text:
United States Wants to Attract Hackers to Public Sector @ NYTimes.com.
In the eighth grade, Arlan Jaska figured out how to write a simple script that could switch his keyboard's Caps Lock key on and off 6,000 times a minute. When friends weren't looking, he slipped his program onto their computers. It was all fun and games until the program spread to his middle school.
"They called my parents and told my dad I was hacking their computers," Mr. Jaska, 17 years old, recalled. He was grounded and got detention. And he is just the type the Department of Homeland Security is looking for.
Check out all the Circuit Playground Episodes! Our new kid's show and subscribe!
Have an amazing project to share? Join the SHOW-AND-TELL every Wednesday night at 7:30pm ET on Google+ Hangouts.
Join us every Wednesday night at 8pm ET for Ask an Engineer!
Learn resistor values with Mho's Resistance or get the best electronics calculator for engineers "Circuit Playground" – Adafruit's Apps!
Maker Business — Transforming Today's Bad Jobs into Tomorrow's Good Jobs
Wearables — Leverage long exposure
Electronics — Why do they call it a breadboard?
Biohacking — Finding the Ideal Glucose Level for a Good Night's Rest
No Comments
No comments yet.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.


text:
Lady Cats win with pitching, defense and timely hitting
By BOBBY "BUTCH" BURNEY | News-Telegram Sports Editor
April 2, 2008 - The Sulphur Springs Lady Cats have made a habit of scoring in the first inning of their district games, having done so in four straight.
Against Paris on Tuesday, the Lady Cats waited until their last at-bat to score, but it was still enough.
Behind a stellar pitching performance from sophomore Taylor Clifton which was backed up by three outstanding defensive plays and clutch hitting from the middle of the batting order, the Lady Cats edged Paris 1-0 at Lady Cat Park.
The Lady Cats improved to 5-1 in District 11-4A, 18-7 overall, while Paris fell to a hard-luck 0-6.
The game was scoreless heading into the bottom of the sixth inning as Paris righthander Julie Essary had limited the Lady Cats to just four baserunners through the first five frames. But, with two outs in the sixth, SSHS junior Katie Dodd lined an Essary pitch off the left field wall for a double.
Dodd's hit missed being a home run by about two feet, but it didn't matter, because junior Brittani Crawford immediately brought her home with the game-winning, run-scoring base hit to right field.
It was Crawford's seventh RBI in six district games, tying her with Dodd for the team lead. Crawford reached base all three times against Essary with a second-inning walk and a fourth-inning single, raising her district batting average to an even .500 (8-for-16).
While the single run may seem like the play of the game, it took some great pitching from Clifton, who went all seven innings and gave up just three hits and one walk while fanning five, and outstanding defensive plays to make it count.
"Taylor was doing everything right, hitting her spots," said SSHS head coach David Carrillo. "She was very composed out there, and that was one the best things I've seen. Even when she got in trouble early, we were able to get out of it. One of the best things is that she's composed and battling."
Clifton was able to work out of deep trouble twice - including the first inning.
Paris' Macy Allen led off the game with a single and went to third on a throwing error and sacrifice bunt. Then, with one out, Essary hit a hot grounder to Mac Morgan at third. Morgan looked at Allen, then threw to Dodd at first to get Essary out. Allen broke for home on Morgan's throw, so Dodd relayed it to catcher Maurie Lewis in plenty of time to tag out the runner to complete the double play and get out of the inning.
Then, in the top of the sixth, the Lady Cats made two heads-up plays to keep Paris off the scoreboard. The inning opened with Paris' Raci Lancaster blooping a ball behind first base, but SSHS second baseman Amanda McGowin made a full-out, diving catch on the rim of the infield to rob Lancaster of a base hit. That came into play when Gabby Parker walked and Allen reached on an infield hit to put runners on first and second with one out.
The next batter, Darby Pierce, then hit a ball between third and short. Crawford, at shortstop, made the stop and tried to tag Parker as she ran by, but the runner knocked the ball out of Crawford's glove. The ball rolled toward third base where Morgan picked it up, and when Parker overslid the bag, Morgan tagged her out for the inning's second out.
Clifton then induced an inning-ending grounder from the next batter.
"Again, making the little plays count," Carrillo said. "The girls played great defense tonight.
"We struggled a little bit at the plate, but those nights are going to happen. It's just good we were able to overcome that stuff with a win tonight. I kept telling our girls to be patient, be patient, don't get rattled. We hung in there and made the plays when we had to."
The Lady Cats host Texas High (2-3) at 6 p.m. Friday with a playoff berth possibly in the balance. A Sulphur Springs win over Texas High, coupled witha Lindale victory over T-High today (in a make-up of last night's rainout) and a North Lamar win over Mount Pleasant will secure a playoff berth for Sulphur Springs.
Older Archives
Looking for News-Telegram Sports and News Archives for January 2004 - November 2008

subset: commoncrawl


text:
NASA gave the all-systems-go signal Thursday for a University of Arizona-led mission to mine samples from a near-Earth asteroid named Bennu.
The UA's OSIRIS-REx team has passed its design-and-development test. It can now move to building the capsule and instruments that will lift off in 2016 for a seven-year odyssey to the asteroid previously known by its sequential discovery code of 1999RQ36.
"We're extremely pleased. This is the biggest milestone between being selected and launching the mission," said Tim Swindle, director of the UA's Lunar and Planetary Laboratory, where the mission is housed.
The UA was chosen to head up the $800 million robotic mission in May 2011. It was proposed by former LPL Director Mike Drake and co-investigator Dante Lauretta.
Lauretta took over as principal investigator after Drake's death later that year.
Lauretta said the team has passed all of its NASA milestones "with flying colors," and this major step was no surprise but still very welcome. "NASA's sending the rest of the money," he said.
Lauretta said the multidecade mission will employ, at its peak, more than 400 scientists, engineers and technicians, with about 100 of them in Tucson.
The UA's principal partners on the mission are the Goddard Space Flight Center and Lockheed-Martin. Scientists from Arizona State University and the Canadian Space Agency are also participating.
A team of planetary scientists, optical scientists and astronomers at the UA is designing the camera and other instruments for the mission, which is directed by the UA.
OSIRIS-REx will arrive at the asteroid two years after launch and spend nearly two years mapping, imaging and measuring non-gravitational forces acting on Bennu to gain a more precise understanding of the potential danger posed by it and other near-Earth objects.
Lauretta said NASA has grown increasingly enthusiastic about the science of the mission, which can be applied to a planned human mission to an asteroid.
Lauretta, a meteor expert, said the most interesting science will occur after OSIRIS-REx uses its sampling arm to extract a minimum of 60 grams of the asteroid and return it to Earth in a capsule by 2023.
"That's what the mission is all about - getting that primitive, pristine carbonaceous rock."
Planetary scientists expect the rock, a remnant from the formation of our solar system some 4.5 billion years ago, to hold water and amino acids, clues to the creation of life on Earth and possibly elsewhere in the solar system.
The mission will keep UA scientists busy for years, said Swindle, who said the final item in the project budget is for analyzing samples in 2025.
The science won't stop there, he said. "We're still analyzing samples from the Apollo (moon) missions 40 years after the fact."
Precise measurement of Bennu will also help scientists assess its danger. The asteroid is about a third of a mile in diameter. In its current orbit, it will approach Earth in 2186 and has a 1-in-1,800 chance of entering the atmosphere.
The name "Bennu" was the winning entry in a contest held by the team, along with the Planetary Society and MIT's Lincoln Near-Earth Asteroid Research, which discovered the asteroid in 1999.
The name Bennu was chosen earlier this month. It was proposed by North Carolina third-grader Michael Puzio.
Bennu, an Egyptian deity, is sometimes depicted as a blue heron, which resembles the winged panels of OSIRIS-REx and its long sampling arm.
On StarNet: Go to azstarnet. com/video to see a couple of videos about the project.
Contact reporter Tom Beal at firstname.lastname@example.com or 573-4158.


text:
|Bowdoin (0-2)
|Amherst (1-1)
AMHERST, Massachusetts
The Amherst College football team broke into the win column on Saturday
with a 10-7 victory over the visiting Bowdoin College Polar Bears in the
second game of the 1999 season for both teams.
Behind their 13-play, 74-yard opening drive, the Polar Bears got on the scoreboard first, with Bowdoin quaterback Kyle Quinn finding Jason Dewar for a four-yard touchdown pass to cap the drive.
The Bears held the Jeffs to three-and-out on their first drive, and Bowdoin was driving for another touchdown when Amherst junior Tri-captain Brian Daoust picked off a Quinn pass to keep Bowdoin from taking a two-touchdown lead.
From that point on, the game turned into a defensive battle, with the Jeffs getting on the scoreboard courtesy of a 27-yard field goal from freshman Mike Proman with 4:38 remaining in the first half.
The game stayed at 7-3 midway into the fourth quarter, until the Jeffs put together a 14-play, 55-yard drive capped off by a dramatic fourth-and-goal play where Jeff junior quarterback Peter Honig kept the ball on a naked bootleg and ran in for the 1-yard score.
Following the Amherst score, the Polar Bears turned the ball over on downs. Bowdoin seemed destined to get the ball back one more time until Amherst punter Liam Flemming perfectly executed a fake punt on 4th-and-11, finding junior Dave Frankel for a 14-yard completion. From there, the Jeffs killed the clock, taking the 10-7 victory.
Leading Amherst offensively were a pair of strong performances from sophomore tailback Okey Ugwonali and sophomore wide receiver Derrell Wright. Ugwonali earned career-highs in both carries (32) and yards gained (92), while leading a running game that amassed 162 yards on the ground. Wright hauled in three passes for 82 yards, and also returned three punts for 56 yards.
For Bowdoin, Quinn finished 11 of 23 for 113 yards and a touchdown, while the running-back duo of Chris Houston and Tim Lawson combined for 77 yards on 25 carries.
Amherst (1-1) now looks ahead to next Saturday's home date against Middlebury College, while the Polar Bears (0-2) travel to Medford, Mass., to battle the Tufts University Jumbos. Today's win improves Amherst's all-time record against their NESCAC rivals to 59-17-2, avenging last year's 24-16 loss to the Polar Bears in Brunswick, Maine.
Full Game Statistics


