326 High St., downtown Truckee (up High Street near the roundabout and Burger Me!.) For more information call Carole at 530 587 7750, or visit www.carolesesko.com.


text:
Irving'e karşı Lipstadt
Defense Documents
David Irving, Hitler and Holocaust Denial: Electronic Edition, by Richard J. EvansTable of Contents
|<< (vi) Double standards in...
|< (i) Double standards in ...
|(vii) Deliberate suppres... >
|(xv) Additional evidence... >>
(vii) Deliberate suppression of relevant evidence: the testimony of Heinz Linge
1. Heinz Linge [1913-1980] was an SS Captain and Hitler's personal servant from 1935-1945. His testimony is one of the more important pieces of evidence from Hitler's personal entourage; Irving has long been aware of it, but chooses not to use it. What does it reveal? Recounting events surrounding the invasion of Poland Linge wrote:
At the time of the Polish campaign Hitler remarked some time that already the impressions gained during drives through the country demanded that the Jewish question be solved as soon as possible, also in Poland as an area of German influence from now on. Although the Jews in Poland had not exercised any particularly great influence in politics it was necessary to take more consequential drastic measures in this respect than had been envisaged in the Reich in the Nuremberg Laws. The ghettos being prepared in Lublin and Lodz were not enough. Evidently he had not planned this far in advance, probably not even thought about it, because in his discussions with the deputy Danzig Gauleiter Arthur Greiser and the Gauleiter Albert Foster, neither he nor they held unified views. He said though that the Franconian Forster was too soft, in contrast to Greiser, that he did not know the Poles, and that he advocated a politically naive "Army attitude of a necessarily lenient Poland policy". But he trusted Greiser and above all Heinrich Himmler who had had to first install a very harsh and rigorous police chief in Danzig.182
2. This collaborates the thoughts which, as the report has already noted, were recorded by Engel that the conquest of Poland was a caesura in Hitler's thinking on how the 'Jewish Problem' best be solved. 'Originally it had only been within his power to break the power of the Jews only in Germany, now the aim must be to eliminate the Jewish influence in the whole domain of the Axis.[...] He thought about some things differently now, not exactly more friendly.'183
3. Albert Forster was the Gauleiter of the newly created Danzig-West Prussia, Arthur Greiser Reichsstatthalter of the newly created Warthegau. Both areas were incorporated into the German Reich: the Warthegau with approximately 400,000 Jews, Danzig-West Prussia with some 30-40,000.184 Although Foster was responsible for the expulsion and murder of Poles, Jews, and the mentally ill, he had been in constant conflict with Himmler and Himmler's Head of Police in Danzig, Hildebrandt, since 1937. The simmering conflict centred on Forster's competence and methods in the 'Germanisation' The men's mutual dislike was an open secret in Nazi circles: Forster is famously meant to have said of Himmler: 'If I looked like him, I would not speak of race at all.'185
4. The Warthegau's large Jewish population made it one of the centre points of Jewish policy in the newly expanded Reich. Greiser managed to maintain good relations with Himmler and engaged himself energetically to solve the 'Jewish Problem' in his Gau. As early as September 1939 he took part in RSHA discussions and tried to start deporting the Warthegau Jews under the aegis of Himmler's deportation order of 30 October 1939.186 The project soon fell foul of Hans Frank of the General Government, whose area was seen as a dumping ground for deported Reich Jews. Frank managed to block Greiser's early strenuous efforts to deport the Warthegau Jews to the General Government, but Greiser remained tenacious in his claim that Frank was obliged to take them.187
5. Greiser turned to a short-term program of ghettoisation of the Jewish population, notably the ghetto of Lodz. As the possibility of deportation receded into the future, Greiser developed a dual policy of exploiting the ghettos, whilst allowing the weak and infirm to die of the rigours of hunger and disease. The murder of the Jews in his Gau was discussed in summer of 1941. Building at Chelmno, the first death camp in Poland, began in November 1941, and the first gassing took place on 8 December with a gas van and staff of the former euthanasia action.188 According to Polish sources more than 300,000 people were murdered at Chelmno between December 1941 and April 1943.189 Between 1939 and 1945 some 630,000 Poles and Jews were murdered or expelled from the Warthegau and replaced by 537,000 Volksdeutsche. Linge testified to the fact that the Führer's will was for the harsher of the two policies in occupied Poland. It also shows Hitler's dislike of half-measures and his trust in those advocating his more radical line, in this case Himmler and Greiser.
