text:
The award-winning indispensable Linux desktop reference!
``[The Linux Cookbook] is the most practical daily use Linux book
I've seen so far -- highly recommended for anyone getting started with
Linux.'' -- PCUnix
``If you own a Linux system you'll find this book indispensable.'' -- Netsurfer Digest ``[With this book] I can face the Linux command line without fear.'' -- Skipping Dot Net ``This book has given me the knowledge to get the most out of Linux. I am now more productive with Linux and understand it better because of this book.'' -- Raven Matrix ``An excellent reference.'' -- Choice magazine, a publication of the American Library Association, upon designating the first edition of The Linux Cookbook an Outstanding Academic Title in January, 2003. ``This is a great book about using Linux; one of the best I've read.'' -- Diversebooks ``I have been using Linux for 5/6 years and have shelves of books but this book could replace the lot. I have had the book now for a couple of weeks and it is in constant use. ... It is also ideal bedside reading ...'' -- Ted Wager, satisfied customer ``The abundant examples and clear, task oriented approach is a refreshing change from the long prose that many other books seem to favour. It is perfectly suited for anyone who works with Linux as a desktop operating system, and wants fast access to the answers to their questions. ... [E]xcellent value for the money. A definite must-have.'' -- Brainbuzz.com Erection can restore the work of the affected central nervous system, psychological factors, that I will be taken after a must. The speed of the pancreatic diabetes. Full text: a1smile.com
``If you are new to Linux and seeking to accelerate your learning curve, then get yourself a copy of Michael Stutz's The Linux Cookbook!'' -- The Midwest Book Review ``A very useful reference guide [for] any Linux user or developer, and a brilliant tool for those who want to make the transition from novice to expert.'' -- LinuxUser ``... nearly any Linux user will find The Linux Cookbook helpful as a reference when brief and concise instructions for performing a task are needed.'' -- Library & Information Technology Assoc. ``There are so many tools covered in this book, it is hard to see how anyone could have such an extensive knowledge ... this book is a pleasure to read and own. Highly recommended. ...''-- LinuxQuestions.org |
``This is the book that will bring back your love of
computing.'' -- Vancouver Washington Linux Users Group
``Having this book on your desk is probably the next best thing to having your own personal guru.'' -- Unixreview.com ``I have run many courses in UNIX, and this is the sort of book that I would have liked to have had available to hand out to attendees.'' -- Reviews.com ``Beginners will find this book invaluable. ... There is plenty of good information to be had in these pages...'' -- Slashdot ``It's by far the most entertaining UNIX book I've ever read, and the only one I could recommend without reservations to people who already have basic UNIX skills.'' -- Freshmeat ``Anyone with a passing interest in improving their Linux skills would do well to buy this book. A good deal of system administrators I know would also benefit from this book, and its clear explanations. ... This book contains an amazing amount of hard to find information ...'' -- Security Forums Dot Com ``For instantly usable answers -- written in blessedly clear English -- read Linux Cookbook , Second Edition.'' -- Barnes and Noble ``If you plan on running any distribution of Linux -- this book needs to be on your desk.'' -- TechWeekTV ``A useful companion for those who use Linux as their primary OS.'' -- DevX ``[This book] is what you need next to your computer. Find out all the most important commands and procedures for Linux with this comprehensive and easy-to-read book.'' -- Linux Online ``This is a great book and one you'll dip into often. Packed with information, it will see extensive use and should inspire those wondering what to do with their first Linux system.'' -- Computer Shopper UK ``[R]idiculously well written and so informative and helpful.'' -- Chris Nehme, satisfied customer ``Michael Stutz's The Linux Cookbook is a good place to start.'' -- Newsday ``An impressive range of simple but efficient tips and techniques.'' -- Linux Format ``Well worth getting.'' -- Peter H. Salus, author of A Quarter Century of UNIX |


text:
This article is more than 1 year old
Sun downgraded to Goldman Sachs sell list
No discounts on your next iron deal, buddy
The stock and probably the collective psyche of server and operating system maker Sun Microsystems is taking some hits today as an IT watcher at Goldman Sachs put the company on its sell list.
Sun has been on a lot of sell lists in recent years, of course, as it has struggled to even maintain sales, much less get profits, in cut-throat server hardware and operating system software markets. Despite respectable engineering and pricing on x64 hardware and the open sourcing of its Solaris operating system - and some would say because of this - growth and profits have eluded Sun, and Wall Street and the company's key investors have lost patience.
According to a report from the Associated Press, analyst David Bailey has added Sun to its Americas Sell List - not a contest that any publicly traded company wants to win. Because Sun is heavily concentrated on the financial services, telecommunications, and manufacturing industries, Bailey reckons - as do many of us out here on the other side of the Sun firewall - that the company can be disproportionately and more severely hit by a recession like the one we are having now.