text:
Panama Road Trip - Pacific Beaches near Panama City
The final post about our recent Panama road trip - details on our stay on Panama's Pacific Coast jut outside of Panama City.From Santa Catalina we comfortably drove back Eastwards towards Panama City but stopped short and stayed in at the beach in Santa Clara. I'd done much research looking for the ideal place to spend the final two nights of our Panama road trip holiday, but the Pacific Coast just West of Panama City is rather devoid of small, mid range hotels. Las Sirenas looks great but was a little expensive, and the nearby huge Decameron Resort just isn't my type of place. So we opted for the Las Veraneras in Santa Clara. The huge beach can be walked for miles and is one of the prettiest on this section of Panama's coastline. However Las Veraneras is overpriced at $65 for a sea view cabin. The hotel and restaurant, which serves cold food when it should be hot, is in need of attention. Doors don't shut properly, the service was excpetionally poor, hammocks on the balconies are old and knackered and the rustic cabins are full of insects. As such, I wouldn't recommend Las Veraneras to anyone.
Panama is a very small country, and one that is very easy to travel around. Panama is also a country with a huge amount of fantastic travel attractions - I've visited twice, and spent almost a month visiting Panama City, El Valle de Anton, the Pacific Coast near Panama City, the Azuero Peninsula, Santa Catalina, Coiba Island, the Pearl Islands, Bocas del Toro and the San Blas Islands. However, there's many other regions that I'd love to travel to and explore, such as Boquete and the Chiriqui highlands around Volcan Baru, the Chiriqui Gulf Marine Park and Pacific Coast near David, the Caribbean Coast both East and West of Colon, plus the Darien National Park and theindigenous Embera communities to the East of Panama. No wonder that both the tourism and real estate industries are starting to boom in Panama - the country has so much to offer the visitor. I'll have to return soon….
(Panama Road Trip - post 4 of 4)


text:
Alborada e-news: April 2012
We hope you are all well. Welcome to the April 2012 Alborada e-news. Our e-news will inform you about our activities, as well as the latest information related to Latin America.
To subscribe to our monthly e-newsletter click here.
::: Alborada e-news content:
1. Alborada News & Events
2. Other Latin America Related Information
1. Alborada News & Events
> Later in the year Alborada Films will release a documentary about the 'Hip Hop Revolucion' movement in Venezuela. The film is directed by Jody McIntyre & Pablo Navarrete. For more information about the film and how you can support its production click here.
> Alborada is on Twitter. We also have a Facebook page and a YouTube channel.
2. Other Latin America Related Information
::: News, Analysis, Culture
Comment & Analysis: Will Mexico's Drug Cartels Influence the Country's Presidential Election? (Paul Imison/Upside Down World)
Documentary Excerpt: 10 Years Since the Venezuelan Coup (The Real News)
Book Review: The Southern Tiger: Chile's Fight for a Democratic and Prosperous Future, by Ricardo Lagos (Nick Caistor/LAB)
Comment & Analysis: Obama in Cartagena: No Change, Dwindling Hope (Alex Main/Al Jazeera English
Documentary Review: Impunity, directed by Juan José Lozano and Hollman Morris (Michael Goold/Socialist Lawyer)
Comment & Analysis: Latin American Countries Call for Alternatives to War on Drugs (Danilo Valladares/IPS)
Comment & Analysis: Uruguay's Victims of Agrochemicals Break their Silence (Raul Zibechi/Americas Program)
Documentary Review: The Hour of the Furnaces, directed by Fernando Solanas & Octavio Getino (Nicole Brenez/Sight & Sound)
Comment & Analysis: Drugs and Business: Central America Faces Another Round of Violence (Annie Bird/NACLA)
Comment & Analysis: The Morales Government: Neoliberalism in Disguise? (Federico Fuentes/International Socialism)
::: Latin America Related Events
Click here to see a list of upcoming Latin America related events taking place in London and around the UK.
That's all for our April 2012 e-news. If you have any suggestions about articles related to Latin America that you would like Alborada to publish, please contact us via email: info[at]alborada.net


text:
If the pass-through that you reference is actually "redirection", then
yes I have it working. I redirect pptp connection to an internal
windows 2000 server. External clients point their pptp connection to
the m0n0wall wan interface, which gets redirected to the internal
- v1.11 generic pc image
- under VPN \ PPTP \ Configuration menu link
Changed radio button focus to "redirect incoming pptp connections to:
- PPTP Redirection textbox [enter pptp server ip]
- The default image supports 16 pptp connections. I beleive there is a
hack available for up to 50 connections.
Have you checked the system logs to see what error messages are occuring?
- Don
On 5/3/05, Nantel Mathieu <mnantel at microserv dot ca> wrote:
> Good day,
> Hopefully this has not been answered before (it does not figure on the FAQ afaik).
> We have a cable connection which is hooked up to a Netgear wireless router. The Netgear has been
spontaneously crashing for the past month in quite a random manner, and thus we replaced it with a
Linux router box.
> One of the main requirements of the router box is to be able to let outgoing PPTP connection pass
through (offer some kind of connection tracking for those).
> I initially tried installing devil-linux (linux+iptables) which would let some users connect using
PPTP, once in a while, and deny others in a very erratic. It felt like you had to let the firewall
idle for 30 seconds between a PPTP disconnection and reconnection. And it just didn't work for some
of the users.
> I then thought about trying an entirely different package (BSD). So we setup m0n0wall on the box,
which works beautifully BTW. However, I got the same sporadic PPTP connectivity. PPTP works
flawlessly with the Netgear box.
> Iptables does seem to implementent PPTP connection tracking, however it appears to be still "beta"
at this time.
> Has anyone got this to work with m0n0wall? A non-linux-guru is going to manage this device, and
the GUI is perfect for this so I would love keep it if it will work.
> Mathieu Nantel
> Spécialiste Systèmes - Réseautique & Sécurité
> Systems Specialist - Networking & Security
> -----------------------------
> Microserv.ca
> tel:(514) 636-6467 x395
> Fax : (514) 636-9547
> 950 Chemin Herron
> Dorval (Quebec)
> Avis de confidentialité :
> L'information contenue dans ce message électronique ainsi que dans les fichiers qui peuvent y être
attachés est de nature confidentielle et destinée à l'usage exclusif du destinataire. Si ce message
vous est parvenu par erreur ou que vous n'êtes pas le destinataire visé, vous êtes par la présente
avisé que tout usage, copie ou distribution de l'information contenue dans ce message est
strictement interdit et vous êtes prié d'en aviser l'expéditeur et de détruire ce message.
> Confidentiality Notice :
> This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of
the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error please
notify the system manager. This message contains confidential information and is intended only for
the individual named. If you are not the named addressee you should not disseminate, distribute or
copy this e-mail.
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: m0n0wall dash unsubscribe at lists dot m0n0 dot ch
> For additional commands, e-mail: m0n0wall dash help at lists dot m0n0 dot ch