6. Linge also recounted Hitler's thinking during his last days in Berlin.
What appeared to me to be most remarkable was what Hitler said about the Jews in the last weeks and days of his life. Contrary to his earlier remarks in speeches etc., in which he always spoke of the 'Jewish race', he now said that seen genetically and anthropologically such a thing as a Jewish race did not exist and that we only spoke of a Jewish race 'out of linguistic convenience'. Jewry did not represent a particular race, but rather a spiritual community, which not least embodied their common fate of persecution since time immemorial. Yet even this interpretation led to the assertion that Jewry, whose existence he interpreted as 'the wretched superiority of the spirit over the flesh', were responsible for all disasters in history, and that one day they would be brought to book. He had made a start of the extermination of Jewry, from whom humanity had to be 'freed'. There could be no question of a principled turning - away from his doctrine. I was as none the wiser than I was before.190
7. This ties in and strengthens what we have already cited from Hitler's last will and testament. Irving read Heinz Linge's memoirs in the course of his researches for Hitler's War.191 But he chose not to use them, because what they revealed of Hitler's views ran directly counter to the argument he wished to put forward.
182. 'Zur Zeit des Polenfeldzuges bemerkt Hitler gelegentlich, daß bereits der während der Fahrten durchs Land gewonnene Augenschein dazu zwinge, auch in Polen als nunmehrigem deutschem Einflußgebiet die Judenfrage zu lösen, sobald dies möglich sei. Obwohl die Juden in Polen keinen besonders großen Einfluß auf die Politik ausgeübt hätten, wäre es notwendig, in dieser Hinsicht konsequenter durchzugreifen, als es nach den Nürnberger Gesetzen im Reich geschehen sei. Mit den in Vorbereitung befindlichen Gettos in Lublin und Lodz allein sei es nicht getan. So weit hatte er vorher offentsichtlich nicht geplant, vermutlich noch nicht einmal gedacht; denn in seinen Unterhaltungen mit dem stellvertrtenden Danziger Gauleiter Arthur Greiser und dem Gauleiter Albert Forster vertraten weder er noch sie einheitliche Auffassungen. Er meinte zwar, daß der Franke Forster im Gegensatz zu Greiser zu weich sei, die Polen nicht kenne und die politisch naive "Heeres-Vorstellung über eine nötige milde Polen-Politik" verfechte, aber er vertraue auf Greiser und vor allem auf Heinrich Himmler, der zunächst einmal einen sehr scharfen und rigorosen Polizeiführer in Danzig einsetzen müsse.' (Linge, pp. 186-87).
183. Heeresadjutant bei Hitler, pp. 94-5.
184. Raul Hilberg, The Destruction of the European Jews (New York Etc., 1961), p. 131; Frank Golczewski, 'Polen', in Wolfgang Benz (ed.), Dimension der Volkermords. Die Zahl der jüdischen Öpfer des Nationalsozialismus (Munich, 1996), pp. 411-90, p. 431.
185. Christopher Browning, 'Nazi Resettlement Policy and the Search for a Final Solution to the Jewish Question, 1939-1941' in Christopher Browning, The Path to Genocide. Essays on the Launching of the Final Solution (Cambridge, 1992), pp. 3-27, p. 11.
186. Anordnung Himmlers, 30 October 1945 1939, document 4, in Fascismus, Getto, Massenmord, pp. 42-3.
187. Notes on a discussion in Berlin on the deportation of the Lodz Jews to the General Gouvernment, 1 April 1941, document 15, ibid., pp. 53-4.
