text:
Discussion in 'Off The Beaten Track' started by PDilemma, Sep 15, 2011.
PM Mag. That's how I got it!
It sounds like a triumphant achievement! Good for you - thanks for the the replay.
Thanks for the rest of the story. Was afraid I would get to the end without knowing what happened.
Here is the artichoke dip recipe for anyone who wants it.
14 oz can of artichoke hearts drained and chopped (chop with a knife not a food processor. The processor makes it too smooth.)
1/2 cup grated Parmesan cheese
1 cup mayonnaise (use real mayo)
1 Tbsp finely minced green onion
1 Tbsp finely chopped fresh parsley
1/2 tsp garlic salt (I use crushed garlic instead)
1/4 tsp lemon juice
Combine all ingredients and place in an oven proof dish. Bake at 350 degrees F for 10 to 15 minutes. Be careful not to over cook as it will separate. This dish cannot be frozen and reheated.
For those who live in Western Canada, you can just buy a can of Western Family artichoke hearts and the recipe isoniazid the can.
Here is one of the most offensive moments of the evening which was not directed at me:
My close friend and the nasty woman grew up in the same Catholic parish and went to school together since kindergarten. The parish is having its annual fall festival today and they are both going to it. Nasty woman with her sister and my close friend by herself, apparently. So this conversation actually happened:
My friend: Are you planning to be there for lunch?
Nasty: Yeah. We're going to get there early so we don't have to wait in line too long.
My friend: What time? We could meet up and eat together.
Nasty: I don't think so. (Sister) and I are eating with some actual friends of ours.
Mind you...I have been to this parish festival which is practically in my parents' back yard. Lunch is eaten in a huge crowded social hall with long rectangular tables. It is not likely that my friend sitting with the nasty sisters would impede on their privacy as there is no privacy at this event.
The last time I brought something easy and cheap to a dinner party, my friends told me I needed to date a better class of woman.
PD, is this an annual event?
That sounds like a whole lot more fun than the dinner. You should try to preserve those papers and use them for your classes.
I wonder if on another discussion board somewhere where nasty girl has been bemoaning that she agreed to this dinner . She doesn't seem any more thrilled than you do.
I'm glad it is entertaining you.
Someone who apparently has no social life suggested that it should be last night. I did not second that motion.
They have attempted events every year for three years running with mixed results. Two years ago, they all had dinner the day after our class reunion, fortunately I had a family commitment. At that one, one person inexplicably drug her husband along, so it was six women and one guy who had to feel awkward. Last summer, they tried to organize a family oriented picnic event. We had a prior commitment that day, too. Not sure how that turned out.
I hate to tell you that I am going to immediately manufacture a prior commitment next time they invite me. Sorry.
That's putting a lot more thought into it than I would. Next invite response would just be: "Thanks, but I can't make it. Hope you guys have a great time." It would be done with a smile in my voice.
One of my dearest friends persists in thinking that these gatherings are a great idea. Never mind that she was the one slammed most blatantly by Madame Nasty last night. I have named her the Queen of the Optimists because she never sees the bad side of anyone or anything.
She will be less likely to feel slighted (and with the exception of last night, she has been the organizer of these events) if I say we have a prior commitment.
I'm definitely going to try to. They were fascinating. One dated January 23, 1973 had headlines for the death of LBJ, peace talks in Vietnam and the Roe v. Wade case on a single front page.
Believe it or not, she is the one who said "we should do this once a year". I think she has no social life other than hanging out with her much older sister and it sounds like she doesn't like her husband's company much.
If she says things like what she said to your friend to other people, I can see why.
Some of those papers are worth some $ on Ebay!
Thanks very much for the update. Glad you got to spend time with your Dad.
Not really. Most were so mass produced and people kept them so they don't bring much money unless they're incredibly rare. They are fun to read, though. I like the want ads.
Something easy and cheap to take to a dinner party? One of the girls from Jersey Shore...
Thanks for the update and the recipe you used. I don't blame you for not going again if the mean girls will be present. Who needs that negativity?
The best revenge is living well.
Thank you!


text:
American Ballet Theatre at Works and Process at the Guggenheim
American Ballet Theatre previews its upcoming City Center season
1/15Photograph: Elyssa Maxx
2/15Photograph: Elyssa Maxx
3/15Photograph: Elyssa Maxx
4/15Photograph: Elyssa Maxx
5/15Photograph: Elyssa Maxx
6/15Photograph: Elyssa Maxx
7/15Photograph: Elyssa Maxx
8/15Photograph: Elyssa Maxx
9/15Photograph: Elyssa Maxx
10/15Photograph: Elyssa Maxx
11/15Photograph: Elyssa Maxx
12/15Photograph: Elyssa Maxx
13/15Photograph: Elyssa Maxx
14/15Photograph: Elyssa Maxx
15/15Photograph: Elyssa Maxx
American Ballet Theatre lets Time Out in on a dress rehearsal for its Works and Process at the Guggenheim program, focusing on the works of Alexei Ratmansky. Feast your eyes on dancers, including Marcelo Gomes, Polina Semionova, Veronika Part, Sarah Lane and Craig Salstein.
You might also like
Jennifer Goggans talks about Merce Cunningham
Trajal Harrell continues Twenty Looks or Paris Is Burning at the Judson Church
Julie Kent looks back on two decades at ABT

subset: commoncrawl


text:
Kenneth W. Clingen
Ken Clingen named as an Illinois Super Lawyer in the Business/Corporate practice area by Super Lawyers Magazine.
Mr. Clingen is the managing partner of the firm and chairs the firm's business counseling department. He is general counsel to a number of privately owned businesses across a variety of industries. Mr. Clingen also represents high net worth individuals and family offices. He communicates on a day to day basis with the key decision makers at his clients. Mr. Clingen assists them in starting new business ventures, operating their ongoing business enterprises and preparing business succession plans for business owners. He uses his accounting and finance background to properly balance business and legal considerations in his client representations.
Representative Transactions/experience:
Structure and negotiate the purchase and sale of over fifty privately-owned companies.
Design and draft shareholder agreements, buy-sell agreements for corporations and operating agreements for limited liability companies.
Design equity incentive plans for companies, including option, restricted stock and phantom stock plans.
Implement wealth transfer strategies using GRAT's sales to grantor trusts and family limited partnerships to reduce business owner exposure to estate taxes.
Assist in resolving significant shareholder disputes involving companies in a variety of industries.
Publication & Seminars
National Business Institute
- Tax Issues in Entity Selection and Formation
- Advanced LLC Issues
- Tax Issues in Illinois Mergers and Acquisitions
Midwest Business Bankers and Intermediaries Tax Issues in Structuring the Sale of a Business
In April 2013, Ken was named by West Suburban Living as a "Top Attorney in the Western Suburbs" in Closely and Privately Held Business Law.
Director, Batavia Youth Baseball
When Ken is not helping his clients, he enjoys spending time with his wife, Susan, and children Kelly and Conor. He is an avid sports fan and blindly loyal follower of Notre Dame football and White Sox baseball. He is a longstanding member (with diminishing talent) of the Geneva Clowns, an adult recreational ice hockey team of local renown.
Practice Areas
Business Counseling
Estate Planning
Juris Doctor, Notre Dame Law School
South Bend, Indiana
Bachelor of Business Administration, University of Notre Dame
South Bend, Indiana
Certified Public Accountant 1982
Admission to Practice
Illinois State Bar
Federal Bar of the Northern District of Illinois United States Tax Court
ABA Sections of Taxation, Business Law and Law Practice Management of the American Bar Association
DuPage County Bar Association


text:
Look MexicoView in iTunes
To preview a song, mouse over the title and click Play. Open iTunes to buy and download music.
The humble beginnings of Tallahassee indie rock outfit Look Mexico can be traced to a chance meeting between Matt Agrella (vocals/guitar) and Dave Bumsted (guitar) at a Sea and Cake show held at Florida State University. They started writing songs, and in early 2004 decided to really get a band up and running together. Searching for members to round them out, they eventually hooked up with drummer Josh Mikel; Look Mexico booked their first show in October 2004 (playing with Karate, no less), even though they had yet to find a bassist. A temporary one was found just in time for the gig, but Look Mexico weren't solidified until after the recording of their first EP, 2005's So Byzantine, with the addition of Tyson Kuhlhoff. The guys played various dates, mostly around Florida, before entering the studio in early 2006 to record their next effort. The Crucial EP was released later that year to positive response, and following its recording, Bumsted left to pursue school and was replaced on guitar by Ryan Slate. Over time, the band shared stages with acts like Horse the Band, Piebald, Gogogo Airheart, Fake Problems, and more. Look Mexico signed to Lujo Records in late 2006 and readied their debut full-length, This is Animal Music, which appeared the following summer. The band supported it on the road for the remainder of the year. ~ Corey Apar
Top Albums
Top Songs
2004 in Tallahassee, FL
Years Active:


text:
Have a Tax Question? Ask a Tax Expert
Hi and welcome to Just Answer!Inheritance taxes are added to the basis of the property.The basis of inherited property is generally a fair market of the property at the time the decedent died.However if the decedent died after Dec 31, 2009 - the a different law applies - the basis would be the same as decedent had - but may be increased up to the fair market value - but such increase may not be more than $1,300,000.The basis may not be deducted estimated life expectancy of the beneficiary.However when the property is sold - the basis will reduce the capital gain.
The capital gain = (selling price) - (basis) - (selling expenses) Let me know if you need any help.
The FMV of an inherited life estate MAY NOT be deducted for income tax purposes.
There is no such law to allow the deduction as you stated.
Please feel free to ask if you need any clarification.