To that end, Bailey told Goldman Sachs customers in a research note that he expected a low-double digit revenue drop for Sun in fiscal 2009 ending in June year, thanks to the recession and the ongoing decline in the Unix server market. Bailey moved his target Sun stock price down from $5 to $3 a share and moved the stock from the hold to the sell column. Bailey said further, according to a report in Barron's, that he expects Sun to lose 59 cents a share in fiscal 2009 (compared to a 26 cent per share loss in earlier estimates) and for the company to bring 37 cents a share in profits to the bottom line in fiscal 2010 (down from an earlier 76 cent per share estimate).
As we go to press on Thursday afternoon, Sun's shares are down 12 per cent to $4.48 a piece, giving Sun a market capitalization of $3.76bn. The company's shares were trading at a high of over $18 a pop in late February 2008, so a tremendous amount of value has vaporized - only some of it attributable to the economic downturn.
Sun was in trouble before the economic meltdown, and it has not been helped by the turmoil in the financial services industry and the recession in the United States. That said, the company's stock has rebounded from a low of $2.60 a share just before the Thanksgiving holiday in America, so not only could things be worse - they have been.
Sun reports its financial results for its fiscal 2009 second quarter on January 27 after the market closes.
Back on November 14, which seems a long time away, Sun announced it would be slashing between 5,000 and 6,000 jobs in an effort to get its revenues and costs more in line. That is between 15 per cent and 18 per cent of the company's 33,400-strong global workforce, which will remove somewhere between $700m and $800m in costs from the books. Not counting restructuring charges, the layoffs should put Sun in the black - provided revenues hold up at around $3bn a quarter. That is not a foregone conclusion anymore, at least not for Goldman Sachs' Bailey and the people who are selling Sun stock today.
As part of the restructuring announced in November, Sun also said that it was splitting up its newly created Software Group into pieces and spreading bits of it into three new groups: Systems Platforms, Application Platform Software, and Cloud Computing and Developer Platforms. The idea is to get rid of some management layers and get Sun focused on customer accounts and make it more easy to buy products from. Sun has not, as yet, detailed where the job cuts will be made or what development projects will be killed off as part of the restructuring.
But the scuttlebutt is that the future "Supernova" servers and their "Rock" UltraSparc-RK processors might not see the light of day. Thus far, there have been no indications from Sun insiders that Rock and its servers are not going to be announced in the second half of this year. But it is easy to imagine Sun chucking it in and just using Fujitsu's Sparc64 processors for SMP-style boxes, its Sparc T series of chips for workloads that like lots of threads, and x64 chips for those customers who want to go that way. ®

subset: commoncrawl


text:
Find Our Latest Video Reviews on YouTube!
If you want to stay on top of all of our video reviews of the latest tech, be sure to check out and subscribe to the Gear Live YouTube channel, hosted by Andru Edwards! It's free!
Tuesday August 7, 2012 11:02 am
NASA releases color footage of Curiosity rover descent onto Mars
NASA's Curiosity rover landed on Mars yesterday morning, and today we get a detailed look at the descent. Comprised of 297 thumbnail images, this stop-motion video gives us a look at the two-and-a-half minutes it took for Curiosity to touch down on the red planet. Curiosity landed in the Gale Crater, and you can get a look at the video after the break.
Read More | NASA
Latest Gear Live Videos
© Gear Live Inc. {year} – User-posted content, unless source is quoted, is licensed under a Creative Commons Public Domain License. Gear Live graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, videos, articles, blogs, forums, scripts and other service names are the trademarks of Gear Live Inc.


text:
If your are unhappy you better check if one or all of these are lacking: Tapa (penance), Vairagya (dispassion), Sharanagati (surrender).
- Tapas is agreeing with the moment, total acceptance of pleasant or unpleasant situations.
- Vairagya means I want nothing and I am nothing.
- Sharanagati is "I am here for You, for Your joy."
If you are grumbling then these are lacking, because when you accept the situation you cannot grumble; when you take it as Tapa you will not grumble; when you come from a state dispassion ("I don't want anything") you don't grumble; and if you are surrendered you will have no complaints.
All these three (Tapas, Vairagya and surrender) purify your mind and uplift you in joy.
If you don? do it willingly you will do it in desperation. First you say, "Nothing can be done." Then in anger and desperation you say, "I give up, I want nothing, I have no choice, to hell with it!"


text:
Swedish Stockings Olivia Nearly Black 60 den
Their collection is designed along with our manufacturer. The factory at the cutting edge when it comes to quality, design and sustainability. Located near Lake Garda in Italy they cooperate with the worlds leading fashion brands.