188. Cf. Friedländer, Origins of Nazi Genocide , pp 286-7
189. Gudrun Schwarz, Die nationalsozialistischen Lager (Frankfurt a. M., 1997), pp. 248-50.
190. 'Bemerkenswert erschien mir vor allem, was Hitler in den letzten Wochen und Tagen seines Lebens über die Juden sagte. Im Gegensatz zu seinen früheren Ausführungen in Reden usw., in denen er stets von der "jüdischen Rasse" gesprochen hatte, sagte er jetzt, daß es von genetischen und anthropologischen Standpunkt aus gar keine jüdische Rasse gäbe und daß "wir nur aus sprachliche Bequemlichkeit" von einer jüdischen Rasse redeten. Nicht eine besondere Rasse, sonderen eine Gemeinschaft des Geistes repräsentiere das Judentum, das nicht zuletzt auch die Schicksalsverbundenheit der siet jeher Verfolgten verkörpere. Doch auch diese Interpretation mündete in der Behauptung, daß das Judentum, dessen Existenz er als "traurige Überlegenheit des Geistes über das Fleisch" deutete, für alles Unheil in der Geschichte verantwortlich gewesen sei und daß es eines Tages bezahlen müßte. Den Anfang zur Ausrottung des Judentums, von dem die Menschheit "befreit" werden müsse, habe er gamacht. Vor einer grundsätzlichen Abkehr von seiner Lehre konnte also nicht die Rede sein. Ich war so klug oder so dumm wie zuvor.' (Linge, p. 264).
191. Hitler's War, p. 844.
|<< (vi) Double standards in...
|< (i) Double standards in ...
|(vii) Deliberate suppres... >
|(xv) Additional evidence... >>


text:
14.1 Megapixel Camera
Details http://shop.panasonic.com/support-only/DMC-FP3R.html
- Ultra-thin, stylish design: Super slim stylish design for on the go use
- 3.0" Touch LCD: Control all of your camera functions on a large easy to read touch panel LCD screen
- Intelligent Auto with Mega OIS: Automatically adjusts to ensure great photos under any condition
- Red
- Featured
- Replacement Accessories
- Batteries, Chargers + Adapters
- Cables
Firmware & Drivers
FIRMWARE Download Instructions
DMC-FP3 Firmware Update DOWNLOAD Download and install instructions
- Version: 1.3
- Issues Addressed: Improvement of Menu
- Release Date: 6-13-2011
- Operating Systems: windows/mac
- How to Check and Install Firmware
- How to Connect to Mac
- How to Shoot Using Aperature Priority
- How to Convert AVCHD to MPEG2
- How to Copy Photos to Your PC
- How to Import Pictures Using iPhoto
- How to Import Pictures Using Photo Gallery
- How to Resize Your Photos
- How to Convert AVCHD to MPEG2 Using PhotoFunStudio
- How to Import Photos to PC Using PhotoFunStudio
- How to Resize Your Photos Using PhotoFunStudio
- How to Install Software for Camera
- How to Install Software
- How to Take Better Photos
- How to Use Aperture Priority
SpecificationsExpand All
More Details
Effective Pixels14.1 Megapixels
- Sensor Size / Total Pixels / Filter 1/2.33-inch / 14.5 Total Megapixels / Primary Color Filter
- Aperture F3.5 - F5.9 / Multistage Iris Diaphragm (F3.5 - 5.6 (W) / F5.9 - 7.1 (T))
Optical Zoom4x
Focal Lengthf=6.3-25.2mm (35-140mm in 35mm equiv.)
- Extra Optical Zoom (EZ) 4.7x (4:3 / 10M), 6.8x (4:3 / 5M), 8.4x (under 3M)
- Lens LUMIX DC VARIO11 elements in 10 groups(4 Aspherical Lenses / 7 Aspherical surfaces/ 1 ED Lenses)
Optical Image StabilizerMEGA O.I.S. (Off / Auto / Mode1 / Mode2)Photo & Movie
Digital Zoom4x ( Max. 16.0 x combined with Optical Zoom without Extra Optical Zoom ) (Max. 33.8 x combined with Extra Optical Zoom)
- Focusing Area Normal: Wide 50 cm - infinity / Tele 50 cm - infinityMacro / Intelligent AUTO : Wide 10 cm - infinity / Tele 50cm - infinity
- Focus Range Display Yes
- AF Metering Face / 9 pt/ 1pt / Touch Area on screen
- Shutter Speed Still: approx. 8 - 1/1600 secStarry Sky Mode : 15, 30, 60sec.