text:
Another post on John Mashey's virtual blog. Everything that follows is from comments posted here by Mashey, lightly edited.
This long essay grew from a dialog in this thread into something that may be a more general resource than just some answers to Mr Manny.
There are 3 parts so far:
Part 1 Motivation & Approach to Science
Part 2 Relevant Personal Background
Part 3 Answers to Questions, Sources
Part 1 Motivation & Approach to Science
1.1 Why This?
I'm always curious when people with decent-or-better educational backgrounds strongly espouse conclusions directly opposite that of mainstream science. Is the mainstream wrong? Have they not yet done sufficient study? Or are there extra-science reasons?
Walter Manny teaches Calculus & English (since 1996) at Millbrook School, which seems a nice preparatory school in a lovely rural area ~90 miles North of New York City.
As I owe much to fine high school teachers, especially of math, science, and history, I was curious that a Yale-educated teacher at a credible school, would take such a strong position as Mr. Manny does, including evident contempt for serious climate scientists. Hence, I asked the usual sorts of questions.
Mr Manny answered my set of questions, mostly, and asked for my answers, which appear in Part 3. This part gives necessary general background, and my relevant background appears in Part 2.
1.2 Ideas, Hypotheses, Theories in Science
To paraphrase Stanford Professor Stephen Schneider, in any scientific discipline, ideas can be roughly categorized as:
(S3) Some things are well-established – strong proof is required to overturn [strong theory]
(S2) Some things (especially measured effects) have competing explanations. [hypotheses]
(S1) Some things are speculation. [ideas]
S3 includes:
(a) simple statements
(b) statements about probability distributions of some measured or projected quantity, often expressed with confidence intervals. Many people are far more comfortable with single numbers than distributions, and are not accustomed to error bars on measurements.
Sometimes, S2 hypotheses gain strength because new measurements shrink confidence intervals small enough that competing hypotheses can be ruled out.
Example: (a) cigarette smoking increases the risk of disease, now sufficiently understood in the US that few adults start smoking. (b) Numerous studies provide statistical measures of the likelihood of developing various diseases. Of course, controlled lab experiments on humans are not feasible.
Example: (a) CO2 is a greenhouse gas and the recent increase in CO2 is substantially due to human activities, (b) The temperature sensitivity to doubling CO2 (from 280ppm to 560ppm) is believed to be in range ~1.5C to ~4.5C, not exactly 3C.
While some technical disciplines allow/require exact yes/no answers, this is rare among complex observational disciplines for which simple lab experiments or mathematical proofs do not exist. Natural scientists in particular require substantial ambiguity tolerance.
People new to a specific topic are often confused by fierce arguments on S2 or S1 and think they are about S3, especially if just reading abstracts of research papers. Benny Peiser and KM Schulte both displayed especially severe cases of this error in attacking Naomi Oreskes' 2004 essay in Science.
It is important for a newcomer to read, not just the current mainstream view, but enough history to understand its development, and understand where a given idea fits and how long it has been there.
If one studies science histories, one can find obvious progressions, which might be roughly categorized as follows, and based only on peer-reviewed science, since nothing else counts for much:
Case 1 S1 -> nowhere
Case 2 S1 -> S2, but refuted fairly quickly, via errors, new data
Case 3 S1 -> S2…, but competing explanations persist, long battles
Case 4 S1 -> S2 -> S3 wins over competing explanations
Case 1: someone publishes something that is not very interesting, seems to have no way to be falsified, or turns out to have serious errors.
Peer-review only says "We didn't find obvious errors in a quick review and this might be worth reading".
Passing peer-review does not prove correctness or importance. Not being able to get papers through peer-review should be a major red flag for the reader.
Scientists with new major results do not just write OpEds or web pages, or publish them in Energy&Environment or Journal for Scientific Exploration. They send their results to Science, Nature, or other credible journals.
Case 2: an interesting new idea appears and gets attention, but then fairly quickly (within a few years) gets refuted, or claims of strong effects get weakened.
Example: Richard Lindzen's "Iris" hypothesis attracted interest, but did not gain widespread scientific support, as substantial conflicting evidence existed. There may still be some interest, but this paper did not suddenly invalidate AGW as some wanted to think.
Case 3: multiple hypotheses arise and persist for some time, gathering support, being modified, sometimes combining, or failing to accumulate evidence. An issue can stay open decades, and then quickly be resolved if the right new data or explanation appears.
Example:Geologists argued fiercely for many decades over Alfred Wegener's hypothesis of continental drift, but when enough new kinds of data appeared following World War II, most geologists quickly accepted it.
Case 4: some hypothesis has gained additional supporting data from multiple research efforts, and is accepted as a strong theory. This may well take decades, and there is often a continuous transition from hypothesis to well-supported theory, not a sudden jump, although the latter occasionally happens. Any theory is just an approximation to reality, and a good new theory must explain everything a previous good theory did, plus be a better approximation.
Example: it took many years to accumulate data that showed the health effects of tobacco. Some chemicals in cigarette smoke are known to be carcinogens without knowing the exact biochemical processes that cause them to be so.
Example: Newton's laws of motion work pretty well on Earth, well enough to launch satellites. Einstein's work better, and are needed for GPS satellites. Relativity is often revered, not just because it explained existing awkward data, but because it made many correct predictions of effects that were not yet observable.
Example: the idea that H. Pylori bacteria caused some peptic ulcers went from an odd idea to being well-accepted in few years, and of course, Warren and Marshall got a Nobel for their work. Important wacko ideas that turn out to be true are big wins.
The publication cycle of the most credible peer-reviewed journals is long enough that a non-expert should be prepared to be wary of any paper only 1-2 years old, especially if it has novel implications counter to mainstream established science. It normally takes at least several years to reach Case 3, and many more for Case 4.
Some people fasten on any new paper without understanding this, and in some cases, persist for years in referencing papers that have long since been refuted.
Sometimes, a good, or even great, scientist will become fixated on some idea, and will fight on in its behalf … forever. Most scientists change their minds when the balance of evidence becomes clear, but some do not.
Example: Sir Fred Hoyle was a great astrophysicist, but fought for the "steady-state universe" long after overpowering evidence had accumulated for the Big Bang. Halton Arp has done fine observational astronomy, but also has not accepted the Big Bang.
Example: Sir Ronald Fisher was a great statistician, but never accepted the statistical evidence for the smoking-cancer connection.
Current example of real science one can watch happening: my favorite example of scientific process in visible action can be found in William Ruddiman's "Plows, Plagues, and Petroleum" plus surrounding papers, arguments, counter-arguments, modifications, to-and-fro-ing. Bill offers several somewhat surprising hypotheses (early CO2, early CH4, and more recent plague effects on CO2), with enough evidence from a highly-regarded researcher to make it to S2, but not yet (and maybe never) part of S3.
Unlike many arguments, this set is actually understandable to non-experts (like me), and one can actually watch science in progress. These hypotheses may linger with insufficient evidence to confirm or deny (Case 3), may get refuted later, or may turn out to be brilliant multidisciplinary theories accepted as the best explanations for otherwise puzzling data.
1.3 Metaphor: The Great Wall of Science
Think of progress in a scientific discipline as building a large structure, like the Great Wall of China (well, Olympics has been on :-), with multiple segments (sub-disciplines) each building upwards, but also trying to connect to form one consistent, connected whole. The Wall is so big that no one can see the whole thing. Quite often really exciting work happens in the gaps between well-established segments. Following are examples of the various Cases.
Case 1: Someone places a brick (S1), but no one else cares, so it never connects with the Wall.
Case 2: Someone else quickly appears and kicks the brick away (Case 2).
Case 3: The brick looks OK, and others start working with it, perhaps moving it around, or placing more bricks and mortar atop it (S2). Perhaps other groups do the same thing with competing alternative segments of the Wall.
Case 4: Sooner or later, some segment acquires enough bricks, and mortar, and even steel rebars, at which point it is enough stronger than the alternates, that the latter are abandoned.
A new brick anywhere is not yet mortared in, and probably takes a few years, even if it's atop the existing wall, i.e., a refinement of the mainstream. If a new brick is a bit wobbly, that doesn't mean the Wall collapses. Nobody cares very much about a brick until it has been tested, and mortared with others. In particular, a tall stack of bricks erected by one worker alone, with no connections, may carry very little interest, and falls over easily. Important papers in science get cited positively by other people, not just by the authors and colleagues, and not just to refute.
Measurement errors happen. ARGO buoys or weather balloons are found to have calibration problems. After years of use, computer programs for satellite temperature calculations are found to have simple sign errors. That's life.
A new brick placed far away from the Wall has to be very compelling to pull efforts in that direction (H. pylori and peptic ulcers). Scientists are strongly motivated to establish such new directions, not just add another brick to the Wall, as it's a good way to get a Nobel, as happened in that case.
Sometimes a well-established part of a Wall runs into a height limit, and needs a whole new level, i.e., Newton -> Einstein. The lower level is fine as far as I goes, but the second level is a better approximation. People have many hypotheses for the next level, but there is as yet no agreement.
For some people, usually not those directly involved in Wall-building, the appearance of a single brick anywhere else is enough to declare its collapse. Some may cite collections of old discarded bricks, cherry-pick specific bricks, or ignore inconvenient recent bricks, mortar and even steel, and claim the whole Wall is down. People routinely claim to have disproved long-established major laws of physics, which might be considered steel-reinforced concrete (like laws of Thermodynamics), and others then publicize such claims as proof of collapse.
It is very rare for long-established, rebarred Wall segments to be torn down or even reworked in major ways. When it does happen, it is almost always done by people experienced in the field, not by amateurs. Long-established AGW Walls are not demolished in a few months of part-time effort by 15-year-old students without much knowledge of physics and statistics. It is sad but true that most scientific breakthroughs are not generated by unknown lone scientists working alone in their basements.
It is easy for a non-expert, starting with the wrong book, website, or blog, to become convinced that AGW is all wrong, especially with a snapshot at one point in time, and especially if they get pulled into a self-reinforcing group that knows this.
(Ruddiman calls this an amazing "alternate universe" in which "most of the basic findings of mainstream science are rejected or ignored.")
It takes time for a non-expert to assess authors. If someone claims the Wall is wrong, but relies mostly on workers who contributed little, or cites long-discarded bricks, or changes their reasons every few years, then one can assume they are doing anti-science. It is well worth going back 5-20 years and seeing how people did or did not change their views. It is worth checking the publication records of those referenced. One must be especially careful when an expert builder on one segment retires, and then suddenly starts opining on a completely different segment in directions totally opposite the current workers there.
Real scientists would describe the Wall by how well-established each element was. If a non-expert backtracks what good scientists say, they'll find that wrong ideas get discarded, good ones progress and gain support, and understanding improves.
The IPCC is especially explicit about its confidence levels.
1.4 Extraordinary and Non-extraordinary Claims
Extraordinary Claims
Carl Sagan was known for saying "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence", although this was more likely occasioned by his thoughts about parapsychology and other "interesting" ideas. I've read plenty of these for fun, and because every once in a while, something crazy turns out to be a better approximation … but hardly ever.
Non-extraordinary Position On AGW
I subscribe to the mainstream science position that global warming is real, is substantially caused by humans, and will very likely cause serious problems under Business-As-Usual (BAU) assumptions.
Clouds, ocean heat exchange, and aerosols, especially contribute uncertainty, but I believe the IPCC's uncertainty bounds are reasonable, and I know smart people are working hard to tighten the bounds. Like many, I do worry about inherently-conservative IPCC forecasts in the presence of potentially non-linear effects/tipping points and I think there is easily enough evidence to require action. (I say "inherently" given the nature of the IPCC process, as discussed with a useful number of IPCC authors.)
Any non-expert (like me) could arrive at that same non-extraordinary position in two different ways:
(a) Default Acceptance of Mainstream
One either doesn't know enough physics/math/statistics, or doesn't want to spend the time to study AGW deeply, so one assumes the professional mainstream opinion is the best approximation of reality available.
Modern science is so huge that nobody can know everything, even in a specific discipline, so (a) is what most people have to do most of the time on most topics. One would find a few credible sources, understand the position, perhaps talk to a few experts, and that would be sufficient. [In Part 3, see Peter Darbee for an example of a smart non-technical person's approach.]
(b) Deeper Inspection by Interested (Classical) Skeptic
One conditionally assumes the mainstream, but really wants to study the topic to be sure, to be able to discuss the topic intelligently, and to give the objections every reasonable chance.
One generates a list of concerns about the mainstream position, studies each one in depth, and see whether the list grows or shrinks. Scientists think about preponderance of evidence, and are usually alert to contradictory data that might be right, since when found, such often lead to advances. Quite often, contradictory data turns out to be erroneous, or when fixed, is well within the plausible range.
This requires studying a selection of those disagreeing with the mainstream, and carefully assessing what they say, and giving them every possible chance to prove their cases.
However, it also requires some familiarity with well-established non-science methods of attacking science, and ability to assess credibility of sources' biases in any direction, possibly from ideology or economics,
One might go even further into studying anti-science memes, how they spread, who spreads them, how they work, their psychology and demographics, etc. (For me, this is a continuation of a long interest in science vs non-science issues.)
(c) Anti-Mainstream Position
Suppose an educated person takes the position:
"Even though I'm no expert, I'm almost certain mainstream scientists are wrong and these others are right."
I'd call that an extraordinary claim, in which case I ask my usual questions to try to understand why someone takes this position. It might be that they know more than the professionals, and thus vastly more than I do, in which case I could learn something new … but, HARDLY EVER.
Since AGW is non-extraordinary mainstream science, I'm not sure it needs a lot of justification…
…but my answers may be useful as an example of the way a person in (b) approaches an area outside their immediate profession, and may record some useful information for others.
Part 2 Relevant Personal Background
Many can skip this, but it may be helpful to understand the starting point and approach.
2.1 Overview
Since "John Mashey" is a very rare, and likely, a unique name, I am trivial to locate: Google: john Mashey hits a Wikipedia entry that also points to a short bio as Computer History Museum Trustee. I'm a "half-retired" computer scientist/ex-corporate executive who consults for venture capitalists and technology companies, advises start ups, does private equity investing, attends lectures and conferences, does community work, travels for fun, skis, bicycles, i.e., what people do here when they want to taper off after years of intense Silicon Valley hard-drive and world business travel.