A large part of their production is driven by solar cell panels, the water used in their dyeing process is purified and flows back into the agricultural landscape. Their colors are obtained in their own strictly controlled laboratory. The package is made of recycled cardboard.
Reusable packaging, yes!
We use RePack reusable packaging, to send as ecologically as possible. The RePack is reusable packaging, which you can return in any post box in the world. Less waste, in practice almost no packaging waste as the rest of the packaging materials is also recycled.
As the shipping costs of RePack - to send it for reuse - are still a bit higher, under a certain amount a packaging fee will be charged. In any case, you will receive 300 points on your Good Vibes Club account after you return the RePack packaging (free of charge). Read more about RePack here.
Shipping costs
Shipping is free to Belgium from €99. The shipping is free to Netherlands, Luxemburg, Germany, France and Ireland when the order is over €149. Otherwise, you will be charged as follows:
- in Belgium: 4.50 euros shipping + the RePack fee of 3.5 euros, making 8.00 euros.
- in the Netherlands, Germany, France, UK, Ireland and Luxemburg: 8 euros shipping + the RePack fee of 3.5 euros, making 11.50 euros.
- For other countries within the rest of Europe and the USA, the shipping rates are generally 20-35 euros, depending on the area.
We do ship all over the world. RePack packaging can be returned from all ovr the world. Feel free to contact us for the shipping rates to your country.
Gift vouchers are delivered always for free. Pick up at the shop is also free.
How quick do you deliver?
In Belgium delivery times are normally 1 to 4 working days. International orders will take a bit more time, normally 5-10 days in EU. For express delivery, please contact us beforehand about express delivery shipping rates.
If a product is marked out of stock and you would like to know when it will become available again, do contact us.
Can I return an order?
If you are unhappy with the product you ordered online via the webshop, you can return it. For all return/exchange requests for the webshop orders, contact us via email@example.com or +32(0)486341255, and return your item within 14 days from receiving your order.
You can return your webshop order free of charge in our stores in Mechelen, Ghent or Antwerp. Otherwise you can send your items in the RePack, with a post label. The shipping cost is for the client, so you can use post or any other shipping option of your choice. Send your item(s) to: Supergoods webshop, Onze-Lieve-Vrouwestraat 116, B-2800 Mechelen. All other shipping costs, such as customs fees for the returns are to be paid by the customer and will not be refunded.
No refunds or exchanges will be given for packages returned later than 2 weeks after receiving the order.
The right for return applies to our webshop orders, not for purchase made in our stores, where we offer exchange for presents and exchange in some other particular cases, in the cases of exchange in the stores please contact us as soon as possible, preferably during a few days after your purchase or after receiving a gift.
Returns and exchanges are only accepted when the product and the packaging is sent back in its original state.


text:
You've heard it since you were a little kid — we all have. The old saw "practice makes perfect" has been drummed into us by mothers, piano teachers and just about anyone else who was trying to teach us anything. I'd be willing to bet that at some time or another, a flight instructor has told you the same thing.Now, what would you think if I told you nothing could be farther from the truth? I'm not knocking the value of practice, but the assertion that practice makes perfect. The truth is, practice makes permanent and if you want to be perfect, that's how you must practice. A bit extreme, you say? Perhaps, but very much in line with the concept of primacy, which is the thrust of this article.
According to the FAA Handbook for Instructors primacy — an important concept in learning — is a principle of learning where the first experience of something often creates a strong, almost unshakable impression. The importance to an instructor and to students is that the first time something is demonstrated, it must be shown correctly, because that experience is the one most likely to be remembered by the student. Students retain information they learn for the first time longer than they retain information they must relearn. Unlearning incorrect procedures (or bad habits) is always more difficult than learning the correct procedures in the beginning.
A Horrible Example
Unfortunately, a pilot flying a Cessna 310 that departed Brackett Field in La Verne, Calif., on July 4, 2002, illustrated a horrible example of the power of primacy and the permanence of practice. This pilot and his passenger departed Brackett Field in the pilot's Cessna 310 shortly after noon on that Independence Day. The weather conditions were normal for that part of the world at that time of year: a light wind (from 250 at 7 knots), no ceiling and the visibility five miles in haze. (That's considered good VFR in Southern California. The area around the Pomona VOR and Brackett Field — northeast of LA — often has worse visibility than the area closer to the coast because of the prevailing westerly winds.)Shortly after takeoff, the pilot transmitted several mayday calls to the tower at Brackett Field. Witnesses noted that the left propeller seemed to be turning more slowly than the right and that the gear was extended. Witnesses also reported unusual engine sounds — backfiring to be precise. (But don't witnesses always report engines backfiring when there is an aviation accident — usually sounds that are strangely reminiscent of sounds heard in movies about World War II air battles?) The aircraft impacted trees and came to rest on the bank of a reservoir in a picnic area. Both occupants of the aircraft were killed, as were two people on the ground. Nine were seriously injured.When the cockpit area of the wreckage was examined the throttle quadrant was found to have the following settings: The left throttle control was in the mid-range setting, the left prop control was pulled aft about one inch, as was the left mixture control; the right engine controls were all in the full forward position.On examination of the propellers, the left propeller blades were bent aft and showed very light leading edge damage. These are findings that are consistent with an engine that was not producing power at the time of impact. Damage to the right engine and propeller indicated that it was producing power at impact. As previously mentioned, the gear was extended.