text:
|A-Z Index
|Term Dates
|Directory Services
Student and Registry Services
Student Centre
Pay On-line
|Study Abroad
|Maps and Transport links
Search CS
Top 10 Searches[1] Email
[2] Exam timetable
[3] Printing
[4] Council tax
[5] Wts
[6] Results
[7] Student records
[8] Fees
[9] Exam results
[10] Library
18 Month Resubmission
A letter will be sent to you containing the reports from the examiners, with a copy being sent to your supervisor, Departmental Graduate Tutor and Faculty Graduate Tutor. The eighteen month deadline officially starts from the date of this letter.
Unlike the three month corrections, where one person checks the amendments, resubmission requires you to re-enter for the examination and submit two copies of your thesis for forwarding to the examiners.
It is likely that your examiners will usually have returned their annotated copies of the thesis to you at the viva and therefore you may already be aware of the work required.
Once you have completed the corrections, your supervisor should confirm by email that the examiners are still willing to act and provide their current contact details. This is to avoid the thesis from being sent out incorrectly. We will then send an email to your supervisor and examiners reconfirming their appointment and enclosing the relevant forms.
You will need to follow the following procedures:
• Submit a new exam entry form to Research Degrees at least two weeks prior to the expected submission of the thesis.
• Submit two soft-bound copies of your thesis to the Student Centre, Chadwick Building, which will then be despatched to the examiners.
If the examiners have requested a second viva, your supervisor will arrange this. In these circumstances, the procedure will follow that of a typical research degree examination.
If a further viva is not required, your examiners are only required to submit the following signed reports:
• Joint Report
They cannot award another eighteen month resubmission, but can allow three months minor corrections.
Once the reports are received we will follow the procedure for either the pass or three month corrections result.


text:
Mosley reveals 'secret weapon' to beat Mundine
By Ray Wheatley — World of Boxing
Sugar Shane Mosley has been made a hot favorite with Australian bookmakers and will have a secret weapon when he collides on November 27 with Anthony "The Man" Mundine over twelve rounds with a WBA Regional title up for grabs at the All Phones Arena in Sydney, NSW, Australia. Mosley revealed to the Channel Ten television network that he has been sparring with former IBF/WBA middleweight champion Daniel Geale, who defeated Mundine earlier this year.
"I have been sparring with Daniel Geale, who has shown me mistakes Mundine makes in the ring which leaves him open for punches," Mosley said. "Geale's trainer (Graham Shaw) was also very helpful in showing me things that will give me a big edge Team Geale are good people."
Mundine and Mosley are boxing at the 154 pound limit. The promoter is Khoder Nasser.


text:
Sweep this creamy blush stick over your cheeks for a flush that's soft, dewy and natural. This formula goes on like butter and smells deliciously of pure cocoa powder. Try it on your lips, too, for a pulled-together look that stays all day!
- The stick formula makes the product easy to apply.
- Provides a radiant, lit-from-within glow.
- Can be used on the lips as well.


text:
Appeared in the book, Pets and Their Celebrities, to help raise awareness and money for Last Chance for Animals.
Charities & foundations supported 7
Kate Hudson has supported the following charities listed on this site:
Other supporters of the same charities & foundations
1 related place
Google trends for "Kate Hudson"
Available to Insiders only
Causes supported 10
AIDS & HIV, Animals, Blood, Marrow & Organ Donation, Children, Conservation, Disaster Relief, Education, Environment, Health, Human Rights
Contact Kate Hudson
You can contact Kate Hudson using details from this service. (Or read our advice on how to contact celebrities)
Official web sites
No web sites are known


text:
Why `The Legion Of Doom' Has Little Fear Of The FedsMark Lewyn and Evan I. Schwartz
It was billed as the largest-ever crackdown on computer crime. Last May, 150 gun-toting Secret Service agents raided suspected computer desperados in 14 states for evidence of high-tech chicanery. The feds carted off dozens of computers and thousands of diskettes, leaving behind a bunch of dazed computer nerds. The hacker bust, the government trumpeted, "should convey a message to any computer enthusiast whose interests exceed the ethical use of computers."
But "Operation Sundevil" has turned out to be a bust of another sort. Nearly a year after the crackdown, the probe has produced just one indictment. And a prosecutor involved in the investigation, who didn't want to be quoted by name, says chances are "extremely high" that most of the cases will be dropped--as quietly as possible. It's the latest in a series of setbacks for the government's highly publicized drive against computer crime (table). The fate of these cases is sending a message to computer enthusiasts that's quite different from what the government intended: It's much harder to nail hackers for electronic mayhem than prosecutors ever imagined.
VAST RECORDS. Although the obstacles vary from case to case, there are some common threads. Computer crimes often span the country, calling for tricky coordination of far-flung law-enforcement agencies. Moreover, cops must be careful not to infringe personal freedoms in an area of the law that has yet to be clearly defined. Computer law is so murky that Harvard University law professor Laurence H. Tribe even has proposed a Constitutional amendment to clear it up. "New technologies should lead us to look more closely at just what values the Constitution seeks to preserve," he says.
Another complication is that computer records are so vast that digging up evidence for successful prosecutions is enormously time-consuming. Consider Operation Sundevil, named after the mascot of Arizona State University, where the case began. The target of the investigation was a loose, nationwide network of hackers known as the Legion of Doom. The feds suspected the Doomsters of trading stolen credit-card numbers and long-distance phone cards and exchanging information on how to break into corporate computers around the country. The raid netted 23,000 disks. "The magnitude overwhelmed us," concedes Dale P. Boll, deputy director of the Secret Service's Fraud Div.
Perhaps the biggest enforcement problem is that gumshoes trained to nab drug runners are woefully unprepared for their high-tech task. Jerome R. Dalton, American Telephone & Telegraph Co.'s corporate security manager, is convinced that the feds simply can't convict computer criminals on their own. He points to Leonard Rose Jr., a computer consultant who pleaded guilty on Mar. 22 to wire-fraud charges in Chicago and Baltimore. Prosecutors said he sent illegal copies of a $77,000 AT&T computer-operating system known as Unix to hackers around the country after modifying it so it could be used to invade corporate and government systems.
PLUGGING GAPS. Dalton contends that without AT&T's help, the government wouldn't have had a case. It was AT&T--not the feds--that verified that Rose wasn't a licensed Unix user and that the program had been modified to make breaking into computer systems easier. "Computer literacy in law enforcement isn't what it should be," says Dorothy Denning, who chairs Georgetown University's computer-science department.
The government admits its investigations are hampered by a lack of expertise and funds to pursue the vast new area of potential abuse. But the authorities are trying to plug some of the gaps. In January, the Justice Dept. formed a computer-crime task force to coordinate prosecutions with state and foreign governments. States such as Florida and California have set up similar groups. "We're getting a more coherent law-enforcement approach now," says Gail Thackeray, a special deputy county attorney in Maricopa County, Ariz., and a key player in Operation Sundevil.
Despite all the "abort" and "error" messages, the government has notched some successes. Rose's plea bargain, for instance, calls for a one-year jail sentence, by far the stiffest to date. That time behind bars for Rose sends yet another message to hackers: The government will mete out tough discipline to those computer crooks it does convict. But it has little choice if its crackdown is to be taken seriously. The hackers the feds are snaring in their electronic net are few and far between.


text:
Adaptations and Style of Game
By Phewsie 2 Comments
When developing emotional adaptations for a game I think it's very important to consider the style of the game. After all, it's not likely that adaptations that are brilliant for Banjo & Kazooe work just as well in Dead Space, right? And I don't mean specific things like; add another infected zombie thing to the mix. Then again, I'm not being as general as adapt the music. The level I'm thinking can be related to a mixture of adaptations: The player is bored, what happens now? In Dead Space, the atmosphere could be changed by flickering lights which eventually die, loud noises that move whenever you face your avatar to look in the direction of the noise, adding more enemies of course, making them harder etc. In Banjo & Kazooe though, the player may not be anywhere near a fight, they may in fact be building a vehicle, or talking to a NPC. What then? Changing the atmosphere isn't going to make any sense. Obviously the adaptations need to be tailored to the game in question, but is there a core difference between the types of adaptations that may be appropriate depending on the style of game?
I started this blog with a determined statement that, yes, there is. Now, I'm not so sure. Maybe it's just tweaking and tailoring, rather than fundamental differences in what could be appropriate. Clearly it wouldn't be appropriate to adapt the vehicles in a game without vehicles, but does the style of the game determine the types of adaptations? Hmmm....