At DeSmogBlog, as a reply to Viscount Monckton's comment I gave some more background in my Reply, in part as an explanation of the 40-pager I'd written on the Monckton+Schulte vs Oreskes silliness in 2007.
Briefly, I got a BS Mathematics (+ 1 course short of BS Physics as well), then MS & PhD Computer Science, at Penn State, followed by 10 years (1973-1983) at Bell Laboratories as Member of Technical Staff, then Supervisor. Since then, I spent 17 years at Silicon Valley computer companies, mostly as a Director / VP / Chief Scientist. Of course, "computer scientist" is a broad label, and many of us do more engineering than science, although some topics (like computer performance analysis) share more methods with the natural sciences. I've also done troubleshooting / evangelism / competitive analysis / marketing / business-alliance work that is not so easy to categorize.
Google Scholar: JR Mashey will find a few publications, some of which are modestly well-known. Industry folks tend not to write as many papers as do academics. I was busy giving other talks (500+) and sales pitches (1000+).
2.2. [Mashey of Portola Valley … wmanny asked]
It is easy to find that we live in Portola Valley, a quiet small town next to Stanford University on the opposite side from well-known Palo Alto, i.e., PV is an edge of Silicon Valley. PV is an intensely environment-conscious town (even for SF Bay Area) with unusual educational demographics, populated mostly by corporate executives, entrepreneurs, venture capitalists, lawyers, doctors, senior technical people.
Nearby Sand Hill Road is the world's center of venture capital, next to Stanford's SLAC. Many surrounding towns are working hard on plans for reducing carbon footprints or dealing with expected sea-level rise. Plug-in car conferences are popular. Not commonly found in S.V. are "left-wing pinko socialist using AGW as an excuse to destroy American capitalism." (or something like that) 🙂
An easy bike-ride away is Stanford, of course a very strong research university in many relevant disciplines, including climate, environment, energy, economics, computing. Many lectures are open to the public.
2.3. A Few More Relevant Background Items
I grew up on a 100-year-old family farm North of Pittsburgh, PA (i.e., sort of mid-West). Farm kids learn early about taking care of fixed resources, about Liebig's Law of the Minimum, and about not over-interpreting day-to-day weather changes, i.e., we grow up dealing with "noisy time series" and knowing that sometimes averages matter, and sometimes variability matters more.
As an undergraduate, I worked summers as a mathematician/programmer at the US Bureau of Mines in Pittsburgh doing data analysis for coal research, building statistics software, etc. Western Pennsylvania includes Appalachian coal country, relevant to assessing coal industry practices.
Besides undergraduate math & physics (& computer science), I took several psychology courses, including statistics for experiments and some cognitive psychology. This was handy later at Bell Labs, when I built a group that was half cognitive psychologists. It is useful in talking to psychology professor friends about why people believe weird things, anchoring effects, Dunning-Kruger Effect, all-or-none personalities, psychology/sociology of scientific research. Such friends have been very helpful.
In grad school, I did some operations research, stochastic processes, statistics, etc along with computer science.
When I worked there, at its height, Bell Laboratories was ~25,000 people, mostly engineers and scientists. An MS or PhD was required to be a Member of Technical Staff. Besides Nobel prize winners, some of the world's best computer scientists worked there, as did some of the world's finest statisticians, like John Tukey and Joseph Kruskal. The Bell System collected vast amounts of data, and many Bell Labs people used statistical tools to drive major decisions.
Internal review of papers proposed for outside publication was usually tougher than most external peer reviews, and ones with serious statistics tended to be examined by the best, which enforced some discipline.
Such an environment tends to improve the accuracy of one's assessment of one's own abilities, because there is almost always someone around who knows much more or is much smarter, or both. In addition, bold, but ill-informed, statements get slaughtered quickly, so one tends to learn to ask questions.
Wikipedia mentions me as a founder of SPEC, an organization technical computer people started in 1988 to downplay meaningless, counterproductive marketing "mips ratings" in favor more scientific measures, with careful data collection and disclosure. The "microprocessor wars" of the 1980s and 1990s included considerable marketing and anti-marketing efforts, but this helped improve the situation.
While at Silicon Graphics, when not designing chips, software, or supercomputers, I spent 50% of my time talking to customers, who included many senior scientists and engineers, CTOs, sometimes CEOs or senior government people. I visited many universities and research labs around the world, covering many science and engineering disciplines.
I probably helped sell $500M of computers to petroleum geologists. I spent some time with climate modelers, some of whom still use members of an architecture family I helped design long ago. [SGI Origin 3000 / Altix supercomputers]. At this level, one may well spend a day with senior technical people, discussing the problems they are trying to solve, what they know, what they don't know, what they would do with more compute power, etc. To do this, one has to be able to at least talk the domain-specific language somewhat.
- These days, being half-retired, I do things like due diligence for venture capitalists, i.e., they pay me to be able to quickly assess the credibility of a team looking for money, and be skeptical of technology and business plans, and dig in quickly to understand them. Such work has a high level of ambiguity, and decisions must be made without always having clearly right and wrong answers. Of course, such work was internal business-as-usual in all 4 companies that employed me.
2.4 Climate Science Self-Calibration
Just for calibration, I'd rate my climate science expertise as perhaps 2 on a scale of 10, i.e., that of a technical professional with some relevant background who can read primary research, who understands the basics of statistics, physics, math and computing, and could probably keep up with undergraduates studying Earth Systems Science, although my knowledge would be spottier than someone completing a formal B.S. program. I'm probably more experienced at the general issues of skeptical analysis of misinformation.
This is nowhere near close to someone doing a PhD in climate science, much less established professional researchers, and of course, the top professionals are far above that. Ray Ladbury (who certainly knows far more than I on this) often writes of this calibration, as at RealClimate.
So, on to the questions.
Part 3 – Answers to Questions, Sources
Remember, my self-assessment is that I'm about a 2 on a scale of 10, i.e., nowhere close to being a climate science expert. This is just my set of answers, not claimed to be an optimal set that would be recommended by experts. Also, this set is mostly about climate science, not about energy, economics, and policy. That's a mostly separate set of references. First, one has to get the science.
3.1 What sources do you use for learning about AGW? Which do you trust?
Trusted Ones:
IPCC TAR, and then later AR4.
Books/reports by relevant national research bodies, like US National Academies, NRC.
Primary research articles in peer-reviewed journals like Science.
Websites of NASA GISS, NOAA, NCAR, UK Met/Hadley, US NAS, Australia's CSIRO, GFDL, NSIDC, credible scientific organizations, many of which I've had professional contact with. Given Swiss ancestry, I'm also fond of the Swiss Glacier Monitoring Network's website.
Books by real climate scientists [i.e. who publish peer-reviewed research, preferably current]
Lectures by climate scientists, other senior scientists & discussions with them. Direct exposure really helps, but of course, is only routinely possible in some places. BUT if you get any chance at all to see such people talk, it's worth it, especially for people who have long experience in quickly evaluating people's credibility by seeing how they speak and answer questions.
Blogs (primarily to keep up with current events, sometimes to learn; resources are way better than in 2001-2002, but of course, Blogs should never be primary places to learn science. Good ones help.).
RealClimate (clearly #1, since each starts with an article from a real climate scientist, and they actually answer reasonable questions, and have more patience than I would.)
Open Mind (for great data analysis and statistics tutorials)
Rabett Run, Deltoid, Atmoz and others often carry useful analyses of science an anti-science, and there are more.
Skeptical Science is a very useful resource. It lists commonly-repeated, long-refuted arguments on one page, explains each one accessibly for non-experts, but (crucially) cites peer-reviewed research.
Others, Websites (and later) Blogs
In 2001, 2002, or when a new one appears, these were/are used in the mode "What do they say? Are there any reasonable concerns that should be added to my list?"
(Deceased) Tasmanian John Daly's Waiting for Greenhouse was my favorite website in this category – he at least had panache and nice pictures, and was indefatigable. I learned a lot about AGW cherry-picking from studying his work and pawing through many surface station records off and on for a a year or so.
These days, I look in on such sites only occasionally, because I came to believe they weren't doing science. However, anyone new to this should take a look and do their own calibration, after they're seen the real science.
SPPI, ClimateAudit, Watts, IceCap, ponderthemaunder, JenniferMarohasy, SEPP, EPW & Marc Morano, many others once or twice. Somewhere I have a list of ~60 that took ponderthemaunder seriously, before I gave up looking at them.
It is actually useful to read such, but without substantial exposure to real science, one can fall into an "alternate universe" that has very different physics [as per Bill Ruddiman]. Some people's primary experience is such blogs, although it is difficult to get many to admit that. There appear to be certain ideological / economic / personality properties that encourage and support this, but that's another whole discussion for the future.
At this point, my main interest is to understand the flow of disinformation memes, the players, their motivations, and calibration of credibility (or incredibility) levels. I dig into specific cases as they come up, some of which I'll mention later.
a) Do you attend lectures by real climate scientists?
Typically several times a month at Stanford, sometimes elsewhere, at Bay Area government meetings, local town meetings, etc.
b) Do you have (or have had) personal contact & discussion of this topic with {top-notch real scientists}?
Yes, frequently on this topic, and many times on many topics over decades.
Here's a sample. See their biographies to understand what top-notch people are like, ranging from good researchers to long-established people at the top of the profession.
Needless to say, I'm very far below this league, but am lucky to talk to such people regularly and even ask a non-dumb question now and then. Of course, I subscribe to the ordinary mainstream position because I've studied the science to my satisfaction, not just because a few experts say so, i.e., the following is not an "argument to authority", it's a simply self-calibration.
People can write anything they want on blogs, especially anonymously.
It is a different experience to sit with a small group of neighbors 5 feet from a Nobel physicist who gives a clear, compelling talk about AGW, and then straightforwardly, easily answers every "What about this?" question from the audience and sometimes identifies disinformation by its origin from specific people he knows personally.
People who are really, really sure … are stunned to suddenly realize they might have been sure of the wrong thing, and their expressions show it.
Here are a few of the people that have especially impressed me, who I've heard speak, seen answer questions, and (mostly) been able to speak with. They all subscribe to the mainstream science position.
- Professor Stephen Schneider, Stanford, NAS (member National Academy of Sciences).
I've heard him talk a handful of times, was lucky to be the "discussant" for one of his seminars. (I'd just read Lomborg's TSE and was still working through it, so I was supposed to be the "skeptic.") I learn something every time, as he's an excellent communicator as well as a strong multidisciplinary scientist. He is widely misquoted by certain people.
Professor Burton Richter, Stanford, Nobel Physicist, NAS, past president of APS
He gave a short version of this talk, Gambling with the Future at a little local town meeting. The abstract of that talk says: "We are already in a regime that has no precedent in the last 400,000 years, and these consequences are almost certainly bad if greenhouse gas concentrations increase unabated." His remarks were firmer.
UCSD Professor Naomi Oreskes is a geoscientist/science historian, recently promoted July 2008 to Provost of the Sixth School at UCSD.
I've read one of her books, reviewed a few chapters of her forthcoming book, talked to her a few times, exchange email now and then. I've attended two of her talks, both of which had NAS members there:
The American Denial of Global Warming and
You can argue with the facts.
The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change: How Do We Know We're Not Wrong? is well worth reading, especially the general discussion of scientific processes.
The next three gave climate talks at a several-day Imperial College, London alumni conference last year in Cambridge. IC is the "MIT" of the UK, and we've attended many IC events with their faculty over the years.
Professor Sir Peter Knight, Physicist, Fellow of the Royal Society (UK), Principal of Natural Science at Imperial College London.
Professor Joanna Haigh of Atmospheric Physics at IC, a Lead Author on IPCC TAR.
Professor Ronald Prinn, MIT Atmospheric Science, a Lead Author on IPCC AR4. He heads the MIT Center for Global Change Science, which includes Richard Lindzen. I was especially glad to finally hear him, as he moderated a famous debate between Stephen Schneider and Richard Lindzen in 1990, and about 10 years ago, he thought the scientific evidence on AGW was still "equivocal". MIT World references a video akin to the talk I heard. He describes changing his mind, as he is certainly no longer equivocal. I recommend his video especially for his discussions on uncertainty.
Lord Ron Oxburgh, geoscientist, ex-Rector (head) of Imperial College, ex-Chairman of Shell. He is also a cross-bencher in the House of Lords. He's an old friend from many meetings, and as Shell Chairman said he's worried about climate and the planet.
Dr Bert Metz, Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency, co-chair IPCC WG III for TAR & AR4. I've heard him talk, talked to him some, exchanged some email.
Professor Mark Z. Jacobson, Stanford Civil & Environmental Engineering. I've attended several of his seminars. He is very good researcher & modeler, testifies to Congress. His website has many interesting publications.
Professor Rob Dunbar, Professor-Geological and Environmental Sciences, Director-Earth Systems Program, Stanford.
Dr Dan Cayan, UCSD, Scripps, USGS. I heard him give this talk at a good local government conference on sea-level rise.
Dr. Bruce Molnia, glaciologist at USGS, studies Alaskan glaciers, as they (mostly) retreat. He gave a nice talk at the Menlo Park USGS, with great before-and-now pictures like this.
I've heard more talks by IPCC authors and other climate scientists, but I lose track, especially with panel sessions, and of course, have had occasional email conversations with others. Of course, during my years at SGI, I've spoken to/with many other climate scientists, as described in Part 2.
Following are a few more, who are not geoscientists/climate scientists, but top-notch people who are certainly smarter than I, have looked at climate science, can of course talk to top climate scientists as they wish.
- Dr Arno Penzias, Nobel Physicist, used to run Bell Labs Research division.
We have lunch/dinner now and then, and he's no climate scientist, but he's certainly looked at the topic, and works on investments in energy technology at a big venture capital firm.
Dr John Hennessy, President of Stanford, NAS. John is an old colleague and friend of 20+ years, and has definite ideas about the importance of dealing with climate change, for example here, which certainly reflects one-to-one conversations.
Peter Darbee, CEO of Pacific Gas and Electric (very large utility in Central/Northern California).
This describes the way a nontechnical, but smart, person learns climate issues.
There are of course, many well-educated people around Silicon Valley who are working on climate and energy issues.
All these people could be wrong, but personally, I'd have to be a lot smarter and more knowledgable about climate science to tell them so, even if that';s what I thought.
Someone who takes the extraordinary position (mainstream is wrong) must be prepared to say to themselves:
"I'm right and they're wrong. I know more than these people do about climate science, or I'm smarter, or they're all in a conspiracy, or they're getting paid to lie, or something, because I'm sure they are all wrong, not I."
That's a different position than (legitimately) saying "I don't know much, not yet enough to know", but some say "I'm not sure" after years of reading blogs, which probably means something else. The people above who aren't climate scientists spent much less time to reach their conclusions.
c) Are you a member of any relevant scientific societies?