So, what in the world does this all have to do with primacy? Lots — it seems like this poor pilot had performed exactly as he was trained. The flight instructor who gave this student his multiengine training was interviewed and he stated that when practicing engine-out procedures he would retard either the throttle or mixture (depending upon altitude) and then the student was to verify the inoperative engine by reducing the throttle. The student was then to retard the propeller lever of the identified engine aft one inch to simulate feathering the propeller. The instructor would then set zero thrust on the inoperative engine. That's exactly what this student did when faced with a real engine-out emergency! He performed exactly as he was trained and it turned out to be a fatal performance. (When the engine fails in a Cessna 310, the propeller control for the failed engine must be moved all the way aft so as to feather the propeller and cause the least amount of drag.) ** Primacy is stronger than a lot of instructors give it credit for being and, as we can see, that can be a deadly mistake. True, the student neglected to retract the landing gear, but the windmilling propeller was a far greater problem than the gear — the extended gear would not cause directional control problems.Who was at fault here? Who knows, and it's not my job — nor the thrust of this article — to determine that. There was no determination as to why that engine was not producing power that day; there are some theories, but no conclusive evidence. It doesn't matter in this discussion. What does matter is that this pilot paid for training to achieve his multiengine rating and safely fly his twin. In an emergency, he performed just as he was instructed. Primacy! Had this pilot lived to fly another day, it would have taken much more instruction and a concerted effort to eradicate the previous instruction.
Learning and Emotion
Learning depends upon memory, and the strongest memories are those formed when there is a high degree of emotion involved. The more emotion, the stronger the memory. The stronger the memory, the harder it is to change or eradicate. New aviation students have a high degree of emotion involved in their learning. The sensations are new and the habits being formed are not in the normal experience for land-based primates. There is anticipation, a bit of fear, and a great deal of performance anxiety. Pilots seem to have a high degree of perfectionism, also, and so there is the desire to be able to master the concepts quickly. This all puts a great burden on the flight instructor to make sure that the habits being formed are accurate, because they certainly will be permanent.
Performance Standards and How We Teach
The FAA sets performance tolerances for the various certificates and ratings and flight instructors usually point their students to the Practical Test Standards to judge their performance against these standards. For the private pilot certificate, the altitude tolerances are plus or minus 200 feet for en route and straight and level flight. (Some maneuvers have tolerances of plus or minus 100 feet.) Has an instructor done the job if students perform to this tolerance and are able, with little exception, to keep their altitude within this 400 foot buffer? Perhaps not. Students allowed to slop around within this buffer zone will have a far more difficult time with advanced ratings, which require more precise control. They will have to spend valuable time unlearning the former tolerances (bad habits) and tightening up their aircraft control.It has always amazed me to note that a pilot will be able to hold the assigned altitude plus 100 feet absolutely without wavering, but finds it almost impossible to maintain the exact assigned altitude. Not so strange, however, when you look at the way pilots are very often trained. We are taught that we are not out of tolerance unless we are more than 100 feet off altitude (for the instrument rating, for example) and so, any altitude error less than 100 feet is not perceived as out of tolerance and therefore not usually corrected for. What would happen if we flight instructors — from Hour One of instruction — insisted on absolute perfection? We'd make more precise pilots, that is for sure. Would it take those pilots longer to achieve their ratings? I doubt it. New pilots can learn to precisely control the airplane; in fact it may even be easier for them. Correcting for an error when it begins is far easier than waiting until a significant correction must be made.An older and wiser instructor once said to me, "I can guarantee you that sometime in your aviation career, a time will come when your life will depend upon holding an exact altitude, heading or airspeed. I don't know when or why that will happen, but I do know that when it does, holding that precise parameter better be second nature because there will be too much else going on at the time to devote attention to it." I don't believe that time has come yet, but I have always remembered the admonition.Instructors, make sure that what you teach is exactly right — and will be right in all instances. Don't ever teach your students something that is proper only in limited circumstances. They'll remember it at the wrong time. I'm sure the 310 pilot's instructor told him that, of course, in an actual engine failure the prop lever would be pulled all the way aft to the feather position. What he had the student practice, however, was a procedure that was not valid under any circumstances. Pulling the prop lever back to the feather position will not hurt the engine if the instructor quickly moves the lever forward again. After all, the throttle has been retarded on that engine. Isn't this about the same procedure used to check the feathering on the preflight run-up?Have your students maintain exact altitudes, headings and airspeeds. They will become accustomed to monitoring their performance for any deviations and will correct when that correction is a minor maneuver, not a major correction. Don't teach any procedures in an aircraft that will cause problems down the line. As an example, when teaching in Citations we don't let pilots retract the flaps until exiting the runway. Now, in a Citation with a crew of two that would not cause a problem, but there are other jets that have the flaps and the brakes on the same hydraulic system. Retracting the flaps has the potential of a hydraulic failure that can impact the ability to stop the airplane.