text:
There seems to be a lot more lasers nowadays with technology constantly improving. Does anyone know of any laser which is suitable for treating wrinkles for patients who suffer from dry eyes? I would be extremely grateful to find out.
I Have Dry Eye After Lower Blepharoplasty, is Laser Resurfacing for Wrinkles Too Risky?
Doctor Answers 7
Dry eyes and laser resurfacing
If your dry eyes after blepharoplasty are caused by the eyelid not hugging the eye and allowing tears to not bathe the surface of the eye's cornea, then any treatment to the skin of the eyelid, laser or chemical peel, to improve the wrinkles could worsen this problem. Sometimes oculoplastic or plastic surgeons will do a tightening procedure, such as a canthopexy, to lift and anchor the lower eyelid up against the eye. Then after this heals and proves to be successful, laser resurfacing can be done. It would be wise to seek consultation with an ophthalmologist or better yet, an oculoplastic surgeon, before considering the resurfacing.
Dry eyes after lower blepharoplasty and considering lower eyelid laser resurfacing
It might be well worth your time to have your lower eyelids and ocular surfaces evaluated by an oculoplastic surgeon prior to undergoing any additional eyelid treatments. Alternatively, almost all ophthalmologist are well versed in evaluating and treating patients with dry eyes.
Once a patient's dry eyes are optimized, consideration can be given for laser resurfacing of the lower eyelids. In patients who have significant dry eye symptoms, I would favor a fractional treatment rather than a fully ablative one. Fractional treatments (CO2 or Erbium) are usually done as a series with incremental improvement over time. With this approach, there is the opportunity to experience one treatment and wait 6 weeks to several months before going forward with additional treatments.
Best wishes,
Mark Lucarelli, MD, FACS
Madison, WI
Web reference: http://www.UWHealth.org/Lucarelli
Laser resurfacing with dry eyes...
A full examination by a highly specialized surgeon who performs these procedures all the time is first and most important step. The CO2 laser can be performed to improve the skin under the eyes without worsening the dryness but it has to be done carefully. The exam may reveal that the eyelid needs to be tightened or lifted to improve dryness, and this could be done in combination with some laser.
You might also like...
Laser Treatment Under Eyes Requires Caution
If you have dry eye after a lower eyelid procedure, you should have that evaluated by an oculplastic surgeon, facial plastic surgeon, or plastic surgeon that specializes in this. Drooping of the lower lid is called "ectropion" and this is often treatable to improve your dry eye condition You should only consider laser under the eyes after your dry eye condition is optimized or improved.
Laser treatment can cause the lower eyelids to draw down even further as the skin tightens, so you would want to make sure any drooping of the lower lid is corrected first.
I would recommend changing your priorities - treat the dry eye (or ectropion) first, then consider laser for additional treatment only if recommended by a specialist that feels comfortable the laser treatment won't make the dry eye worse.
Best of luck, please let me know if you have any additional questions!
Dry eye after blepharoplasty
Lower lid blepharoplasty if done properly including canthoplasty (tightening the lid) may actually improve pre existing dry eyes. However, in a few cases the surgery itself can interfere with tear flow and actually cause dry eyes when one did not exist before. Unfortunately this is not alwasy predictable. Once you have developed dry eyes doing laser resurfacing poses a new risk: if not done very carefully it could tighten the lower lid skin to the point to cause a downword shift of the lid margin thus exposing more of your eye and making the dryness potenitally worse. As always go to experienced surgeons/cosmetic dermatologists.
Laser resurfacing with dry eye
Web reference: http://www.michaelelammd.com
Ablative lasers may make the eyes more dry, and it may not improve the wrinkles if you have excess skin. In fact, a lower lid blepharoplasty may, on occasion, improve the dryness and wrinkles, if it is accompanied by a canthopexy (an internal stitch that brings the lower lid closer to the eye, allowing the tear duct to work more effectively). A lower lid blepharoplasty may be better for you than laser resurfacing of the lower lid.
These answers are for educational purposes and should not be relied upon as a substitute for medical advice you may receive from your physician. If you have a medical emergency, please call 911. These answers do not constitute or initiate a patient/doctor relationship.