AAAS (American Association for the Advancement of Science)
I joined AGU for a while to track down articles, including MBH98/99 to better understand the "hockey-stick wars."
[ACM; IEEE CS – occasionally relevant for computational science issues.]
e) Do you read any primary research literature in the field?
AAAS's Science every week, and it often carries relevant articles.
I usually average 1-2/month from other sources, i.e., typically published papers on author's websites. I sometimes get preprints from authors. Right now, emphasis is on energy & economics, so not reading the pure climate science papers quite so often.
f) Have you read any books on this?
Yes. Following are some classifications, a reader's guide, and then an alphabetized list of some of those I own, with comments and some editorial opinions.
A On critical thinking, classical skepticism, weird ideas, self-defense against disinformation
B Popular-oriented books
C General books on climate by scientists
D Serious textbooks on climate science by climate scientists, which tend to be more technical, and sometimes are similar to E or to peer-reviewed papers.
E Major compendiums by official teams, IPCC, NAS, i.e., secondary compilations based on primary research generally found in peer-reviewed publications.
F Climate+politics, or science+politics, or structure of science, or other
Z Disinformation, or silly theories believed passionately, or careless exaggeration. Most of these started in some other category, but then I decided had too much distortion to stay there.
Note: this list generally avoids books whose main emphasis is intersection of climate, energy, economics, policies, solutions, i.e., where there is far more room for real argument.
Reader's Guide
Critical Thinking:
For general defense against disinformation of various sorts: BES2001, CAP1987, HUF1954, JON1995, KUR2001, MON1991, PAU1998, TUF1983.
Scientists can believe strange things and stick with them: ARP1998, EHR2001, EHR2003
Many people can believe really strange things FRA1986, GAR1981, GAR2000, PLA2002, RAN1986, SCH1994, some of which the originators believe, and some of which are hoaxes. Some retain belief even after the hoaxers show them how they did it.
Starting from Scratch on Climate Science (B & C)
If I had to pick one book to read, it would be RUD2005.
Useful popular books are GOR2006, MAN2008, REV2006. Normally, I wouldn't recommend a politician's description of climate science, but in this case, it's a well-presented, mostly-accurate equivalent of talks by many climate scientists. MAN2008 is a nice recent addition.
One might go on to GRA1997.
At some point, one should learn more of the history of this topic, via WEA2003, or through the first half of Naomi Oreskes's video "The American Denial of Global Warming." mentioned above. Many key basics of climate science are actually quite old.
Learning More (D & E)
Start reading more technical materials, such as HOU1997, HAR2000, MAC2003, KRA2003.
Then, it may be worth looking at US National Research Council reports and similar work, like {USGC2000, USNRC2000, USNRC2001.
An of course, sooner or later, if one is serious, one has to look at the latest IPCC reports {IPCC2007}, which can be found online – read the SPM, the TS, and then sample the full technical reports. Of course, by then, one might be reading primary research articles, at least occasionally.
Category E entries are especially authoritative and useful, as serious scientists evaluate and summarize current knowledge. Of course, they also get out of date, and in the IPCC's case, there is always a cutoff date for inclusion, which means the latest research is not there. As noted in Part 1, sometimes research that is 1-2 years' old may not survive challenge, so this is probably OK. The NRC reports tend to be much shorter and more topical.
Understanding Politics and Anti-Science (F)
Organized anti-science in the US grew up around tobacco, for which BRA2007 is an excellent and illuminating history. Most anti-science campaigns since have used similar tactics, some of which are described in MOO2005, MIC2008, WAG2006
It is common to ascribe anti-AGW funding to Big Oil, but IMHO, I think it is more due to Big Coal GOO2006 and family foundations whose fortunes were built at least in part on fossil fuels. I grew up near coal country and worked for the US agency whose job in part was regulating them. As a group, coal companies, at least in Appalachia, make oil companies look like the most enlightened and environmentally-conscious on the planet, although of course there is substantial individual variability. We'll burn all the oil we can, and natural gas is way better on CO2 than coal, which makes the gas folks happy. Coal folks know that CO2 restrictions are not good for their business, and some have funded extensive disinformation efforts.
Of course, most people who have strong anti-AGW beliefs have reasons for doing so other than getting paid.
For a detailed analysis of the tactics of anti-AGW non-science motivated by ideology or economics, a great source will be Naomi Oreskes' forthcoming book, but until then, start with the last 30 minutes from each of her two talks mentioned earlier.
For discussion of progressions in real science and real controversies, see KUH1996, ORE1999.
For an example of a scientist committed to an idea, see SVE2007, ARP1998, of which SVE2007 is often cited by others to deny AGW. It is difficult to know for sure, but occasionally scientists build a theory in an area of expertise, attempt to extend it far beyond as an explanation for many effects, and hold to it no matter what.
I consider "X, therefore not AGW" different from disinformation of the form "anything but AGW."
Disinformation (Z)
I originally placed some books in other categories, but came to believe they were (sometimes clever) disinformation (i.e., Z).
SIN1999, SIN2007 are Fred Singer's books. I picked up the first one very early, as Singer seemed to have a reasonable background, and at that point, "satellites != ground" was a legitimate concern, as seen in USNRC2000. My first thought was that Singer was just defending satellites, given his experience with them. In some cases, scientists defend "their" data no less fiercely than mother cats their kittens. I learned more later.
It is well worth comparing the two books, especially in light of the additional evidence that's accumulated in between. Of course, by the time I read SIN2007, I was much more familiar with Singer's actions, so was not surprised.
SIN1999 says GW isn't happening at all, but if it were, it would be good, and there should be no CO2 restrictions. SIN2007 says GW happens naturally every 1500 years, and there should be no CO2 restrictions.
At some point, I may do an additional Part that tracks through a comparison of these two, especially with regard to satellites.
ESS2002 is a book by Essex and McKitrick. At some point, I may do an additional Part that analyzes the McIntyre/McKitrick/Mann kerfuffle, using this book as context, and consider ideas why continuing this forever is attractive to some people, despite Wegman saying it was time to move on, years ago. For now, it is probably enough to review MOO2005 and understand the US Data Quality Act.
See SIM1996, LOM2001, LOM2007 for Bjorn Lomborg, but as discussed elsewhere, one really should read Julian Simon and the surrounding history for context. I originally gave Lomborg's TSE a "read it, carefully" rating in Amazon, before I'd had to time to really dig around, and before I'd gone back and reread Simon. I've written some pieces on this elsewhere recently, but maybe will pull them together later. Lomborg is probably has the cleverest anti-AGW tactics around.
Partial Book List (Should have Energy & Economy, but not yet)
[ARP1998] Halton Arp, Seeing Red – Redshifts, Cosmology, and Academic Science, 1998 (A). Arp is a fine observational astronomer, but doesn't believe in Big Bang or usual interpretation of red-shift.
[BER2000] John J. Berger, Beating the Heat, 2000. Arctic penguins – ugh; heart may be in right place, but counterproductive, IMHO. Alarmist! (B -> Z)
[BES2001] Joel Best, Damned Lies and Statistics – Untangling numbers from the media, politicians, and activists, 2001 (A).
[BRA2007] Allan M. Brandt, The Cigarette Century, 2007 (F). Oddly relevant, as the cigarette wars laid the foundation of anti-science tactics in the US, copied into acid rain, CFC, global warming and many other fights to suppress inconvenient science.
[CAP1987] Nicholas Capaldi, The Art of Deception, 1987 (C).
[DES2006] Andrew E. Dessler, Edward A. Parson, The Science and Politics of Global Climate Change, 2006 (F).
[EHR2001] Robert Ehrlich, Nine Crazy Ideas in Science- A few might even be true, 2001 (A). Physicist offers advice in evaluating crazy-sounding ideas; pp 5-10 is nice summary of evaluation criteria.
[EHR2003] Robert Ehrlich, 8 Preposterous Propositions, 2003 (A).
[ESS2002] Christopher Essex, Ross McKitrick, Taken by Storm – The troubled science, policy and politics of global warming, 2002 (F -> Z).
[FAG1999] Brian Fagan, Floods, Famines, and Emperors, 1999 (C). Fagan is an anthropologist, and writes readable books that sometimes show the climate effects on various civilizations.
[FAG2000] Brian Fagan, The Little Ice Age, 2000 (C).
[FAG2004] Brian Fagan, The Long Summer, 2004 (C).
[FRA1986] Kendrick Frazier, Ed, Science Confronts the Paranormal, 1986 (A).
[GAR1981] Martin Gardner, Science Good, Bad and Bogus, 1981 (A).
[GAR2000] Martin Gardner, Did Adam and Eve Have Navels – debunking pseudoscience, 2000 (A).
[GOO2006] Jeff Goodell, Big Coal, 2006 (F). Many blame Big Oil for funding all disinformation; look closer at Big Coal.
[GOR2006] Al Gore, An Inconvenient Truth, 2006 (B). I didn't learn any new science when I saw this, but since it essentially agreed with what real scientists said, with a few minor caveats, I appreciated the presentation.
[GRA1997] Thomas E. Graedel, Paul J. Crutzen, Atmosphere, Climate, and Change, 1997 (C). Readable, well-illustrated text by two heavyweights.
[HAR2000] L. D. Danny Harvey, Global Warming – The Hard Science, 2000 (D).
[HOU1997] John Houghton, Global Warming – The Complete Briefing, 2nd Ed 1997 (D).
[HUF1954] Darrell Huff, How to Lie with Statistics, 1954 (A). Classic, indispensable, cheap.
[IPCC2001] IPCC Climate Change 2001, (TAR- 3 volumes + Emissions Scenarios) (E).
[IPCC2007] IPCC Climate Change 2007 (AR4 – 3 volumes) (E).
[JON1995] Gerald Everett Jones, How to Lie with Charts, 1995 (A).
[KRA2003] Konrad B. Krauskopf, Dennis K. Bird, Introduction to Geochemisty, 3rd Ed 2003 (D).
[KUH1996] Thomas S. Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, 1996 (F).
[KUR2001] Paul Kurtz, ed, Skeptical Odysseys, 2001 (A).
[LOM2001] Bjorn Lomborg, The Skeptical Environmentalist, 2001 (F -> Z). Read SIM1996 first.
[LOM2007] Bjorn Lomborg, Cool It! (US edition), 2007 (F -> Z).
[LOM2007b] Bjorn Lomborg, Cool It! (Longer UK Edition), 2007 (F -> Z).
[MAC2003] Mackay, Battarbee, Birks, Oldfield, ed, Global Change in the Holocene, 2003 (D). Collection of many articles.
[MAN2008] Michael E. Mann, Lee R. Kump, Dire Predictions – Understanding Global Warming, 2008 (B/C). Very recent, popular-level guide explaining the IPCC findings.
[MIC2008] David Michaels, Doubt is Their Product, 2008 (F).
[MON1991] Mark Monmonier, How to Lie with Maps, 1991 (A).
[MOO2007] Chris Mooney, Storm World, 2007 (F).
[MOO2005] Chris Mooney, The Republican War on Science, 2005 (F). Science got really noticed by politics in WW II, and from then through the George H. W. Bush administration, science was mostly nonpartisan, but unfortunately, some very counterproductive politicization of science has happened since.
[ORE1999] Naomi Oreskes, The Rejection of Continental Drift, 1999 (F). Good history of real, long-running scientific controversy.
[PAU1988] John Allen Paulos, Innumeracy: Mathematical illiteracy and its consequences, 1998 (A).
[PIM2001] Stuart L. Pimm, The world According to Pimm, 2001 (C).
[PLA2002] Phlip Plait, Bad Astronomy, 2002 (A).
[RAN1986] James Randi, Flim-Flam, 1986 (A).
[REV2006] Andrew C. Revkin, The North Pole Was here, 2006 (B). Good general book with great photos.
[ROM2007] Joseph Romm, Hell and High Water, 2007 (F, B). Some climate science, more on energy and policy.
[RUD2005] William F. Ruddiman, Plows, Plagues & Petroleum, 2005 (C). Fine summary of world climate history, hypotheses/theories and science in progress, non-science. Clear and calm writing. From experience, it is fairly accessible to non-technical people new to AGW – I've given away copies to friends, and they have given away more.
[SCH1994] Jim Schnabel, Round in Circles, 1994 (A). People can believe in weird things like alien crop circles, even after "Doug and Dave" explained.
[SCH1989] Stephen Schneider, Global Warming, 1989 (C). Prof. Schneider was very early to articulate concerns.
[SCH1996] Stephen Schneider, Laboratory Earth, 1996 (C).
[SCH2002] Stephen Schneider & Terry Root, ed Wildlife Responses to Climate Change – North American Case Studies, 2002 (D). Some people worry incessantly about whether surface stations are perfect or not. Birds, insects, plants, animals, trees don't read thermometers, but they were already moving poleward, or uphill, if they could.
[SEL2004] Richard C Selley, The Winelands of Britain: Past, Present & Prospective, 2004 (F). Geologist/oenophile traces historical growth and shrinkage of UK wineries over two millennia. Current wineries are North of Medieval Warm Period and heading North quickly. Slightly out of date, a few vineyards are already in Leeds, Selley's projection for 2050. Visit the Loch Ness winery around 2100AD.
[SIM1996] Julian L. Simon, The Ultimate Resource 2, 1996 (F -> Z). Read this before reading Lomborg, and check Simon's affiliations.
[SIN1999] S. Fred Singer, Hot Talk Cold Science – Global warming's unfinished debate, Revised 2nd Ed, 1999 (C -> Z).
[SIN2007] S. Fred Singer, Dennis T. Avery, Unstoppable Global Warming every 1,500 years, 2007 (C -> Z). It is a good exercise to read SIN1999 and SIN2007, see what changes, and what doesn't change, especially in the light of major revisions to satellite and balloon results that happened between.
[STE1999] William K. Stevens, The Change in the Weather, 1999 (F).
[SVE2007] Henrik Svensmark, Nigel Calder, The Chilling Stars, A New Theory of Climate Change, 2007 (C, Z). The theory (cosmic rays) isn't new, the data clearly contradicts it, but is strongly held by Svensmark. Widely quoted by some to claim that CO2 has no effect, it's all cosmic rays.
[TUF1983] Edward Tufte, The Visual Display of Quantitative Information, 1983 (A). Most about doing it right, but Chapter 2 is about doing it wrong, and recognizing such. A truly wonderful and beautiful book, as are Tufte's later three, all of which are worth having for anyone who wants inspiration for good presentation of data.
[USGC2000] US Global Change Research National Assessment Synthesis Team, 2000 (E).
[USNRC1999] US Panel on Climate Observing Systems, Adequacy of Climate Observing Systems, 1999 (E).
[USNRC2000] US NRC, Reconciling Observations of Global Temperature Change, 2000 (E). This is a very good example of real scientists assessing uncertainties when different measurements disagreed. The disagreements mostly got resolved a few years later as major errors were discovered in satellite computations.
[USNRC2000b] US NRC, Issues in the Integration of Research and Operational Satellite Systems for Climate Research, 2000 (E).
[USNRC2001] US NRC, Climate Change Science, 2001 (E).
[USNRC2001b] US NRC, Improving the Effectiveness of U.S. Climate Modeling, 2001 (E).
[WAG2006] Wendy Wagner, Rena Steinzor, ed Rescuing Science from Politics, 2006. (F).
[WAR2007] Peter D. Ward, Under A Green Sky, 2007 (C). Extinctions, or how bad could it get sometime, by serious scientist. Alarming, but not alarmist.
[WEA2003] Spencer Weart, The Discovery of Global Warming, 2003 (C). Invaluable history – read this, or see AIP website.
g) Have you ever participated in peer-review as an author, reviewer, or editor?
A: yes, maybe a dozen times. Some even got accepted.
A&R: Internal reviews at Bell Labs.
R: Program Committee Hot Chips & USENIX & a few other conferences (every few years)
R: A few NSF proposal reviews
E: Guest Editor, IEEE Micro (twice); Program Chair/Co-Chair several times for Hot Chips and USENIX.
This is a modest level of such activity – academics and some industry researchers do much more.
h) Can you say anything about your background in physics and statistics?
Physics: until last term of undergraduate school, was planning to be physicist; skipped last course for computer science class, so just got BS Math, else would have had dual BS.
Subscribed to Scientific American since 1967, and followed physics somewhat since.
Worked summer jobs doing programming and data analysis with geophysicists at US Bureau of Mines.
Have helped design many computers used by physicists; many discussions with physicists at National Research Labs, climate modeling labs, universities, oil companies, etc.
Statistics: some study in high school. Several courses each in undergraduate and grad school. Frequent exposure to practical statistical methods at Bell Labs (home of John Tukey, Joseph Kruskal, etc).
Helped introduce more statistical techniques into industry-standard computer performance analysis, including the relevant section of the industry-standard Hennessy & Patterson computer architecture book. In last few years, gave invited lectures on statistical techniques for performance analysis at Stanford, Princeton, Cambridge, QMUL, U Texas Austin, UC Davis, Intel, SPEC, etc.
Obviously I am neither a physicist nor a statistician, although I have substantial experience in detecting misuses of statistics and graphs, and have studied disinformation tactics.
All this is a sample of things to study, and not necessarily an optimal set, more a subset of the books I have here and a description of my particular experience.
It's enough to understand the basics, and to know that others know much more.