- Focus Normal / Macro, Zoom Macro, Quick AF (Always On), Touch AF
AF Assist LampYes
ISO SensitivityI.ISO / 80 / 100 / 200 / 400 / 800 / 1600High Sensitivity (ISO 1600-6400)
White BalanceAuto / Daylight / Cloudy / Shade / Halogen / White Set(Selectable at Portrait, Soft Skin, Transform, Self-Portrait, Sports, Baby, Pet, High Sensitivity, Highspeed Burst, Photo Frame)
Exposure Program AE
Exposure Compensation1/3 EV Step, ± 2 EV
BacklightCompensation Yes (only in Intelligent AUTO mode)
Light Metering
Intelligent Multiple
- Face Detection Photo
- Still Image Scene Mode Portrait, Soft Skin, Transform, Self-Portrait, Scenery, Sports, Night Portrait, Night Scenery, Food, Party, Candle Light, Baby1/2, Pet, Sunset, High sensitivity, Hi-Speed Burst, Flash Burst, Starry Sky, Fireworks, Beach, Snow, Aerial photo, Film Grain
- Shutter Interval approx. 1.2 sec
Self Timer2sec / 10sec
- Auto Review 1sec, 2sec, Hold
- Aspect Ratio 4:3 / 3:2 / 16:9
Unlimited Consecutive Shooting1.5 frames/sec
- Scene Mode Help Screen Yes
- Travel Date/World Time Yes/Yes
- LCD Monitor 3.0" TFT Touch Screen LCD Display (230K dots), AR Coat Field of View : approx. 100% AUTO Power LCD mode, Power LCD mode, High Angle mode
- Playback Mode Normal Playback, Slideshow, Category Playback, Favorites Playback
- OSD Language English, Spanish
- Recording Media Built-in Memory, SD Memory Card, SDHC Memory Card, SDXC Memory Card
- Interface AV Output (NTSC), USB2.0 Full-speed, DC Input
- Color Red
- Built-in-Flash Auto, Auto/Red-eye Reduction, Forced On, Slow Sync./Red-eye Reduction, Forced Off 0.3 - 4.9m (Wide/ISO Auto), 0.5 - 2.9m (Tele/ISO Auto)
- Included Software PHOTOfunSTUDIO 5.0 Edition QuickTime Adobe Reader
- Standard Accessories Battery Charger, Battery Pack, Battery CaseAV cable, USB CableHand Strap, CD-ROM
- Quick Menu Yes
- Continuous Shooting Mode High-speed Burst Mode: approx. 4.6 frames/sec (image priority) (recorded in 3M for 4:3, 2.5M for 3:2, 2M for 16:9)
- Focus Icon Select Yes
- Macro Zoom Yes
- Orientation Detector Yes
- Additional Playback Mode Yes (Motion JPEG)
- Slideshow Mode All / Category / FavoritesBGM Effect (Natural / Slow / Swing / Urban / OFF)
- Delete Image Single / Multi / All / All except Favorites
- PictBridge Support Single / Multi / All / Favorites / DPOF
- iA Direct Button Yes
- Flash Burst Continuous Shooting Mode Max. 5 images (Standard mode)
- Intelligent ISO Control Photo
- Intelligent Scene Selector Photo (Portrait, Scenery, Night Portrait, Night Scenery, Sunset, Macro)
- File Format Still Image: JPEG(DCF/Exif2.21)Motion picture: QuickTime Motion JPEG
- Mode Dial / Mode Button Intelligent AUTO, Normal Picture, SCN, My SCN, Motion Picture
- Motion Picture Recording 4:3 VGA: 640 x 480 pixels, 30fps (Motion JPEG) 4:3 QVGA: 320 x 240 pixels, 30 fps (Motion JPEG)16:9 WVGA: 848 x 480 pixels, 30 fps (Motion JPEG)HD Movie 1280x720 pixels, 30fps (Motion JPEG)
- Still Picture Recording 4:3 4320x3240(14M)/3648x2736(10M EZ)/2560x1920(5M EZ)/2048X1536(3M EZ)/640X480(0.3M EZ)3:2 4320 x 2880 (12.5M)16:9 4320 x 2432 (10.5M)
- Color Mode / Color Effect Standard, Vivid, Natural, Black & White, Sepia, Cool, Warm
- Copy / Title Edit / Text Stamp Yes / No / Yes (only Baby, Pet, Travel)
- Digital Red Eye Correction (Red-Eye Removal) Photo
- Mode Switch [Recording] / [Playback]
- Composition Guide line Yes (1 pattern)
- Easy Zoom / Zoom Resume No / No
- Thumbnails / Zoomed Playback 12,30-thumbnails / Max 16x
- Calendar Display / Dual-Image Playback Yes / No
- Set Favorites / Rotate Image Yes / Yes
- DPOF Print Setting / Set Protection Yes / Yes
- Resize / Trim / Aspect Conv. / Leveling Yes / Yes / No / No
- Travel Date / World Time Yes / Yes
- Built-in-Memory Approx. 40MB
- Microphone / Speaker Mono / Yes
PowerID-Security Li-ion Battery Pack (3.7V, Minimum: 695mAh) (Included) AC Adaptor (Input: 110-240V AC) (Optional)
- Battery life (approx.) 300 pictures (CIPA Standard)*1
- Touch Panel Yes
- Dimensions (W x H x D) 98.6 x 58.9 x 18.6 mm / excl. protrusions: 16.4 mm (3.88 x 2.32 x 0.73 in / excl. protrusions: 0.65 in)
- Weight Approx. 145g with Battery and SD Memory Card (0.32 lb) Approx. 125g without Battery and SD Memory Card (0.28 lb)
Owner's Manuals
Owner's Manuals and Documentation
Warranty information
FAQsFrequently asked questions about your product
I am a professional photographer who is seriously considering switching to the Lumix mirrorless cameras. Does Panasonic have, or can you suggest, a web site that demonstrates how professional photographers are successfully using the Lumix professional cameras?