Practice Makes Permanent
When you are out practicing in an airplane, be hard on yourself. Practice perfection. Don't take the FAA tolerances — they will set you up for failure. You will not notice small deviations and will need to spend far more time and energy making corrections than would be necessary if exact parameters were maintained. I realize that this will not come immediately — remember, it's harder to break bad habits than it is to form good ones in the first place.There are reasons beyond personal pride for doing this. If your altitude varies when you're at MDA on an instrument approach, that can either put you back up in the clouds and cause a missed approach, or put you in a position where you have far less obstacle clearance than you had planned on. If you are a couple of knots fast on final, so what? Well, each knot will cause your landing distance to increase by about 2%. Those 10 knots "for Ma and the kids" aren't looking so attractive now, are they? If you're too fast or slow on a non-precision approach, your timing will not work out right and that can cause a missed approach. Wandering headings on an instrument approach can cause a missed approach, and again, can also cause you to be a lot closer to terrain than you had planned.When taking dual for additional ratings, make sure you know exactly how each maneuver and procedure is supposed to be performed and make sure that is exactly how your instructor demonstrates or teaches it. If not, find out why. There's more than just personal pride in performance involved here. As we saw above, your life could depend upon it.
For more From The CFI, check out the rest of Linda's articles.


text:
Good Afternoon All!
Couple of things real quick! Thanks for the fun comments from my new embellishment love, Industrial Chic! For some reason, I'm not getting your comments emailed to me. So, I just read them and have been laughing ever since! Zandra got the fever and didn't even finish her comment as she said. grabbing the keys......Cindy L. was obviously out the door on the way to Michaels in PJ's! LOL! I totally know the feeling! Can you believe that I went back today to scan the goodies again! Might have missed something! And Low and Behold, I did! When your shaking and you legs start to go, it's really hard to see everything from the cool tile floor at Michaels! :)
I also wanted to give you an update on the Lighthouse Tutorial. Hopefully up by tomorrow on Etsy! (probably would have been up today if I hadn't of gone to Michaels!) :) Thanks for such wonderful feedback on it!
OK, now on to the Album...
My friend Kimmie from work is going to Italy in the morning! I totally forgot to do a Bon Voyage gift for she and her husband last night! Blast! So, this morning I got up at the crack and crafted one real quick! I mean quick! The coffee was coursing through my body! I was in a rush! What to do, what to do...a fast album.
I thought it would be a good Fast and Easy project for the weekend...There is no written tutorial today gang, just a video with the measurements, so grab a pencil.
The cover to the album is really the only measurement you need and that is 4-3/4 x 6-3/4 - inches. The spine piece is 1 x 6-3/4 - inches. If you don't have one of the awesome Graphic 45 Mini Envelope Albums, try either making one or better yet, using some standard letter size envelopes. You can either bind them with a bind-it-all or use a 1 to 2-inch piece of cardstock. Score it in the middle and use as a hinge.
Here is the tutorial in two parts....
I hope you all have a wonderful weekend! I'll post when I have the pattern up.
The Gentleman Crafter


text:
Moving? Read This First
Moving may be stressful, some Massachusetts residents got an even bigger headache when their bill came. Those who used Billerica-based Father and Son Moving & Storage found they had to pay double the estimate, and what's worse, the moving company took their prized possessions hostage to entice them to pay.
Last November, the Attorney General's office filed a lawsuit against company for allegedly inflating fees, demanding cash, and holding customers' goods for payment and this month, the Suffolk Superior Court ordered the company to pay $202,000 in fines, which includes $75,000 in restitution to consumers. "Consumers place their faith in moving companies, entrusting them with their most valuable possessions and hard-earned money," AG Martha Coakley said in a press release on May 9.