text:
|Casting Cost:
|Card Type:
| ( can be paid with either or .)
At the beginning of your upkeep, put target creature card in a graveyard into play under your control.
Sorry, it looks like your browser doesn't have cookies enabled. Dave & Adam's only uses cookies to keep track of your shopping cart while you browse dacardworld.com. Please enable cookies to further enjoy your shopping experience. If you have cookies enabled, please refresh your browser.


text:
One-On-One with Maude Arsenault of The Print Atelier2012-11-25 8 Share Tweet
Photographer Maude Arsenault understands the longevity and presence of printed photography, which is why her online gallery, The Print Atelier, came to be. We got a chance to speak with Maude in Toronto – Read on to check out what The Print Atelier is all about!
Maude Arsenault has been a photographer her whole life. She has mainly done fashion photography, working for publications such as Vogue, Elle, Nylon and Flare. After having stayed in Sydney and Paris, she is not based in her hometown of Montreal. Maude has also been a collector of art photography herself for about 10 years now.
Being a collector of photography kick-started her project of The Print Atelier. Given that she's also had many ask to buy prints from her, it clicked in her head. Why not put together all these things that she loves, including some artists that she knows, and offer a proposal to buy prints? Hence, The Print Atelier was born. In the beginning she went with her heart, looking for photographers that she admired herself: "Everything in the gallery needs to be something I would personally buy", adding: "I'm the curator!" The whole idea of an online gallery where you can order prints brings back the anticipation of seeing beautiful images printed out on beautiful paper!
For her, one big difference of this project was the business side of things. Working with artists, finding the right people, programming, meeting people, it's all an interesting process. And of course, decisions. Especially on how to present and produce an online gallery. The plus side though did include being able to work for herself: "As a photographer, you always wait for people to tell you how they see things, or want things or when to book you…" For Maude, The Print Atelier allowed her to be much more proactive on her own terms.
As a photographer, Maude has noticed that there is more photography today than ever, but also, as little print as ever. Maude wants to change that. Photography is becoming more democratic as everyone can do it. Photography has become so available, and this is good. A sense of loving photography as emerged and people are more and more interested in collecting and displaying on walls, which is what the Print Atelier builds off of.
When asked if she's familiar with film, Maude answered with enthusiasm: "Yes!" She spent most of her career using film, from medium format to large format. She still uses it today in her personal work and describes that the way she shoots is as if she is shooting with film – no post-production. Do everything as you take the photo. Although she hasn't used a Lomography camera before, she's had much experience with the people around her using Lomography cameras. It's never too late to start, Maude!
written by ashleyaang on 2012-11-25 #people #lifestyle #film #classic #photography #analogue-photography #things #places #prints #print-atelier #online-gallery