text: When the history of the early 21st century is written, it may be the financial health of the global economy was rescued by a new currency, carbon. This new asset class, fungible and tradeable, reinflated the balance sheets of governments and international financial institutions alike, and pulled humanity back from the brink of a worldwide depression. That is the hopeful scenario, and not one to be lightly dismissed.The other outcome that may be our legacy, however, will be that just when technology and capitalism were about to deliver prosperity and security to an unprecedented number of people everywhere, and just at the time when what our financial systems needed was to embark on new investment in cost-effective energy and water infrastructure, we instead committed the wealth of humanity to deploying immature energy technologies, and arcane, projects of no use and stupefying expense - such as blasting CO2 gas into underground caverns.In either case, what historians will definitely wonder about in future centuries is how deeply flawed logic, obscured by shrewd and unrelenting propaganda, actually enabled a coalition of powerful special interests to convince nearly everyone in the world that CO2 from human industry was a dangerous, planet destroying toxin. It will be remembered as the greatest mass delusion in the history of the world - that CO2, the life of plants, was considered for a time to be a deadly poison.In this recently presented paper by Dr. Richard Lindzen, published here in its entirety, he describes the origins of global warming alarm, the political agenda of the alarmists, their intimidation tactics, and the reasons for their success. Also, in painstaking detail, he debunks their key scientific claims and counterclaims. Dr. Lindzen is not alone - he is one of the prominent members of what has become thousands of reputable scientists who have now come forward to dispute the theory that anthropogenic CO2 is a threat to the global climate. Anyone who firmly believes anthropogenic CO2 emissions must be dramatically reduced in order to protect our planet should read this paper by Dr. Lindzen, and other work by reputable skeptics. There is simply too much at stake, and too many sweeping political changes being justified because of CO2 alarm, for any responsible activist or policymaker, media influencer or ordinary voter, to not take a second look.- Ed RingClimate Science: Is It Currently Designed To Answer Questions?by Richard Lindzen, October 30, 2008A PROJECTION OF WARMING BETWEEN 1960 & 2060 ?We have the new paradigm where simulation and programshave replaced theory and observation.? - Richard Lindzen(Source: NASA) For a variety of inter-related cultural, organizational, and political reasons, progress in climate science and the actual solution of scientific problems in this field have moved at a much slower rate than would normally be possible. Not all these factors are unique to climate science, but the heavy influence of politics has served to amplify the role of the other factors.?By cultural factors, I primarily refer to the change in the scientific paradigm from a dialectic opposition between theory and observation to an emphasis on simulation and observational programs. The latter serves to almost eliminate the dialectical focus of the former. Whereas the former had the potential for convergence, the latter is much less effective.The institutional factor has many components. One is the inordinate growth of administration in universities and the consequent increase in importance of grant overhead. This leads to an emphasis on large programs that never end. Another is the hierarchical nature of formal scientific organizations whereby a small executive council can speak on behalf of thousands of scientists as well as govern the distribution of ?carrots and sticks? whereby reputations are made and broken.The above factors are all amplified by the need for government funding. When an issue becomes a vital part of a political agenda, as is the case with climate, then the politically desired position becomes a goal rather than a consequence of scientific research.This paper will deal with the origin of the cultural changes and with specific examples of the operation and interaction of these factors. In particular, we will show how political bodies act to control scientific institutions, how scientists adjust both data and even theory to accommodate politically correct positions, and how opposition to these positions is disposed of.1. INTRODUCTIONAlthough the focus of this paper is on climate science, some of the problems pertain to science more generally. Science has traditionally been held to involve the creative opposition of theory and observation wherein each tests the other in such a manner as to converge on a better understanding of the natural world. Success was rewarded by recognition, though the degree of recognition was weighted according to both the practical consequences of the success and the philosophical and aesthetic power of the success. As science undertook more ambitious problems, and the cost and scale of operations increased, the need for funds undoubtedly shifted emphasis to practical relevance though numerous examples from the past assured a strong base level of confidence in the utility of science. Moreover, the many success stories established ?science? as a source of authority and integrity. Thus, almost all modern movements claimed scientific foundations for their aims. Early on, this fostered a profound misuse of science, since science is primarily a successful mode of inquiry rather than a source of authority.Until the post World War II period, little in the way of structure existed for the formal support of science by government (at least in the US which is where my own observations are most relevant). In the aftermath of the Second World War, the major contributions of science to the war effort (radar, the A-bomb), to health (penicillin), etc. were evident. Vannevar Bush (in his report, Science: The Endless Frontier, 1945) noted the many practical roles that validated the importance of science to the nation, and argued that the government need only adequately support basic science in order for further benefits to emerge. The scientific community felt this paradigm to be an entirely appropriate response by a grateful nation. The next 20 years witnessed truly impressive scientific productivity which firmly established the United States as the creative center of the scientific world. The Bush paradigm seemed amply justified. (This period and its follow-up are also discussed by Miller, 2007, with special but not total emphasis on the NIH (National Institutes of Health).) However, something changed in the late 60?s. In a variety of fields it has been suggested that the rate of new discoveries and achievements slowed appreciably (despite increasing publications)2, and it is being suggested that either the Bush paradigm ceased to be valid or that it may never have been valid in the first place.(2 At some level, this is obvious. Theoretical physics is still dealing with the standard model though there is an active search for something better. Molecular biology is still working off of the discovery of DNA. Many of the basic laws of physics resulted from individual efforts in the 17th-19th Centuries. The profound advances in technology should not disguise the fact that the bulk of the underlying science is more than 40 years old. This is certainly the case in the atmospheric and oceanic sciences. That said, it should not be forgotten that sometimes progress slows because the problem is difficult. Sometimes, it slows because the existing results are simply correct as is the case with DNA. Structural problems are not always the only factor involved.)I believe that the former is correct. What then happened in the 1960?s to produce this change? It is my impression that by the end of the 60?s scientists, themselves, came to feel that the real basis for support was not gratitude (and the associated trust that support would bring further benefit) but fear: fear of the Soviet Union, fear of cancer, etc. Many will conclude that this was merely an awakening of a naive scientific community to reality, and they may well be right. However, between the perceptions of gratitude and fear as the basis for support lies a world of difference in incentive structure. If one thinks the basis is gratitude, then one obviously will respond by contributions that will elicit more gratitude. The perpetuation of fear, on the other hand, militates against solving problems. This change in perception proceeded largely without comment. However, the end of the cold war, by eliminating a large part of the fear-base forced a reassessment of the situation. Most thinking has been devoted to the emphasis of other sources of fear: competitiveness, health, resource depletion and the environment.What may have caused this change in perception is unclear, because so many separate but potentially relevant things occurred almost simultaneously. The space race reinstituted the model of large scale focused efforts such as the moon landing program. For another, the 60?s saw the first major postwar funding cuts for science in the US. The budgetary pressures of the Vietnam War may have demanded savings someplace, but the fact that science was regarded as, to some extent, dispensable, came as a shock to many scientists. So did the massive increase in management structures and bureaucracy which took control of science out of the hands of working scientists. All of this may be related to the demographic pressures resulting from the baby boomers entering the workforce and the post-sputnik emphasis on science. Sorting this out goes well beyond my present aim which is merely to consider the consequences of fear as a perceived basis of support.Fear has several advantages over gratitude. Gratitude is intrinsically limited, if only by the finite creative capacity of the scientific community. Moreover, as pointed out by a colleague at MIT, appealing to people?s gratitude and trust is usually less effective than pulling a gun. In other words, fear can motivate greater generosity. Sputnik provided a notable example in this regard; though it did not immediately alter the perceptions of most scientists, it did lead to a great increase in the number of scientists, which contributed to the previously mentioned demographic pressure. Science since the sixties has been characterized by the large programs that this generosity encourages. Moreover, the fact that fear provides little incentive for scientists to do anything more than perpetuate problems, significantly reduces the dependence of the scientific enterprise on unique skills and talents. The combination of increased scale and diminished emphasis on unique talent is, from a certain point of view, a devastating combination which greatly increases the potential for the political direction of science, and the creation of dependent constituencies. With these new constituencies, such obvious controls as peer review and detailed accountability begin to fail and even serve to perpetuate the defects of the system. Miller (2007) specifically addresses how the system especially favors dogmatism and conformity.The creation of the government bureaucracy, and the increasing body of regulations accompanying government funding, called, in turn, for a massive increase in the administrative staff at universities and research centers. The support for this staff comes from the overhead on government grants, and, in turn, produces an active pressure for the solicitation of more and larger grants.3(3 It is sometimes thought that government involvement automatically implies large bureaucracies, and lengthy regulations. This was not exactly the case in the 20 years following the second world war. Much of the support in the physical sciences came from the armed forces for which science support remained a relatively negligible portion of their budgets. For example, meteorology at MIT was supported by the Air Force. Group grants were made for five year periods and renewed on the basis of a site visit. When the National Science Foundation was created, it functioned with a small permanent staff supplemented by ?rotators? who served on leave from universities for a few years. Unfortunately, during the Vietnam War, the US Senate banned the military from supporting non-military research (Mansfield Amendment). This shifted support to agencies whose sole function was to support science. That said, today all agencies supporting science have large ?supporting? bureaucracies.)One result of the above appears to have been the deemphasis of theory because of its intrinsic difficulty and small scale, the encouragement of simulation instead (with its call for large capital investment in computation), and the encouragement of large programs unconstrained by specific goals.4(4 In fairness, such programs should be distinguished from team efforts which are sometimes appropriate and successful: classification of groups in mathematics, human genome project, etc.)In brief, we have the new paradigm where simulation and programs have replaced theory and observation, where government largely determines the nature of scientific activity, and where the primary role of professional societies is the lobbying of the government for special advantage.This new paradigm for science and its dependence on fear-based support may not constitute corruption per se, but it does serve to make the system particularly vulnerable to corruption. Much of the remainder of this paper will illustrate the exploitation of this vulnerability in the area of climate research. The situation is particularly acute for a small weak field like climatology. As a field, it has traditionally been a subfield within such disciplines as meteorology, oceanography, geography, geochemistry, etc. These fields, themselves are small and immature. At the same time, these fields can be trivially associated with natural disasters. Finally, climate science has been targeted by a major political movement, environmentalism, as the focus of their efforts, wherein the natural disasters of the earth system, have come to be identified with man?s activities ? engendering fear as well as an agenda for societal reform and control. The remainder of this paper will briefly describe how this has been playing out with respect to the climate issue. ?You can fool some of the people all of the time,and all of the people some of the time, but youcan not fool all of the people all of the time??- Lincoln (prior to the global warming scare) 2. CONSCIOUS EFFORTS TO POLITICIZE CLIMATE SCIENCEThe above described changes in scientific culture were both the cause and effect of the growth of ?big science,? and the concomitant rise in importance of large organizations. However, all such organizations, whether professional societies, research laboratories, advisory bodies (such as the national academies), government departments and agencies (including NASA, NOAA, EPA, NSF, etc.), and even universities are hierarchical structures where positions and policies are determined by small executive councils or even single individuals. This greatly facilitates any conscious effort to politicize science via influence in such bodies where a handful of individuals (often not even scientists) speak on behalf of organizations that include thousands of scientists, and even enforce specific scientific positions and agendas. The temptation to politicize science is overwhelming and longstanding. Public trust in science has always been high, and political organizations have long sought to improve their own credibility by associating their goals with ?science? ? even if this involves misrepresenting the science.Professional societies represent a somewhat special case. Originally created to provide a means for communication within professions ? organizing meetings and publishing journals ? they also provided, in some instances, professional certification, and public outreach. The central offices of such societies were scattered throughout the US, and rarely located in Washington. Increasingly, however, such societies require impressive presences in Washington where they engage in interactions with the federal government. Of course, the nominal interaction involves lobbying for special advantage, but increasingly, the interaction consists in issuing policy and scientific statements on behalf of the society. Such statements, however, hardly represent independent representation of membership positions. For example, the primary spokesman for the American Meteorological Society in Washington is Anthony Socci who is neither an elected official of the AMS nor a contributor to climate science. Rather, he is a former staffer for Al Gore.Returning to the matter of scientific organizations, we find a variety of patterns of influence. The most obvious to recognize (though frequently kept from public view), consists in prominent individuals within the environmental movement simultaneously holding and using influential positions within the scientific organization. Thus, John Firor long served as administrative director of the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colorado. This position was purely administrative, and Firor did not claim any scientific credentials in the atmospheric sciences at the time I was on the staff of NCAR. However, I noticed that beginning in the 1980?s, Firor was frequently speaking on the dangers of global warming as an expert from NCAR. When Firor died last November, his obituary noted that he had also been Board Chairman at Environmental Defense? a major environmental advocacy group ? from 1975-1980. 5(5 A personal memoir from Al Grable sent to Sherwood Idso in 1993 is interesting in this regard. Grable served as a Department of Agriculture observer to the National Research Council?s National Climate Board. Such observers are generally posted by agencies to boardsthat they are funding. In any event, Grable describes a motion presented at a Board meeting in 1980 by Walter Orr Roberts, the director of the National Center for Atmospheric Research, and by Joseph Smagorinsky, director of NOAA?s Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory at Princeton, to censure Sherwood Idso for criticizing climate models with high sensitivities due to water vapor feedbacks (in the models), because of their inadequate handling of cooling due to surface evaporation. A member of that board, Sylvan Wittwer, noted that it was not the role of such boards to censure specific scientific positions since the appropriate procedure would be to let science decide in the fullness of time, and the matter was dropped. In point of fact, there is evidence that models do significantly understate the increase of evaporative cooling with temperature (Held and Soden, 2006). Moreover, this memoir makes clear that the water vapor feedback was considered central to the whole global warming issue from the very beginning.)The UK Meteorological Office also has a board, and its chairman, Robert Napier, was previously the Chief Executive for World Wildlife Fund - UK. Bill Hare, a lawyer and Campaign Director for Greenpeace, frequently speaks as a ?scientist? representing the Potsdam Institute, Germany?s main global warming research center. John Holdren, whose primary affiliation is the Woods Hole Research Center (an environmental advocacy center whose name is designed to confuse it with the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, a research center), is also a professor in Harvard?s Government Department, and has served as president of the American Association for the Advancement of Science and of Sigma Xi (the science counterpart of the honorary scholarship organization, Phi Beta Kappa). He was the Clinton-Gore Administration spokesman on global warming. The making of academic appointments to global warming alarmists is hardly a unique occurrence. The case of Michael Oppenheimer is noteworthy in this regard. With few contributions to climate science (his postdoctoral research was in astro-chemistry), and none to the physics of climate, Oppenheimer became the Barbara Streisand Scientist at Environmental Defense. 6(6 It should be acknowledged that Oppenheimer has quite a few papers with climate in the title ? especially in the last two years. However, these are largely papers concerned with policy and advocacy, assuming significant warming. Such articles probably constitute the bulk of articles on climate. It may be fair to say that such articles contribute little if anything to understanding the phenomenon.He was subsequently appointed to a professorship at Princeton University, and is now, regularly, referred to as a prominent climate scientist by Oprah (a popular television hostess), NPR (National Public Radio), etc. To be sure, Oppenheimer did coauthor an early absurdly alarmist volume (Oppenheimer and Robert Boyle, 1990: Dead Heat, The Race Against the Greenhouse Effect), and he has served as a lead author with the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change)7. Climate Science: Is it currently designed to answer questions? 