In conjunction with our Panasonic.com web site, our Sales and Marketing team also runs LUMIXLOUNGE.COM This site features work from Panasonic's Luminary team of professional photographers who have migrated to the Lumx mirrorless cameras. The site also features schedules to live on-line and dealer events as well as convenient links to our latest firmware updates. Additional features to expand the site are already in progress.
Have more questions concerning your Panasonic camera?
Click here to visit the Panasonic Community to search for specific FAQs or tutorials for your product or ask questions directly to Panasonic or other customers.
Where can I find more support or ask questions about my product?
Click Here to visit the Panasonic Community to search for specific FAQs or tutorials for your product or ask questions directly to Panasonic or other customers.
What should I do if my product needs service?
If you have a TV, Microwave, Vacuum, or Massage Chair : Click Here to locate an Authorized Servicer in your area.For repairs and exchanges of all other products:Ship your product to:Panasonic Factory Service Center4900 George McVay DriveSuite B; Door-12McAllen, TX 78503 Please include your name, address, telephone number, email address, copy of your purchase receipt (for warranty service), and a description of what is wrong with the unit. Freight collect shipments will not be accepted. Panasonic is not responsible for damage that occurs in transit. All contents should be packaged for safe travel to the service center. Customer should use a reputable small package shipping company that is able to provide a package tracking number and insurance (if customer should so desire to insure their package).Units that are abused, damaged, infested with insects, have corrosion, etc. will be placed out-of-warranty.Once your unit arrives at the facility, you may contact us for status at:Email: email@example.com reference your Service Job number when contacting. You will be contacted if there is any cost you are responsible for.
Require further assistance?
Click here to visit the Panasonic Community to search for specific FAQs or tutorials for your product or ask questions directly to Panasonic or other customers.


text:
my current desktop:
dell inspirion
quad q6600 2.4
6gb ram
vista ( bloated )
Hitachi 500 gb (OS)
WDC 2 TB green ( mass storage )
*note that all my media file types are mixed*
Well i am thinking of either getting a new desktop soon to replace this one and installing ubuntu with amahi on my current desktop to run backups on all the PCs on my network.
but would i be better instead to put together a server with better specs for PMS....? i mean how much benefit will i see with the integrated video on the new intel chips and is an i3 enough to run Ps3 at 720p / 1080 p ? to more than one ps3 at a time ??
i occasionally have issues with stutter or lagging .....should i find a script that will change all my files to a format that just needs to be streamed instead of putting the load on the cpu ....i can add hard drives as needed and i clean up the video share folder about every 6 months or so.
i will be adding another tv and ps3 to my network is the main reason i am trying to figure out my best / most cost effective course of action. pushing media to two ps3 is my main concern, i don't want to have to turn one off to be able to enjoy video on the other.
any help would be greatly appreciated


text:
It dawned on me the other day, as I was shopping for the dozens of gifts it seems I have to buy every December (this year, I bought myself a holiday accommodation in Denmark, WA!), that Santa Claus is the most successful open source project in history. (Bridget @ Illiterarty would agree with that). Santa Claus is essentially a marketing development that is embodied by everyone who stuffs a sock, gives a gift, hosts a dinner or wishes Merry Christmas over the holiday season. After all, we all embody Santa Claus, assume that spirit, especially when we're writing "from Santa" on the gift tags attached to our children's gifts. The source code for this program is the Christmas Spirit and it supports a huge volunteer effort to continue the Santa Claus gift giving tradition. How could we not be giving gifts at Christmas? (Homelessness, poverty and other religions notwithstanding.) Probably close to a billion people are involved in the development of the Santa Claus free software project.