text:
How does the Darwinist idea "survival of the fittest" relate to Strindberg's play, Miss Julie?
- print Print
- list Cite
1 Answer
One way in which this play could be related to the Darwinian concept of survival of the fittest is through the play's examination of class and how it looks at two characters who seem to be rather unhappy about where they are placed in the social ladder. The Darwinian concept of the survival of the fittest states that there will be some members of a species who, thanks to their genetic variations, will be more suited to prosper and survive better than others. Applying this to humans led to the theory of Social Darwinism, which allowed people to argue that those who prospered were just better adapted to suit their environment.
The main character to focus on in this play would be Jean, who is greatly dissatisfied with his position as a servant. He has a dream of trying to climb a tree in order to obtain the golden eggs that lie at the top. He desires to become a member of the aristocracy and does everything he can to obtain this goal, speaking with a sophisticated accent and trying to form plans to gain money and social status.
However, both Jean and Julie are forced to realise that they are unable to move social spheres. They are left to dwell in the rung on the social ladder that their birth dictated. Strindberg clearly shows that there is no changing the class you are born into and how that impacts your life. Darwinianism could therefore be related to class, which is a key theme in this play.


text:
Who are we?
Evolution Homecare is one of the largest providers of clinical homecare services in the UK.
Launched in 2008, we take a comprehensive approach to home healthcare that delivers reliable and trusted results.
Our mission is to provide a patient-centred service, so patients are at the very heart of everything we do. We are a founding member of the National Clinical Homecare Association (NCHA), so all of our stakeholders – patients, the NHS and pharmaceutical companies – can be assured that the services we provide meet stringent standards.
What do we do?
We work with more than 100 NHS Trusts and support more than 28,000 patients – delivering medical supplies, support and clinical services in the community and in the comfort of patients' homes.
Combining pharmacy, logistics, technology and medical expertise, we provide a confidential and timely service to patients in 95 per cent of UK postcodes every weekday.
Our Services
The Evolution Homecare service offering includes:
- A dedicated patient services team
- Dispensing of prescriptions, delivery and ancillaries management
- Nurse delivered support for training or administration of medications where necessary
- Integral cold supply chain for medicines that require controlled temperatures whilst in transit.


text: [Federal Register: January 27, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 18)] [Notices] [Page 4593] From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr27ja06-62] ----------------------------------------------------------------------- DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Food and Drug Administration Oncologic Drugs Advisory Committee; Amendment of Notice AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS. ACTION: Notice. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing an amendment to the notice of meeting of the Oncologic Drugs Advisory Committee. This meeting was announced in the Federal Register of January 6, 2006 (71 FR 943). The amendment is being made to reflect a change in the Date and Time portion of the document. The date of this meeting is being changed. There are no other changes. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Johanna Clifford, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (HFD-21), Food and Drug Administration, 5600 Fishers Lane, Rockville, MD 20857, 301 827-7001, FAX: 301-827-6776, e- mail: email@example.com, or the FDA Advisory Committee Information Line, 1-800-741-8138 (301-443-0572 in the Washington DC area), code 3014512542. Please call the information line for up-to-date information on this meeting. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the Federal Register of January 6, 2006, FDA announced that a meeting of the Oncologic Drugs Advisory Committee would be held on March 15, 2006, from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. On page 943, in the 2d column, the Date and Time portion of the document is amended to read as follows: Date and Time: The meeting will be held on March 13, 2006, from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. This notice is issued under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. app. 2) and 21 CFR part 14, relating to advisory committees. Dated: January 17, 2006. Jason Brodsky, Acting Associate Commissioner for External Relations. [FR Doc. E6-1003 Filed 1-26-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4160-01-S


text:
On Mon, Apr 30, 2012 at 11:36 AM, DuChene, StevenX A <firstname.lastname@example.com> wrote:

That is great but what use cases or QA tests are you already covering?

Ā

I am running torque-4.0.1 with maui-3.3.1 as the scheduler and I usually test with some simple MPI tests using openmpi-1.4.4 (what I have installed now). These MPI tests are simple things like hello world programs that run mpi tasks across several nodes and report back with task numbers and hostnames. I have some more complex MPI tests but the simple ones have to work first before I move onto them.

--

Steven DuChene

Steve,Ā

 There are currently a few hundred regression tests, but the bugs you've found have helped us realize that especially in MPI integration our tests aren't very good. Currently our test cases use pbsdsh to exercise the TM interface and verify that it is working. We recognize that this is inadequate and that's part of the reason we're doing this. You'd probably be interested to know that regression tests are being written about the cases that you've reported as part of fixing the bug (this is a prerequisite for any bug to be considered fixed).

The first thing we plan to tackle in this initiative is to get some openmpi regression tests written in addition to just using pbsdsh. Specific scripts you'd like to see tested would be very helpful.

Currently, there are no regression tests written around Maui, and I apologize as I know you did that testing for us. I will try to pull this in to the initiative but I feel I should warn you that I know this will be considered a lower priority than the MPI tests.

David

Ā

Ā

From: firstname.lastname@example.com [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.com] On Behalf Of David Beer
 Sent: Monday, April 30, 2012 9:58 AM
 To: Torque Users Mailing List
 Subject: [torqueusers] Call For Test Cases

Ā

All,

Ā

I don't know how much of this has been announced officially to the community, but for the past several months TORQUE has become more integrated with our company's QA processes. We have had hundreds of new regression tests written for TORQUE and as of 4.0 we have started writing unit tests for TORQUE functions (obviously the unit tests are a work in progress). We're really excited about the fact that TORQUE is getting more QA love from our company and we feel its going to help us produce far more reliable releases.Ā

Ā

However, one problem we face is that sometimes our test cases aren't matching up well with what some of our users are doing, especially when it comes to integrating with different pieces of middleware. We would love to start creating regression tests (or adapting existing ones) to match people's use cases more fully. Obviously, I can't promise that all of the test cases will be written this week, but this is something our company is committed to. We know that improving this will only make all of our lives easier.Ā

Ā

What we're hoping to receive would be detailed use cases that should be tested. Please remember that most of our QA team aren't experts in TORQUE, so the use cases should be explained in as much detail as possible - step by step instructions are excellent. If it requires using a specific library, or a specific MPI, etc., please include how to download these things. Additionally, if you have some test scripts that mirror what your users do in production, I'm sure our QA guys would appreciate it. Please submit these use cases through bugzilla so that we can keep them as organized as possible. We appreciate your help as we try to greatly improve the quality of TORQUE.