People, you might want to do a little research before you hire clowns. According to the Better Business Bureau, the company has 109 complaints and an F, on a scale from A + to F.
Here are some BBB customer complaint gems:
"I have yet to [receive] my things although it has been 10 days. I cannot get a straight answer as to when my things are going to be here. I've made two trips to [North Carolina] to meet the movers and no one has showed up. My husband will be back from deployment in a couple of weeks and probably be coming home to a house with no furniture because this company cannot get it together."
"My [complaint] is that the estimated cost (estimated cost of $3,242.00, turned out to be $6,286.24…I just wanted to know how they came about the weight from the cubic footage of space converted to the weight. To my knowledge they never actually weighed the furniture at any time. I tried a few more times to talk with the estimator at the [Billerica] facility and was told [that] he either was [not] in or available."
Of course, the Yelp reviews make even better reading.
Kristen M. of Cambridge says, "Literally seven hours late. WHO is seven hours late and can get away with that. And the worse thing was the dispatcher literally kept saying, they will be [there] in an hour, then [they] will be there in 30 minutes, they will be there in 20 minutes. I don't care WHAT sort of business you run, and what day of the year it is, you can't be seven hours late with the new tenants moving in and your former landlord threatening to put all your stuff on the sidewalk."
Steven S., who moved from Boston to Ft. Lauderdale says, "Nearly every piece of furniture had some damage ranging from nicks and scratches to extensive gouges and breakage. One box arrived soaking wet as if it had been sitting in water. Although all of my stuff arrived an extra item belonging to someone else was also left. When I called to have them pick it up so it could be delivered to the rightful owner they told me not to bother! So whoever was moved before me is missing a piece of their furniture!"
Christopher S. of West Newton, Ma, says, "Slowly (and I stress slowly) the unpacking began. Little by little our items made it into our condo but it still wasn't happening as fast as it could have. The most disturbing part of our move was with one of the movers in particular whom we never really got the name of clearly. During the move he kept commenting on our stuff, not negatively, and even asked us how much we were paying for our new place. In addition, we own two bicycles which instead of carrying them in he decided to ride them to our back door. Also, one of our loose hats that made it into the moving truck arrived at our door onto of his head. Needless to say it was thrown out because of hygienic reasons."
But oh look! A positive one:
Scotty B. from Southbridge, MA says, "I have used Father & Son on two occasions…Both moves were handled professionally with no damages by friendly and efficient crews. They called a day ahead to confirm, showed up on time and did the work for the price they quoted. Although I hope not to be moving again anytime soon, Father & Son would be my first phone call."
The Massachusetts Department of Public Utilities offers tips on selecting better movers:
Here are a few tricks to keeping you outta trouble:
Verify licensing. The company should be licensed by the Massachusetts Department of Public Utilities. When movers have a license it ensures that they follow the guidelines such as having a minimum amount of cargo insurance and also they are required to file a Tariff which contains rates for moving services, so they can't be obscurely changed during the move. You can verify by checking the company has an up-to-date MDPU operating certificate number.
If you are moving outside the state, the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) has control over the mover.
Go with a friend's advice. Personal recommendations from family, friends, or realtors about movers are better than online reviews or advertisements. Also, check online reviews on Better Business Bureau before you commit to a company.
Get a written estimate. Verbal estimates are non-binding, but written estimates given by a company who sends a representative to your home is the safest option. To get the best estimate show everything that is being shipped. The move is determined either by the hourly rate of the move or by the actual weight of our household goods. Ask about additional costs such as travel time and mileage. Getting up to three different estimates can improve your chances of getting a good quote, but you can also look up free quotes for moves on the American Moving and Storage Association.
Read the bill of lading before signing. The bill of lading must be signed before the move. The bill will include the company's contact information as well as your new address, also the loading and delivery dates, storage instructions, and the declared valuation of the shipment.
Protect valuables. Movers may offer a declared rate of $.60 per pound per article for missing or damaged items. That means for a 25 pound item, movers are responsible for $18.00 ($.60 x 30 pounds). Make sure to discuss valuables (paintings, antiques) outside of these parameters.
Agree to method of payment and terms and conditions before the move. Companies may request cash payments, but others will accept credit card or personal check, it depends upon the verbal agreement and also the terms of the bill of lading.
Be present during the move. Make sure personal items are handled carefully and inspect each item before signing off on their condition.
Handy websites: www.massmover.org, https://www.protectyourmove.gov/consumer/awareness/protect/moving-fraud.htm, http://www.moving.org/.


text:
Visitor Information
The tourist offices on Grand Turk and Providenciales are open daily from 9 to 5.