The following are my interpretations of the Santa Claus license.
- Free Redistribution of the Santa Claus Program.
The license to give Christmas gifts shall not restrict any party (like Walmart, Apple, or Nike) from selling gifts to others to give away the said items as a component of an aggregate distribution containing single gifts (dad's tie) or many gifts (to the kids) from a single source (me) or several different sources (the cousins).
- Christmas Spirit Source Code (SOC)
The program must include source code hereby referred to as SOC (Spirit of Christmas), and must allow distribution of source code as well as its compiled form called Santa Claus. Where some form of a product is not distributed with the source code, there must be a well-publicized means of obtaining the source code, potentially via films such as "It's a Wonderful Life" with James Stewart, for no more than a reasonable reproduction cost—preferably, downloading via the television in the week before Christmas. The source code must be the preferred form in which any giver would modify the program, by acting as Santa Claus either at the local mall or in stuffing the children's stockings on Christmas Eve, or handing out hot meals to the homeless on Christmas Eve. Deliberately obfuscated source code through expectations of some return gift, is not allowed.
- Derived Works
The license must allow modifications and derived works, such as Charitable Giving, Volunteerism and Kindness; and include using the Santa Claus image in performances, films, advertising and promotion and must allow them to be distributed to merchandisers and all consumers under the same terms as the license of the original Spirit of Christmas source code.
- Integrity of The Author's Source Code
The SOC license may restrict source-code from being distributed in modified form such as re-gifting and gift stealing only if the license allows the distribution of "patch files" called gift exchange games with the source code. The license must explicitly permit distribution of derived works carrying a different name such as Saint Nicholas, Saint Nick, Father Christmas, Kris Kringle, Santy, Jolly Old Elf, Santa Klaus, Hagios Nikolaos, or Babbo Natale.
- No Discrimination Against Persons or Groups
The license must not discriminate against any person or group of persons, as all persons are capable of running the Santa Claus program in any of its derived forms.
- No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor
The license must not restrict anyone from making use of the program in a specific field of endeavor. For example, it may not restrict the program from being used in a business like a shopping mall, or orphanage, foster home, family home, homeless shelter, hospital or any place people congregate.
- Distribution of License
The rights to give gifts must apply to all to whom the program is redistributed without the need for execution of any additional licenses by those parties. Such licenses would be considered Grinch licenses.
- License Must Not Be Specific to a Product
The rights attached to the program must not depend on the program's being part of a particular application ie a gift, like Apple iPods or Nike shoes, Coca-Cola or Walt Disney.
- License Must Not Restrict Other Software
The license must not place restrictions on other software that is distributed along with the licensed software. For example, reindeer, elves and the Salvation Army are associated supporting technologies that may or may not be proprietary and the SOC license must not insist that all other programs distributed on the same medium must be open-source software.
- License Must Be Technology-Neutral
No provision of the license may be predicated on any individual technology or style of interface. Though the best style is running the program with a smile.
So with that in mind, Merry Christmas to all and to all a good night. :)
How could we not be giving gifts at Christmas?
How could we not be giving gifts at Christmas?
Very simple (and it applies, partly of completely, to most or all of the similar events).
Think about where and in what conditions, most of the "gifts" you buy, were built (on this matter, free software, just like any kind of software, is indeed very similar to christmas, if we think about hardware and electronic components in general). Even if you are building something yourself, think about the source of what you are using.
Think about the mount of money, circulating during this period (and all year, for that matter).
Think about the pollution, both to build your "gifts" (and again, even if you build something yourself -and if you went to a beautiful forest, to gather stuffs, think about how many insects and small creatures you killed or heavily injured, and, again, what is the source of what you are taking), and to trash/recycle your "gifts" (and during use, if the material is not very stable, or if you need batteries). Particularly think about oil spill (plastic), and how they are destructing nature, to build dams, for aluminium industries, in one of the most preserved area of Earth, in Iceland.
Think about the number of animals and vegetals (and people), who died and were killed, so you can enjoy a good meal, in a warm house.
Think about how dedicating a day, or a period, to it, generally means that the rest of the year, you can care less, if at all. Just how hypocrite is that.