7(7 Certain names come up repeatedly in this paper. This is hardly an accident. In 1989, following the public debut of the issue in the US in Al Gore?s famous Senate hearing featuring Jim Hansen associating the warm summer of 1988 with global warming, the Climate Action Network was created. This organization of over 280 ENGO?s has been at the center of the climate debates since then. The Climate Action Network, is an umbrella NGO that coordinates the advocacy efforts of its members, particularly in relation to the UN negotiations. Organized around seven regional nodes in North and Latin America, Western and Eastern Europe, South and Southeast Asia, and Africa, CAN represents the majority of environmental groups advocating on climate change, and it has embodied the voice of the environmental community in the climate negotiations since it was established. The founding of the Climate Action Network can be traced back to the early involvement of scientists from the research ENGO community. These individuals, including Michael Oppenheimer from Environmental Defense, Gordon Goodman of the Stockholm Environmental Institute (formerly the Beijer Institute), and George Woodwell of the Woods Hole Research Center were instrumental in organizing the scientific workshops in Villach and Bellagio on ?Developing Policy Responses to Climate Change? in 1987 as well as the Toronto Conference on the Changing Atmosphere in June 1988. It should be noted that the current director of the Woods Hole Research Center is John Holdren. In 1989, several months after the Toronto Conference, the emerging group of climate scientists and activists from the US, Europe, and developing countries were brought together at a meeting in Germany, with funding from Environmental Defense and the German Marshall Fund. The German Marshall Fund is still funding NGO activity in Europe: http://www.gmfus.org/event/detail.cfm?id=453&parent_type=E (Pulver, 2004).One could go on at some length with such examples, but a more common form of infiltration consists in simply getting a couple of seats on the council of an organization (or on the advisory panels of government agencies). This is sufficient to veto any statements or decisions that they are opposed to. Eventually, this enables the production of statements supporting their position ? if only as a quid pro quo for permitting other business to get done. Sometimes, as in the production of the 1993 report of the NAS, Policy Implications of Global Warming, the environmental activists, having largely gotten their way in the preparation of the report where they were strongly represented as ?stake holders,? decided, nonetheless, to issue a minority statement suggesting that the NAS report had not gone ?far enough.? The influence of the environmental movement has effectively made support for global warming, not only a core element of political correctness, but also a requirement for the numerous prizes and awards given to scientists. That said, when it comes to professional societies, there is often no need at all for overt infiltration since issues like global warming have become a part of both political correctness and (in the US) partisan politics, and there will usually be council members who are committed in this manner.The situation with America?s National Academy of Science is somewhat more complicated. The Academy is divided into many disciplinary sections whose primary task is the nomination of candidates for membership in the Academy. 8 Typically, support by more than 85% of the membership of any section is needed for nomination. However, once a candidate is elected, the candidate is free to affiliate with any section. The vetting procedure is generally rigorous, but for over 20 years, there was a Temporary Nominating Group for the Global Environment to provide a back door for the election of candidates who were environmental activists, bypassing the conventional vetting procedure. Members, so elected, proceeded to join existing sections where they hold a veto power over the election of any scientists unsympathetic to their position. Moreover, they are almost immediately appointed to positions on the executive council, and other influential bodies within the Academy. One of the members elected via the Temporary Nominating Group, Ralph Cicerone, is now president of the National Academy. Prior to that, he was on the nominating committee for the presidency. It should be added that there is generally only a single candidate for president. Others elected to the NAS via this route include Paul Ehrlich, James Hansen, Steven Schneider, John Holdren and Susan Solomon.(8 The reports attributed to the National Academy are not, to any major extent, the work of Academy Members. Rather, they are the product of the National Research Council, which consists in a staff of over 1000 who are paid largely by the organizations soliciting the reports. The committees that prepare the reports are mostly scientists who are not Academy Members, and who serve without pay.It is, of course, possible to corrupt science without specifically corrupting institutions. For example, the environmental movement often cloaks its propaganda in scientific garb without the aid of any existing scientific body. One technique is simply to give a name to an environmental advocacy group that will suggest to the public, that the group is a scientific rather than an environmental group. Two obvious examples are the Union of Concerned Scientists and the Woods Hole Research Center. 9(9 One might reasonably add the Pew Charitable Trust to this list. Although they advertise themselves as a neutral body, they have merged with the National Environmental Trust, whose director, Philip Clapp, became deputy managing director of the combined body. Clapp (the head of the legislative practice of a large Washington law firm, and a consultant on mergers and acquisitions to investment banking firms), according to his recent obituary, was ?an early and vocal advocate on climate change issues and a promoter of the international agreement concluded in 1997 in Kyoto, Japan. Mr. Clapp continued to attend subsequent global warming talks even after the US Congress did not ratify the Kyoto accord.?The former conducted an intensive advertising campaign about ten years ago in which they urged people to look to them for authoritative information on global warming. This campaign did not get very far ? if only because the Union of Concerned Scientists had little or no scientific expertise in climate. A possibly more effective attempt along these lines occurred in the wake of Michael Crichton?s best selling adventure, Climate of Fear, which pointed out the questionable nature of the global warming issue, as well as the dangers to society arising from the exploitation of this issue. Environmental Media Services (a project of Fenton Communications, a large public relations firm serving left wing and environmental causes; they are responsible for the alar scare as well as Cindy Sheehan?s anti-war campaign.) created a website, realclimate.org, as an ?authoritative? source for the ?truth? about climate.This time, real scientists who were also environmental activists, were recruited to ?discredit? any science or scientist that questioned catastrophic anthropogenic global warming. The web site serves primarily as a support group for believers in catastrophe, constantly reassuring them that there is no reason to reduce their worrying. Of course, even the above represent potentially unnecessary complexity compared to the longstanding technique of simply publicly claiming that all scientists agree with whatever catastrophe is being promoted. Newsweek already made such a claim in 1988. Such a claim serves at least two purposes. First, the bulk of the educated public is unable to follow scientific arguments; ?knowing? that all scientists agree relieves them of any need to do so. Second, such a claim serves as a warning to scientists that the topic at issue is a bit of a minefield that they would do well to avoid.The myth of scientific consensus is also perpetuated in the web?s Wikipedia where climate articles are vetted by William Connolley, who regularly runs for office in England as a Green Party candidate. No deviation from the politically correct line is permitted.Perhaps the most impressive exploitation of climate science for political purposes has been the creation of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) by two UN agencies, UNEP (United Nations Environmental Program) and WMO (World Meteorological Organization), and the agreement of all major countries at the 1992 Rio Conference to accept the IPCC as authoritative. Formally, the IPCC summarizes the peer reviewed literature on climate every five years. On the face of it, this is an innocent and straightforward task. One might reasonably wonder why it takes 100?s of scientists five years of constant travelling throughout the world in order to perform this task. The charge to the IPCC is not simply to summarize, but rather to provide the science with which to support the negotiating process whose aim is to control greenhouse gas levels. This is a political rather than a scientific charge. That said, the participating scientists have some leeway in which to reasonably describe matters, since the primary document that the public associates with the IPCC is not the extensive report prepared by the scientists, but rather the Summary for Policymakers which is written by an assemblage of representative from governments and NGO?s, with only a small scientific representation. 10, 11(10 Appendix 1 is the invitation to the planning session for the 5th assessment. It clearly emphasizes strengthening rather than checking the IPCC position. Appendix 2 reproduces a commentary by Stephen McIntyre on the recent OfCom findings concerning a British TV program opposing global warming alarmism. The response of the IPCC officials makes it eminently clear that the IPCC is fundamentally a political body. If further evidence were needed, one simply has to observe the fact that the IPCC Summary for Policymakers will selectively cite results to emphasize negative consequences. Thus the summary for Working Group II observes that global warming will result in ?Hundreds of millions of people exposed to increased water stress.? This, however, is based on work (Arnell, 2004) which actually shows that by the 2080s the net global population at risk declines by up to 2.1 billion people (depending on which scenario one wants to emphasize)! The IPCC further ignores the capacity to build reservoirs to alleviate those areas they project as subject to drought (I am indebted to Indur Goklany for noting this example.))(11 Appendix 3 is a recent op-ed from the Boston Globe, written by the aforementioned John Holdren. What is interesting about this piece is that what little science it invokes is overtly incorrect. Rather, it points to the success of the above process of taking over scientific institutions as evidence of the correctness of global warming alarmism. The 3 atmospheric scientists who are explicitly mentioned are chemists with no particular expertise in climate. While, Holdren makes much of the importance of expertise, he fails to note that he, himself, is hardly a contributor to climate science. Holdren and Paul Ehrlich (of Population Bomb fame; in that work he predicted famine and food riots for the US in the 1980?s) are responsible for the I=PAT formula which claims that environmental impact is the product of population, affluence and technology. Presumably, this is an indication of their political and social preferences.)3. SCIENCE IN THE SERVICE OF POLITICSGiven the above, it would not be surprising if working scientists would make special efforts to support the global warming hypothesis. There is ample evidence that this is happening on a large scale. A few examples will illustrate this situation. Data that challenges the hypothesis are simply changed. In some instances, data that was thought to support the hypothesis is found not to, and is then changed. The changes are sometimes quite blatant, but more often are somewhat more subtle. The crucial point is that geophysical data is almost always at least somewhat uncertain, and methodological errors are constantly being discovered. Bias can be introduced by simply considering only those errors that change answers in the desired direction. The desired direction in the case of climate is to bring the data into agreement with models that attempt to account for the observations by means of greenhouse forcing, even though such models have displayed minimal skill in explaining or predicting climate. Model projections, it should be recalled, are the basis for our greenhouse concerns. That corrections to climate data should be called for, is not at all surprising, but that such corrections should almost always be in the ?needed? direction is exceedingly unlikely. Although the situation suggests overt dishonesty, it is entirely possible, in today?s scientific environment, that many scientists feel that it is the role of science to vindicate the greenhouse paradigm for climate change as well as the credibility of models. Comparisons of models with data are, for example, referred to as model validation studies rather than model tests.The first two examples involve paleoclimate simulations and reconstructions. Here, the purpose has been to show that both the models and the greenhouse paradigm can explain past climate regimes, thus lending confidence to the use of both to anticipate future changes. In both cases (the Eocene about 50 million years ago, and the Last Glacial Maximum about 18 thousand years ago), the original data were in conflict with the greenhouse paradigm as implemented in current models, and in both cases, lengthy efforts were made to bring the data into agreement with the models.In the first example, the original data analysis for the Eocene (Shackleton and Boersma, 1981) showed the polar regions to have been so much warmer than the present that a type of alligator existed on Spitzbergen as did florae and fauna in Minnesota that could not have survived frosts. At the same time, however, equatorial temperatures were found to be about 4K colder than at present. The first attempts to simulate the Eocene (Barron, 1987) assumed that the warming would be due to high levels of CO2, and using a climate GCM (General Circulation Model), he obtained relatively uniform warming at all latitudes, with the meridional gradients remaining much as they are today. This behavior continues to be the case with current GCMs (Huber, 2008). As a result, paleoclimatologists have devoted much effort to ?correcting? their data, but, until very recently, they were unable to bring temperatures at the equator higher than today?s (Schrag, 1999, Pearson et al, 2000). However, the latest paper (Huber, 2008) suggests that the equatorial data no longer constrains equatorial temperatures at all, and any values may have existed. All of this is quite remarkable since there is now evidence that current meridional distributions of temperature depend critically on the presence of ice, and that the model behavior results from improper tuning wherein present distributions remain even when ice is absent.The second example begins with the results of a major attempt to observationally reconstruct the global climate of the last glacial maximum (CLIMAP, 1976). Here it was found that although extratropical temperatures were much colder, equatorial temperatures were little different from today?s. There were immediate attempts to simulate this climate with GCMs and reduced levels of CO2. Once again the result was lower temperatures at all latitudes (Bush and Philander, 1998a,b), and once again, numerous efforts were made to ?correct? the data. After much argument, the current position appears to be that tropical temperatures may have been a couple of degrees cooler than today?s. However, papers appeared claiming far lower temperatures (Crowley, 2000). We will deal further with this issue in the next section where we describe papers that show that the climate associated with ice ages is well described by the Milankovich Hypothesis that does not call for any role for CO2.Both of the above examples probably involved legitimate corrections, but only corrections that sought to bring observations into agreement with models were initially considered, thus avoiding the creative conflict between theory and data that has characterized the past successes of science. To be sure, however, the case of the Last Glacial Maximum shows that climate science still retains some capacity for self-correction.The next example has achieved a much higher degree of notoriety than the previous two. In the first IPCC assessment (IPCC, 1990), the traditional picture of the climate of the past 1100 years was presented. In this picture, there was a medieval warm period that was somewhat warmer than the present as well as the little ice age that was cooler. The presence of a period warmer than the present in the absence of any anthropogenic greenhouse gases was deemed an embarrassment for those holding that present warming could only be accounted for by the activities of man. Not surprisingly, efforts were made to get rid of the medieval warm period (Demming, 2005). The most infamous effort was that due to Mann et al (1998, 1999) 12 which used primarily a few handfuls of tree ring records to obtain a reconstruction of Northern Hemisphere temperature going back eventually a thousand years that no longer showed a medieval warm period.(12 The 1998 paper actually only goes back to 1400 CE, and acknowledges that there is no useful resolution of spatial patterns of variability going further back. It is the 1999 paper that then goes back 1000 years.)Indeed, it showed a slight cooling for almost a thousand years culminating in a sharp warming beginning in the nineteenth century. The curve came to be known as the hockey stick, and featured prominently in the next IPCC report, where it was then suggested that the present warming was unprecedented in the past 1000 years. The study immediately encountered severe questions concerning both the proxy data and its statistical analysis (interestingly, the most penetrating critiques came from outside the field: McIntyre and McKitrick, 2003, 2005 a,b). This led to two independent assessments of the hockey stick (Wegman,2006, North, 2006), both of which found the statistics inadequate for the claims. The story is given in detail in Holland (2007). Since the existence of a medieval warm period is amply documented in historical accounts for the North Atlantic region (Soon et al, 2003), Mann et al countered that the warming had to be regional but not characteristic of the whole northern hemisphere. Given that an underlying assumption of their analysis was that the geographic pattern of warming had to have remained constant, this would have invalidated the analysis ab initio without reference to the specifics of the statistics. Indeed, the 4th IPCC (IPCC, 2007) assessment no longer featured the hockey stick, but the claim that current warming is unprecedented remains, and Mann et al?s reconstruction is still shown in Chapter 6 of the 4th IPCC assessment, buried among other reconstructions. Here too, we will return to this matter briefly in the next section.The fourth example is perhaps the strangest. For many years, the global mean temperature record showed cooling from about 1940 until the early 70?s. This, in fact, led to the concern for global cooling during the 1970?s. The IPCC regularly, through the 4th assessment, boasted of the ability of models to simulate this cooling (while failing to emphasize that each model required a different specification of completely undetermined aerosol cooling in order to achieve this simulation (Kiehl, 2007)). Improvements in our understanding of aerosols are increasingly making such arbitrary tuning somewhat embarrassing, and, no longer surprisingly, the data has been ?corrected? to get rid of the mid 20th century cooling (Thompson et al, 2008). This may, in fact, be a legitimate correction (http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=3114). The embarrassment may lie in the continuous claims of modelers to have simulated the allegedly incorrect data.The fifth example deals with the fingerprint of warming. It has long been noted that greenhouse warming is primarily centered in the upper troposphere (Lindzen, 1999) and, indeed, model?s show that the maximum rate of warming is found in the upper tropical troposphere (Lee, et al, 2007). Lindzen (2007) noted that temperature data from both satellites and balloons failed to show such a maximum. This, in turn, permitted one to bound the greenhouse contribution to surface warming, and led to an estimate of climate sensitivity that was appreciably less than found in current models. Once the implications of the observations were clearly identified, it was only a matter of time before the data were ?corrected.? The first attempt came quickly (Vinnikov et al, 2006) wherein the satellite data was reworked to show large warming in the upper troposphere, but the methodology was too blatant for the paper to be commonly cited. 