Turks & Caicos Islands Tourist Board, Grand Turk. Conveniently located on Front Street, this is a good little spot to pick up a map or browse through brochures outlining the various activities and accommodation available on Grand Turk. The staff is also quite helpful with questions regarding the rest of TCI. Front St., Cockburn Town, Grand Turk, TKCA 1ZZ. 649/946–2321; www.turksandcaicostourism.com. Weekends and holidays.
Turks & Caicos Islands Tourist Board, Providenciales. Conveniently located within the Grace Bay area, the office carries a full range of brochures and maps to aid you in your vacation choices, as well as knowledgeable staff to assist with inquiries. Stubbs Diamond Plaza, Grace Bay, Providenciales, TKCA 1ZZ. 649/946–4970; www.turksandcaicostourism.com. Saturday and Sunday.
Online Travel Tools
To make the most of your vacation, check out the website for WhereWhenHow magazine, which has links to everything in the Turks and Caicos and an extensive dining guide. A great up-to-the minute resource for events and specials can be found on the website for Enews; it's updated every Wednesday. For everything you need to know about Salt Cay, there's a great little site put together by the residents there.
Enews. This is a great resource with a regularly updated island event calendar. www.TCIEnews.com.
SaltCay.org. This site is a good source for information about what's happening on the little island of Salt Cay. www.SaltCay.org.
WhereWhenHow. This is an excellent reference for what is going on around the islands. Their restaurant guide is also comprehensive and updated regularly. www.WhereWhenHow.com.


text:
Michael Behe in Toronto: Part 2, and Michael Behe in Toronto: Part 3. (You can also check out My Posts on Michael Behe)
The first talk was quite private and it was not recorded. The second talk, on a Thursday evening, was in one of the main lecture theaters in my building. There were at least 400 people in the audience. This talk was on the "Limits of Darwinism" and it was recorded. You can watch it in the video below.
The emphasis in his talk was on the "edge of evolution"—the topic of his latest book. (See: The Edge of Evolution.) Behe tried to outline the evidence for a limit to what evolution can accomplish. The implication is, of course, that if evolution can't do it then there must be a god(s).
I like the fact that Behe begins with an attempt to define his terms. This is something that we emphasize in my courses. Whenever you debate a controversial topic you should make sure you explain what you mean by the technical terms and jargon you employ. In Behe's case, he is describing the limits of "Darwinism" so it's important to define "Darwinism." He says ...
And before you start to talk about evolution, or Darwinism, you have to be careful to define your terms, because both of those words can ... mean different things at different times for different people. And so, even Darwinism ... some people talk about "Darwin's theory" but it turns out that Darwin's theory has multiple, separable, logical elements in it. Some of which might be right and some of which might be wrong. ... I'm going to concentrate on what I think are the three main elements of Darwin's theory ...He then goes on to list the three elements and his brief analysis.
- Common Descent - interesting but trivial
- Natural Selection - interesting but trivial
- Random Mutation - the critical claim of Darwinism is the sufficiency of random mutation
Nevertheless, you can see where he's going. He wants to prove that random mutations can NOT explain many aspects of evolution. Thus, some mutations have to be directed or guided because they could never occur by chance. This means that there must be an intelligent being behind this direction (design). That intelligent being is god(s)—in Behe's case it's the Roman Catholic gods.
Addendum: I think that Behe's argument fails because he does not take into account nearly neutral mutations that persist in the population because they are not eliminated by negative selection. This leads to a huge amount of variation in the population and that makes it likely that you will have combinations of mutations that have selective advantage. I discussed this with Behe in the afternoon before his talk. You can see him acknowledge the role of "stochastic events" at 1:11:07 during the question period. He waves and smiles at me (and I wave back).


text:
Indo-European languages, also known as Indo-Germanic languages, are a widespread language family, ranging across Europe, the Middle East, and India. They are the most-widely spoken languages in the world, with well over 2 billion speakers, especially of English. It is believed by some creationists that the Indo-European people are descended from Japeth, the son of Noah.
Indo-European language families
- Indo-Iranian languages
- Armenian language
- Baltic languages
- Slavic languages
- Celtic languages
- Germanic languages
- Greek language
- Italic languages
It is the world's largest language group encompassing many languages, including most of those spoken in the greater Eurasian continent from Iceland to the Xinjiang province, China. It includes English and most of the major European languages.
Although there is debate about its origin, the most commonly accepted hypothesis among secular linguists is that Indo-European dates from about 4000 BC, and originated in the Caspian steppe. Creationists believe that major language groups, perhaps including Proto-Indo-European, were created by God in about 2200 BC following the destruction of the Tower of Babel. A few have proposed that Indo-European languages are an offshoot of the original Hebrew language, while most see Indo-European, Semitic and Hamitic language groups stemming from the dispersion following the Tower of Babel.