Ā

--

David Beer | Software Engineer

Adaptive Computing

Ā

_______________________________________________
 torqueusers mailing list
 firstname.lastname@example.com
 http://www.supercluster.org/mailman/listinfo/torqueusers

--

David Beer | Software Engineer

Adaptive Computing


text:
I'm new here , nice thread!
^ what he said
I don't have any flicks up yet, but I just got my mail and got a mystery pack of stickers in the mail. I'm assuming it's someone here from BS.
The tag is HERB and they enclosed a few custom pre-made vinyl stickers with their tag "HERB" and "KBK".
Pack is totally dope. I'll post flicks, but wanna make sure I'm givin' props to the right dude.
Thanks for the criticism PSYS. It sounds like you liked my pack but I understand that I need to practice if I don't want to be a toy fuck. I hope you liked the arab looking tag, that's what my tag is going to be. Also, I'm starting to think the bombs that I have been putting on those stickers is a bit weak. So I need to figure out how to make it better but keep it looking a bit middle eastern and my own style. I got your pack PSYS it's pretty damn awesome. I don't know if you give a fuck about my advice but what I would say is that your handstyle looks really clean and nice but that there are some empty spots in your characters where the paint marker didn't quite reach. Still though, awesome first pack to receive! So yeah that's the pack I got from PSYS I put my most recent sticker up at the top just for the hell of it. I'm gonna stop drawing the alien on stickers until it's quite a bit better. I also tried to add some shadow and I wrote in arabic on the arrow in my name.
made a few stickers, mostly fucked them up because i wasnt patient
the bridges were to narrow and it got fucked after three stickers, im about to cut another one.
Lies - dope flicks man
Dune- its all about progression. After you know what your doing, you'll see yourself getting better and better every week. I see the stuff I did last month, and I can tell I even better now. Realize what u need to fix And fix it. It's a never endng process
Tryin' 2 get ahead of the trades I've committed to.... still got (4) more envelopes to stuff. ugh.
who wnt wht?
...and here's my ricky bobby x talladega x shout out...
and mystery solved thanks to HIPSTER who sent me this pack. thanks again, man.
much appreciated......


text:
Over at RedBlueChristian I made a comment about there being no empirical evidence that embryonic stem-cell research (ESCR) will ever produce a cure for anything, much less a spinal cord injury. Andrew P. replied that I might be overstating the speculative nature of the field of research. In rebuttal he alluded to a John Hopkins study in which embryonic stem cells were used to aid in the recovery from paralysis in rats and adds.
This isn't a guarantee that this therapy will every work in practice for humans for a given kind of injury or disease. But it certainly is empirical evidence of a (partial) cure, is it not?
Actually, it is not. Not only do such studies not provide empirical evidence for human cures but they rarely even provide empirical evidence for cures in rats. The most that can be said is that the empirical evidence supports the results of the experiment. Attempting to extrapolate from such meager animal studies to producing cures in humans is nothing more than a blind leap of faith.
Before any research using embryonic stem cells can reach the level of "empirical evidence of a (partial) cure" it has to overcome the currently insurmountable problem of tumor formation. As James Sherley, an associate professor of biological engineering at MIT, notes, the question "How soon could human embryonic stem cells be used for cures?" is pre-empted by the question "Could human embryonic stem cells ever be used for cures?":
When the errant biological properties of human embryonic stem cells are considered, it is difficult to foresee them ever being used directly as cures in children or adults. This promise was the earliest misleading misinformation from proponents of human embryo research. Because many factors that guide the normal development of embryonic cells are absent in mature tissues, embryonic stem cells placed in adult tissues produce malformed tissues that are cancerous. So, figuring out how to use human embryonic stem cells directly by transplantation into patients is tantamount to solving the cancer problem.
In other words, embryonic stem cell research will start producing cures as soon as we figure out how to cure cancer. Sherley thinks that "the public largely believes that developing therapies from human embryonic stem cells may be difficult, but not impossible" and that if they if they only "understood that no wonder therapies were likely to come from embryonic stem cells, the discussion would be over, and human embryos would be safer."
Unfortunately, this is not likely to happen. Because the scientific evidence clearly weighed against ESCR, the issue had to be reframed as a political issue: the fundamentalist pro-lifers who choose embryos over sick people versus the progressively minded acolytes of science who wish to pursue research that has great biomedical "potential."
This misuse of "potential" has reached the level of Orwellian doublespeak. Imagine if in the 1960's scientists at NASA had advocated spending less money on Saturn V rockets in order to use the funds for the an anti-gravity device because it held more "potential." A similar absurdity is occurring now where adult stem cells—which are being used for treatment of diseases– are considered to have less "potential" than ESCs which have never advanced to the human testing stage – and likely never will.
Empirical evidence against ESCR is all but ignored in favor of the hype and faith-based speculation over its miraculous potential. Just today I watched political campaign ads that trumpeted how the candidate would spend millions of taxpayer dollars on ESCR while in the Washington Post an article noted that "Scientists have long feared that human embryonic stem cells could turn into tumors, because of their pliability." Contrary to Lincoln's claim, as long as people choose to be willfully ignorant, you can fool most all of the people all of the time.


text:
ASTORIA — Authorities said four men were injured early Sunday when a car careened through a brawl outside an Astoria nightclub, the New York Post reported.
Cops said several men jumped a 23-year-old man and slashed his back at Amnesia, on Steinway Street, just after 4 a.m., according to the newspaper.
Clubgoers fled as the assailants ran out of the club, police said, and one of the alleged attackers, 18-year-old Orlando Santos, had his hip dislocated when a car — not believed to be connected with the fight — struck him, the Post said.
The car also hit a 25-year-old clubgoer and ran over a 28-year-old male patron, whose face was then slashed in more fighting, said the Post.
The driver fled and all the men were in stable condition at New York Hospital, according to the newspaper.
Police arrested Santos at the hospital and apprehended a suspected accomplice, 20-year-old Steven Martinez, the newspaper reported.
©2011 Community News Group
By submitting this comment, you agree to the following terms:
You agree that you, and not TimesLedger.com or its affiliates, are fully responsible for the content that you post. You agree not to post any abusive, obscene, vulgar, slanderous, hateful, threatening or sexually-oriented material or any material that may violate applicable law; doing so may lead to the removal of your post and to your being permanently banned from posting to the site. You grant to TimesLedger.com the royalty-free, irrevocable, perpetual and fully sublicensable license to use, reproduce, modify, adapt, publish, translate, create derivative works from, distribute, perform and display such content in whole or in part world-wide and to incorporate it in other works in any form, media or technology now known or later developed.


text:
ED Magedson – Founder
Ripoff Report
Orgreenics7850 Ruffner Ave Van Nuys, California USA
Orgreenics Cooking Pans Warranty Scam Van Nuys California
Does your business have a bad reputation?
Fix it the right way.
Corporate Advocacy Program™
Liked the commercials. Seemed like a healthy choice for me and my 8 year old boy. 1-16-2011 bought 2 sets. One for a gift for a friend. Had an extra 9" pan. Gave that to a buddy who cooks a lot also. Within 1 year my buddy threw out the 9" pan. Said it stuck like glue. Asked him if he ever re-seasoned it like suggested on their web site. Said no. Oh well. My other friend who had the set said she started having problems also within a year. Told her to try the re-seasoning. I was having problems with everything sticking with the 12" pan, the one I use the most. So went to their web site and got the exact procedure for re-seasoning the pan. Did it 3 different times over 2 months. Nothing helped improve it sticking like glue. So I called for the lifetime warranty. Gave me an address that I shipped it back to on 2-22-2013, with a requested check for $7.99 for there return shipping. So now I'm out 2 shipping costs, to there and back. By 3/28/2013 haven't had any communication by email or mail to confirm receipt or shipping out a replacement. Called. They showed receipt of the returned pan by 2/27/2013. But the rep confirmed that the replacement order has not gone forward or processed. I enclosed a letter (with the pan),stating send me a replacement. There was no reason for a delay except that's there policy to ignore returns. The rep asked if I wanted to order the replacement. I said of course and she picked the ball back up to send out a replacement. By 5/1/2013 no delivery or communication. Called. Rep said he showed the replacement order pending, but it was out of stock. I said I'm sick of the delay I would like a refund. He said he would put that request in but stated that the warranty does not include refunds, just replacements, but he would relay my disappointment of the time lapse. It is now 5-20-2013. Nothing yet. No letter, no email, no refund, no replacement pan. If anyone is considering buying an Orgreenics pan or set, DON'T!! A product is only as good as the customer service support. Orgreenics is as close to Non-Existant as you can get.
This report was posted on Ripoff Report on 05/20/2013 11:47 AM and is a permanent record located here: http://www.ripoffreport.com/reports/orgreenics/van-nuys-california-91406/orgreenics-cooking-pans-warranty-scam-van-nuys-california-1052360. The posting time indicated is Arizona local time. Arizona does not observe daylight savings so the post time may be Mountain or Pacific depending on the time of year.
Ripoff Report has an exclusive license to this report. It may not be copied without the written permission of Ripoff Report. READ: Foreign websites steal our content
Click Here to read other Ripoff Reports on Orgreenics
If you would like to see more Rip-off Reports on this company/individual, search here:Search Tips
In order to assure the best results in your search:
Advertisers above have met our
strict standards for business conduct.


text:
My latest showreel, I'd love to know what you guys think! Any questions about any of the projects I am more than happy to answer! Thanks!
A collection of work done or supervised by myself, from 2004-2012. Work done at Method LA, Dyrdee Media, Mbox, Don't Try this at Home and Laika. Music: Icarus by Madeon.
I am currently the Head of 3D for Uncle Berlin, the German office of Chimney Pot.
Reel breakdown coming soon. For more work check out my channel -
And for more information on select projects -


text:
Press Release
Release Date: March 8, 2010
For immediate release
The Federal Reserve Board on Monday announced the execution of a Written Agreement by and between Heritage Oaks Bancorp, Paso Robles, California, a registered bank holding company, and the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco.
A copy of the Written Agreement is attached.
Last update: March 8, 2010