13 There followed an attempt wherein the temperature data was rejected, and where temperature trends were inferred from wind data (Allen and Sherwood, 2008). Over sufficiently long periods, there is a balance between vertical wind shear and meridional temperature gradients (the thermal wind balance), and, with various assumptions concerning boundary conditions, one can, indeed, infer temperature trends, but the process involves a more complex, indirect, and uncertain procedure than is involved in directly measuring temperature. Moreover, as Pielke et al (2008) have noted, the results display a variety of inconsistencies. They are nonetheless held to resolve the discrepancy with models.(13 Of course, Vinnikov et al did mention it. When I gave a lecture at Rutgers University in October 2007, Alan Robock, a professor at Rutgers and a coauthor of Vinnikov et al declared that the ?latest data? resolved the discrepancy wherein the model fingerprint could not be found in the data.)The sixth example takes us into astrophysics. Since the 1970?s, considerable attention has been given to something known as the Early Faint Sun Paradox. This paradox was first publicized by Sagan and Mullen (1972). They noted that the standard model for the sun robustly required that the sun brighten with time so that 2-3 billion years ago, it was about 30% dimmer than it is today (recall that a doubling of CO2 corresponds to only a 2% change in the radiative budget). One would have expected that the earth would have been frozen over, but the geological evidence suggested that the ocean was unfrozen. Attempts were made to account for this by an enhanced greenhouse effect. Sagan and Mullen (1972) suggested an ammonia rich atmosphere might work. Others suggested an atmosphere with as much as several bars of CO2 (recall that currently CO2 is about 380 parts per million of a 1 bar atmosphere). Finally, Kasting and colleagues tried to resolve the paradox with large amounts of methane. For a variety of reasons, all these efforts were deemed inadequate 14 (Haqqmisra et al, 2008). There followed a remarkable attempt to get rid of the standard model of the sun (Sackman and Boothroyd, 2003). This is not exactly the same as altering the data, but the spirit is the same. The paper claimed to have gotten rid of the paradox. However, in fact, the altered model still calls for substantial brightening, and, moreover, does not seem to have gotten much acceptance among solar modelers.(14 Haqqmisra, a graduate student at the Pennsylvania State University, is apparently still seeking greenhouse solutions to the paradox.)My last specific example involves the social sciences. Given that it has been maintained since at least 1988 that all scientists agree about alarming global warming, it is embarrassing to have scientists objecting to the alarm. To ?settle? the matter, a certain Naomi Oreskes published a paper in Science (Oreskes, 2004) purporting to have surveyed the literature and not have found a single paper questioning the alarm (Al Gore offers this study as proof of his own correctness in ?Inconvenient Truth.?). Both Benny Peiser (a British sociologist) and Dennis Bray (an historian of science) noted obvious methodological errors, but Science refused to publish these rebuttals with no regard for the technical merits of the criticisms presented. 15(15 The refusal was not altogether surprising. The editor of Science, at the time, was Donald Kennedy, a biologist (and colleague of Paul Ehrlich and Stephen Schneider, both also members of Stanford?s biology department), who had served as president of Stanford University. His term, as president, ended with his involvement in fiscal irregularities such as charging to research overhead such expenses as the maintenance of the presidential yacht and the provision of flowers for his daughter?s wedding ? offering peculiar evidence for the importance of grant overhead to administrators. Kennedy had editorially declared that the debate concerning global warming was over and that skeptical articles would not be considered. More recently, he has published a relatively pure example of Orwellian double-speak (Kennedy, 2008) wherein he called for better media coverage of global warming, where by ?better? he meant more carefully ignoring any questions about global warming alarm. As one might expect, Kennedy made extensive use of Oreskes? paper. He also made the remarkably dishonest claim that the IPCC Summary for Policymakers was much more conservative than the scientific text.)Moreover, Oreskes was a featured speaker at the celebration of Spencer Weart?s thirty years as head of the American Institute of Physics? Center for History of Physics. Weart, himself, had written a history of the global warming issue (Weart, 2003) where he repeated, without checking, the slander taken from a screed by Ross Gelbspan (The Heat is On) 16 in which I was accused of being a tool of the fossil fuel industry. Weart also writes with glowing approval of Gore?s Inconvenient Truth. As far as Oreskes? claim goes, it is clearly absurd 17. A more carefully done study revealed a rather different picture (Schulte, 2007).The above examples do not include the most convenient means whereby nominal scientists can support global warming alarm: namely, the matter of impacts. Here, scientists who generally have no knowledge of climate physics at all, are supported to assume the worst projections of global warming and imaginatively suggest the implications of such warming for whatever field they happen to be working in. This has led to the bizarre claims that global warming will contribute to kidney stones, obesity, cockroaches, noxious weeds, sexual imbalance in fish, etc. The scientists who participate in such exercises quite naturally are supportive of the catastrophic global warming hypothesis despite their ignorance of the underlying science. 18(16 For reasons already mentioned, the claim of consensus is great propagandistic value to the global warming movement. Naturally, the existence of a substantial number of legitimate scientists who oppose alarmist assertions is embarrassing to those claiming consensus. A primary approach to such scientists has been to claim that they are lying because they have been paid off by the oil industry. The claim was, in general, both untrue and irrelevant. In the early 90?s Ted Koppel devoted half of a Nightline show to excoriating then Vice President Gore for asking him to dig up dirt on opponents of global warming alarm. However, Gelbspan cheerfully stepped into the breach.)(17 Oreskes, apart from overt errors, merely considered support to consist in agreement that there had been some warming, and that anthropogenic CO2 contributed part of the warming. Such innocent conclusions have essentially nothing to do with catastrophic projections that involve dozens if not hundreds of ill-predicted and loosely connected variables. Moreover, most of the papers she looked at didn?t even address these issues; they simply didn?t question these conclusions.)(18 Perhaps unsurprisingly, The Potsdam Institute, home of Greenpeace?s Bill Hare, now has a Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research.)4. PRESSURES TO INHIBIT INQUIRY AND PROBLEM SOLVINGIt is often argued that in science the truth must eventually emerge. This may well be true, but, so far, attempts to deal with the science of climate change objectively have been largely forced to conceal such truths as may call into question global warming alarmism (even if only implicitly). The usual vehicle is peer review, and the changes imposed were made in order to get a given paper published. 19(19 Although this seems to be the most common mechanism, I suspect that the concealment is sometimes a voluntary attempt by the author(s) to reconcile differences between their science and their ideology.Publication is, of course, essential for funding, promotion, etc. The following examples are but a few from cases that I am personally familiar with. These, almost certainly, barely scratch the surface. What is generally involved, is simply the inclusion of an irrelevant comment supporting global warming accepted wisdom. When the substance of thepaper is described, it is generally claimed that the added comment represents the ?true? intenthe paper. In addition to the following examples, Appendix 2 offers excellent examples of ?spin control.?As mentioned in the previous section, one of the reports assessing the Mann et al Hockey Stick was prepared by a committee of the US National Research Counsel (a branch of the National Academy) chaired by Gerald North (North, 2006). The report concluded that the analysis used was totally unreliable for periods longer ago than about 400 years. In point of fact, the only basis for the 400 year choice was that this brought one to the midst of the Little Ice Age, and there is essentially nothing surprising about a conclusion that we are now warmer. Still, without any basis at all, the report also concluded that despite the inadequacy of the Mann et al analysis, the conclusion might still be correct. It was this baseless conjecture that received most of the publicity surrounding the report.In a recent paper, Roe (2006) showed that the orbital variations in high latitude summer insolation correlate excellently with changes in glaciation ? once one relates the insolation properly to the rate of change of glaciation rather than to the glaciation itself. This provided excellent support for the Milankovich hypothesis. Nothing in the brief paper suggested the need for any other mechanism. Nonetheless, Roe apparently felt compelled to include an irrelevant caveat stating that the paper had no intention of ruling out a role for CO2.Choi and Ho (2006, 2008) published interesting papers on the optical properties of high tropical cirrus that largely confirmed earlier results by Lindzen, Chou and Hou (2001) on an important negative feedback (the iris effect ? something that we will describe later in this section) that would greatly reduce the sensitivity of climate to increasing greenhouse gases. A proper comparison required that the results be normalized by a measure of total convective activity, and, indeed, such a comparison was made in the original version of Choi and Ho?s paper. However, reviewers insisted that the normalization be removed from the final version of the paper which left the relationship to the earlier paper unclear.Horvath and Soden (2008) found observational confirmation of many aspects of the iris effect, but accompanied these results with a repetition of criticisms of the iris effect that were irrelevant and even contradictory to their own paper. The point, apparently, was to suggest that despite their findings, there might be other reasons to discard the iris effect. Later in this section, I will return to these criticisms. However, the situation is far from unique. I have received preprints of papers wherein support for the iris was found, but where this was omitted in the published version of the papers.In another example, I had originally submitted a paper mentioned in the previous section (Lindzen, 2007) to American Scientist, the periodical of the scientific honorary society in the US, Sigma Xi, at the recommendation of a former officer of that society. There followed a year of discussions, with an editor, David Schneider, insisting that I find a coauthor who would illustrate why my paper was wrong. He argued that publishing something that contradicted the IPCC was equivalent to publishing a paper that claimed that ?Einstein?s general theory of relativity is bunk.? I suggested that it would be more appropriate for American Scientist to solicit a separate paper taking a view opposed to mine. This was unacceptable to Schneider, so I ended up publishing the paper elsewhere. Needless to add, Schneider has no background in climate physics, and as I have already noted, the president of Sigma Xi, at the time, was John Holdren. I should add that simple disagreement with conclusions of the IPCC has become a common basis for rejecting papers for publication in professional journals. 20 An example will be presented later in this section.(20 In some ways, this represents one of the most serious corruptions of science. If one looks at the third IPCC Scientific Assessment, one discovers that the basis for the IPCC claim is that modelers cannot think of any other cause for the temperature behavior. Such an argument, when used in behalf of intelligent design is rightfully rejected. Yet the scientific establishment (including the National Academy of Sciences as well as John Marburger, President Bush?s Science Advisor) treats this line of argument as dogma in behalf of an anthropogenic cause of global warming. The mendacity of this behavior is accentuated by the fact that leading modeling groups acknowledge that they are now aware of other possibilities (Smith et al, 2007, Keenlyside et al, 2008).Despite all the posturing about global warming, more and more people are becoming aware of the fact that global mean temperatures have not increased statistically significantly since 1995. One need only look at the temperature records posted on the web by the Hadley Centre. The way this is acknowledged in the literature forms a good example of the spin that is currently required to maintain global warming alarm. Recall that the major claim of the IPCC 4th Assessment was that there was a 90% certainty that most of the warming of the preceding 50 years was due to man (whatever that might mean). This required the assumption that what is known as natural internal variability (ie, the variability that exists without any external forcing and represents the fact that the climate system is never in equilibrium) is adequately handled by the existing climate models. The absence of any net global warming over the last dozen years or so, suggests that this assumption may be wrong. Smith et al (2007) (Smith is with the Hadley Centre in the UK) acknowledged this by pointing out that initial conditions had to reflect the disequilibrium at some starting date, and when these conditions were ?correctly? chosen, it was possible to better replicate the period without warming. This acknowledgment of error was accompanied by the totally unjustified assertion that global warming would resume with a vengeance in 2009. 21(21 When I referred to the Smith et al paper at a hearing of the European Parliament, Professor Schellnhuber of the Potsdam Institute (which I mentioned in the previous section with respect to its connection to Greenpeace) loudly protested that I was being ?dishonest? by not emphasizing what he referred to as the main point in Smith et al: namely that global warming would return with a vengence.)As 2009 approaches and the vengeful warming seems less likely to occur, a new paper came out (this time from the Max Planck Institute: Keenlyside et al, 2008) moving the date for anticipated resumption of warming to 2015. It is indeed a remarkable step backwards for science to consider models that have failed to predict the observed behavior of the climate to nonetheless have the same validity as the data. 22(22 The matter of ?spin control? warrants a paper by itself. In connection with the absence of warming over the past 13 years, the common response is that 7 of the last 10 warmest years in the record occurred during the past decade. This is actually to be expected, given that we are in a warm period, and the temperature is always fluctuating. However, it has nothing to do with trends.)Tim Palmer, a prominent atmospheric scientist at the European Centre for Medium Range Weather Forecasting, is quoted by Fred Pearce (Pearce, 2008) in the New Scientist as follows: ?Politicians seem to think that the science is a done deal,? says Tim Palmer. ?I don?t want to undermine the IPCC, but the forecasts, especially for regional climate change, are immensely uncertain.? Pearce, however, continues ?Palmer .. does not doubt that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has done a good job alerting the world to the problem of global climate change. But he and his fellow climate scientists are acutely aware that the IPCC?s predictions of how the global change will affect local climates are little more than guesswork. They fear that if the IPCC?s predictions turn out to be wrong, it will provoke a crisis in confidence that undermines the whole climate change debate. On top of this, some climate scientists believe that even the IPCC?s global forecasts leave much to be desired. ?? Normally, one would think that undermining the credibility of something that is wrong is appropriate.Even in the present unhealthy state of science, papers that are overtly contradictory to the catastrophic warming scenario do get published (though not without generally being substantially watered down during the review process). They are then often subject to the remarkable process of ?discreditation.? This process consists in immediately soliciting attack papers that are published quickly as independent articles rather than comments. The importance of this procedure is as follows. Normally such criticisms are published as comments, and the original authors are able to respond immediately following the comment. Both the comment and reply are published together. By publishing the criticism as an article, the reply is published as a correspondence, which is usually delayed by several months, and the critics are permitted an immediate reply. As a rule, the reply of the original authors is ignored in subsequent references.In 2001, I published a paper (Lindzen, Chou and Hou) that used geostationary satellite data to suggest the existence of a strong negative feedback that we referred to as the Iris Effect. The gist of the feedback is that upper level stratiform clouds in the tropics arise by detrainment from cumulonimbus towers, that the radiative impact of the stratiform clouds is primarily in the infrared where they serve as powerful greenhouse components, and that the extent of the detrainment decreases markedly with increased surface temperature. The negative feedback resulted from the fact that the greenhouse warming due to the stratiform clouds diminished as the surface temperature increased, and increased as the surface temperature decreased ? resisting the changes in surface temperature. The impact of the observed effect was sufficient to greatly reduce the model sensitivities to increasing CO2, and it was, moreover, shown that models failed to display the observed cloud behavior. The paper received an unusually intense review from four reviewers.Once the paper appeared, the peer review editor of the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, Irwin Abrams, was replaced by a new editor, Jeffrey Rosenfeld (holding the newly created position of Editor in Chief), and the new editor almost immediately accepted a paper criticizing our paper (Hartmann and Michelsen, 2002), publishing it as a separate paper rather than a response to our paper (which would have been the usual and appropriate procedure). In the usual procedure, the original authors are permitted to respond in the same issue. In the present case, the response was delayed by several months. Moreover, the new editor chose to label the criticism as follows: ?Careful analysis of data reveals no shrinkage of tropical cloud anvil area with increasing SST.? In fact, this criticism was easily dismissed. The claim of Hartmann and Michelsen was that the effect we observed was due to the intrusion of midlatitude non-convective clouds into the tropics. If this were true, then the effect should have diminished as one restricted observations more closely to the equator, but as we showed (Lindzen, Chou and Hou, 2002), exactly the opposite was found.There were also separately published papers (again violating normal protocols allowing for immediate response) by Lin et al, 2002 and Fu, Baker and Hartmann, 2002, that criticized our paper by claiming that since the instruments on the geostationary satellite could not see the thin stratiform clouds that formed the tails of the clouds we could see, that we were not entitled to assume that the tails existed. Without the tails, the radiative impact of the clouds would be primarily in the visible where the behavior we observed would lead to a positive feedback; with the tails the effect is a negative feedback. The tails had long been observed, and the notion that they abruptly disappeared when not observed by an insufficiently sensitive sensor was absurd on the face of it, and the use of better instruments by Choi and Ho (2006, 2008) confirmed the robustness of the tails and the strong dominance of the infrared impact. However, as we have already seen, virtually any mention of the iris effect tends to be accompanied with a reference to the criticisms, a claim that the theory is ?discredited,? and absolutely no mention of the responses. This is even required of papers that are actually supporting the iris effect.Vincent Courtillot et al (2007) encountered a similar problem. (Courtillot, it should be noted, is the director of the Institute for the Study of the Globe at the University of Paris.) They found that time series for magnetic field variations appeared to correlate well with temperature measurements ? suggesting a possible non-anthropogenic source of forcing. This was immediately criticized by Bard and Delaygue (2008), and Courtillot et al were given the conventional right to reply which they did in a reasonably convincing manner. What followed, however, was highly unusual. Raymond Pierrehumbert (a professor of meteorology at the University of Chicago and a fanatical environmentalist) posted a blog supporting Bard and Delaygue, ac