Think about the current state of today society, and how this kind of things are simply here for temporary "relief", so you will be able to go on the very same path of self-destruction, and of global destruction, the day after, avoiding to "explode", and thinking too much about another way of life (you know, an utopia, "a simplistic view on humanity and life, which do well in fantasy books, but which will never work in the real world, because we all know that humans are frigging evil, and because it would require far too much work" -you know, like there was no reasons for humanity current evilness, and like we were not wasting a hundred times the energy to build an idealistic society, ever year, while still having time for everything else).
Think about how many laws are passed, just before holidays (not just year-end ones), when their is not even 5% of the people who should be there (well, not that them being their, does change much anything to the final result -it's not as if any good and well-thought law was passed, the rest of the year).
Think about how you are force-fed, as a kid, with all these stories, and how, when you grow up, you are told that it does not exist, and you would be stupid to believe in these "fairy tales"... though there is absolutely no certainty in both of these beliefs. This is part of the beginning of a life of mental and physical slavery, in today society. If you cannot say, seriously, that "Santa Claus might exist, just as anything else", then you are just the common slave around here.
Think about the number of suicides, during the year-end period. Think about all these people, who long for a better life, and who can't think about anything else but the stupid and destructive way of life, of "the others". Christmas, school, parents, money, food.
Think about the number of people who have strictly no care, maybe because of one or all of the above reasons, and who have to put up with all this sick masquerade. Who have to put up with the increase of noise from family, neighbours and most other people, be it at home, or in the streets. Who have to put up with people "criticizing" their views, in the most stupid ways, like "you have no heart", "you are boring", "you are sad" (yeah, right :P), without even thinking about what they are saying... you know, this kind of things go as a pack: "how to be stupid, *and* how to reply to people telling you, you are stupid".
Think about the one hour and a half, I have spent to tell you all this, instead of working.
Oh, but that ok, you know. I'm a "moaner", you don't have to care. If you had to care about every people who give a simple, clear and reasoned view on a subject, which strictly contradicts "your" vision of it (I say "your", as a huge simplification, because we all know you never really thought about it: it's just how you were told it should be), what kind of boring reasonable and philosophical man would you be... I mean, you don't want this, right?
Of course
I do admit I wasn't as overt in the irony as I could have been and I was attempting to be "light". I don't disagree with you and you make good points. Another point to keep in mind is that the Open source structure is agnostic and is used in any number of ways which was more to my point. After all, Al Queda is structured on an Open Source model and they are fairly successful with their endeavor too. Yes, we all need to wake up and understand the dependent origination of all things, the pressure of the egocentric marketing machine and our responsibilities to each other and the planet.
Re: Of course
No problem. It's just that openess (open source) and freedom (free software) does not have much to do with Christmas... I understand your point, and it's always good to find "traces of similitude" between open source/free software, and matters more common to the general public, but it really should have been more neutral... (by not omitting details about the very nature of Christmas, notably -well, at least of Christmas in the current society, though some points apply to the "original" Christmas just as well, and others could be made).
I think the best subject (if we had to choose between what is available...), to use, when talking to the general public, about open source and free software, is works in the "public domain". It's still very limited, and what most people mean by open source and free software, is not that close to what we mean by "public domain", but the notions are still similar, and the general public knows about the benefits of the public domain (though you might have to make them remember, by talking about well-known books, paintings, musics, plays, games, etc., and how they can be used -somewhat- freely today, because they tend to easily forget what it means, in the current society).
You could also have avoided naming brands...
Well, no big deal, anyway, this is simply common.
Ho, ho, ho!!!
I won't write too much...
I really liked your article, it's very interesting and inventive. I must agree, Santa Claus is really the most successful open source project ever. But anyway, we all like him because we all like to be given!


text:
NEW: For a prettier blog interface, see the Wordpress version!
|IBM meeting at Eastwood?
1. Digitaltour interview
Not a new idea - notetakers.
third - and most important for me - is they're not very modifiable. You can't extend their functionality. You can't add new programs. You can't really customize what's there.
Assistive technology is a very I have much to learn from the people
2. Philosophy notes
3. Meeting with Richard Burgos
I'd love to hear about any questions, comments, suggestions or links that you might have. Your comments will not be posted on this website immediately, but will be e-mailed to me first. You can use this form to get in touch with me, or e-mail me at [email protected] .