text:
. Construction of the foundation of the Washington Monument in August 1879.
. The Washington Monument under construction in 1899 in Washington DC.
. Washington from the monument, taken between 1906 and 1915.
. This is the scene at the dedication on Feb. 21, 1885. The 555-foot shaft was then the highest structure in the world.


text:
To support our operation in Indonesia, We are seeking for experienced and qualified personnel to fill positions as below :
General Requirements:
a. At least + 15 years of working experience in a Multi National Energy Company or Oil & Gas Services Company with minimum + 5 years in the similar position.
b. Hands-on experience in Change Management initiatives and leading several Organizational development projects (e.g. SAP/Oracle Implementation, Reward Management, Organizational Restructuring, Merger & Acquisition, Corporate Alignment, Policy Establishment & implementation).
c. Proven track record in managing good Industrial Relations climate, Community Relations and Expatriate Management (work permit, formalities and expatriate general services).
d. A good network with respective Government offices and professional associations within the industry (Dir. Oil and Gas, Ministry of Manpower, Dir. of Immigration, APMI, etc).
e. A strong leadership, business driven minded and proven track record to dealing with a multicultural working environment.
f. An excellent English proficiency both written and spoken.
Candidates who do not meet the above requirements are not encouraged to apply.
Candidates should send their latest C.V to email@example.com / recruitmentindo[at]mbcentury.com within 14 days after this advertisement, complete with full work experience details (Specify Oil, Gas or Geothermal experience), training completed, minimum three references contact from Previous Employers and personal details. Only successful applicants will be invited for further interview.
Author : Lowongan Kerja | Updated at : 7:58 AM | Category : hrga manager, Industri minyak dan gas, mb century


text:
Vikram sure to win National Award for Raavanan
Vikram, while speaking about acting in the film said, "I am really lucky to act in a Manirathnam"s film. This film has been produced in Tamil and Hindi languages. It was a great challenge for me to act in two different kinds of roles one for each version. Manirathnam, who had great confidence in my acting, made me act in both these roles."
"People those who watched this film during the screening in the Cannes Film Festival were stunned seeing me do two different kinds of roles. No actor has so far done it. This was a real thrill for me. I am donning a tough village guy in the Tamil version while in Hindi I am donning the role of a police officer. Manirathnam has made me dub in Hindi. I don"t know Hindi. Because of this I found it very difficult. I think I will get the National Award once aging for acting in Raavanan though I don"t act for awards.
I will always act with the intention of satisfying my fans and audience. I will be happy if I get the awards. But Manirathnam will grab lot of awards for this film. Technicians will also get the awards. Abhishek Bachchan and Aishwarya Rai have acted magnificently too. I am getting a lot of offers in Hindi even before the release of Raavan. I will act in Hindi films only if I get a good story but my priority will be Tamil films."


text:
Leaders fear post-ATSIC loss of community assets
Page Tools
Aboriginal leaders have accused ATSIC's chairman and CEO of helping the Government to plunder hundreds of millions of dollars in artworks, real estate and other assets from the indigenous community.
A group of ATSIC representatives are demanding that ownership of coveted indigenous artworks, prime residential and commercial property and equipment, held in trust by ATSIC, be transferred to the indigenous community before the body is dissolved on June 30.
Otherwise the Government would divert the assets to the coffers of mainstream departments which will be entrusted with ATSIC's duties from July, the commissioners claimed.
But they say their chairman, Lionel Quartermaine, and chief executive officer, Mark Gooda, are stonewalling attempts to hold a meeting on the issue.
"I don't know why Mr Quartermaine is standing back and letting the Government prepare to do this; six commissioners are threatening to sit in at the offices in Canberra until [he] holds a meeting," a Northern Territory commissioner, Alison Anderson, said.
Included among the assets in dispute are buildings in Alice Springs worth more than $50 million, notably the Yeperenye Shopping Centre, built 25 years ago with a contribution from the late Aboriginal activist Charles Perkins, and now worth close to $25 million.
Mr Quartermaine could not be contacted yesterday, but a spokesman for ATSIC said: "Mr Quartermaine is absolutely confident that the ATSIC assets will be distributed among indigenous organisations, including Indigenous Business Australia and the Indigenous Land Corporation."
The comment was backed by the Minister for Indigenous Affairs, Senator Amanda Vanstone, who said the commissioners were scaremongering.


text:
bookmark + share
Orlistat buy cheap
Our Wedding
August 18, 2017
85 days to go!
Discount Prices Guaranteed on ORLISTAT 60mg. Wholesale Orlistat 120 mg Purchase Online
Order ORLISTAT 120mg Online Now
Orlistat buy cheap
best buy orlistat, order orlistat samples, buy orlistat balance, buy 60 mg orlistat, buying orlistat dunboyne ireland, buy orlistat female online, orlistat coupon card 2015, buy orlistat kelowna, where can i buy orlistat online canada, orlistat cheap no prescription online, buy orlistat online 60 mg, buy brand orlistat uk, buy 120 mg orlistat online, generic orlistat where to buy, orlistat generic buy it, buy orlistat for sale, cheapest orlistat real, orlistat adelaide buy, can you buy orlistat online without, buy orlistat 120 mg pill, orlistat generic backorder, where can i buy orlistat w orlistat vc, buy orlistat name brand, buy orlistat generic for cheap, how to buy orlistat no prescription, buy orlistat from an online pharmacy, buy orlistat in korea, how to buy orlistat online australia, orlistat online cheapest, cheap orlistat order, orlistat 120 mg buy online netherlands, orlistat achat en ligne, orlistat generic where to buy, can you buy orlistat canada, cheap orlistat generic name, where to buy orlistat at a store, buy orlistat stoke on trent, buy orlistat 60 mg tab au, buying orlistat wholesale, how old to buy orlistat, buy orlistat products online, order orlistat doctor, orlistat bars order
cheap orlistat poland, buy cheap orlistat pro, legal orlistat purchases, orlistat generic where to buy online
You may be at risk if you have diabetes, Orlistat both in the medical professional and in general, buy orlistat online pharmacy uk These deposits are mainly cholesterol, buy orlistat soho Another version of this treatment involves putting a combination of castor oil and baking soda on the warts. a low level of good cholesterol ( Those people who have their BMI scores in between 35 and 39. orlistat rather than an indoor play area) are small pieces of fruit or peal that have been preserved using sugar. the oil has antiseptic and antibacterial properties so it will work to some extent to treat various ailments. acyl sulfonamides and carbamates are important synthetic building blocks towards the synthesis of bio- Orlistat
more data
about Orlistat


text:
For an ideal user experience, please update your flash player. Click here to download the latest version of Adobe Flash.
You have 4000 characters left.
You reached the maximum length of this message (4000 characters).
Hi Dana how are you? I don't know if this is the right account, anyway, I wish you a happy birthday my dear friend. When will I see you again? I hope to see you soon. A big kiss and a warm hug to you. Bye.
You reached the maximum length of this message(4000 characters).
The site contains sexually explicit material. Enter ONLY if you are at least 18 years old and agree to our cookie rules.
18 U.S.C. 2257 Record-Keeping Requirements Compliance Statement
This site is owned and operated by Duodecad IT Services Luxembourg S.à.r.l.
© 2017 MaturesCam.com - All Rights Reserved!