Indo-European is divided into several language branches both extinct (Anatolian and Tocharian) and living as with several proposed languages and peoples. A few are merely language isolates (Greek, Armenian) with evidence only pertaining to one language with no living or extinct ancestors, yet which can be traced to the Indo-European family. These current living language families are:
- Albanian
- Armenian
- Anatolian
- Baltic
- Celtic
- Germanic
- Greek
- Indo-Iranian
- Italic
Indo-European Languages
- Albanian
- English
- German
- Dutch
- Norwegian
- Swedish
- Danish
- Icelandic
- French
- Spanish
- Italian
- Latin
- Portuguese
- Romanian
- Polish
- Czech
- Slovak
- Slovenian
- Serbo-Croatian
- Greek
- Russian
- Ukrainian
- Moldovan
- Bulgarian
- Latvian
- Lithuanian
- Hittite
- Armenian
- Persian
- Urdu
- Pashtun
- Hindi
- Tocharian


text: tafford Law Co., L.P.A. has established a reputation as one of Ohio's premier law firms. Stafford Law has a significant and storied history of litigating Ohio's largest and most complex divorce and family law cases. Stafford Law attorneys have litigated significant property division, spousal support and custody disputes with impressive results.


text:
Una traduzione in italiano è disponibile qui.
Reader Interactions
284 Responses to "Ancora i trends troposferici tropicali (ancora)"
I just want to say that I (as PhD-Student) agree on what you are saying; blogs can be a good contribution in the scientific debate. Not least by keeping the public alert on different discussions on going behind the "scenes" of peer-reviewed journals.
This 17-author paper basically says that the models would only be "incorrect" if observations were roughly outside the 0.0 to 0.5 degree-per-decade window.
This means that no warming whatsoever over the next century would not invalidate the models.
[Response: But not true. These are hindcasts for a specific period (1979-1999) and the variance is in large part due the shortness of that period and the degree of 'noise' – both internal and forced (i.e. volcanoes) – that confuses the estimate od the long term trends. Our previous post dealt with what the models expect for periods in the future – and the longer the time frame the less influence the short term variations have. – gavin]
Well done. It is also worth noting that the earlier work by Douglass et al. (2004) on this subject had issues in observational data sets pointed out by Fu and Johanson (2005), Mears and Wentz (2005), and Sherwood et al. (2005).
Many thanks for this site yet again!
Please don't forget that many papers are not readily available to the public (most have to buy them). This means that the best insights the average person can get is what the blog postings and following discussion reveals about the papers and their weaknesses/strengths.
Also, many out there don't have the technical expertise or time to read the papers even if they could get hold of a copy.
Therefore, the general public relies on sites like this one to help keep up to date with the state of climate science. This is such an important issue that blog sites like this one MUST be maintained.
[Response: Thanks. We realise that access to papers is limited for most of the public and we link to free versions where possible. In this case, I recommend reading the fact sheet (linked above) to get a good sense for what was done. – gavin]
Good post gavin. I think I'm reading the trend chart wrong, but is the mean of the models higher than the mean of all 10 data sets? What do the error bars at the surface look like? Did all the models include volcanic forcing? Err maybe I should read the paper first
How did Douglass et al get published in a respectable journal? Did the editors let it through despite being aware of the errors?
What do Messrs Santer et al mean by surface temperature? The surface I live on comprises two lawns, some areas shaded, some not, flower beds, a new black tarmac drive, a new white stone patio, and a fairly fast flowing river. How would they propose to measure its temperature? Like all the other surface temperatures (apart from the 75% of the surface covered by the oceans) they would probably suggest placing the thermometer a few meters up in the atmosphere.
Satellites are by far the best way to measure atmospheric temperatures across the planet.
I do urge all contributors who are so certain of the AGW theory to at least look at the UAH data (Google Global Warming at a Glance). [edit]
From 1978 to 1996 neither the lower or mid-troposphere data show any warming. The warming which lends credence to the AGW theory occurred over three years from 1999 to 2002. Thereafter, temperatures remained "high" (plus 0.2 degrees above the long term average) and fluctuating for 4 years to 2006. (You would find it difficult to detect this change in the average temperature of your house).
Thereafter the temperatures fell back to 1978 levels.
The mid-troposphere chart experienced the same relatively sharp increase from1999 to 2002, but the increase was much lower, and more rapidly reversed – hence the difference between the long term trends.The models follow the CO2 concentration, which is why the Hansen "B" line and the "surface" temperatures are diverging.
Santer's fact sheet does not display troposphere temperatures after 2005.If the satellite data is anything like accurate then AGW warming theory is either plain wrong or nothing to worry about. If current (1978) temperatures persist for the next 5 to 10 years, challenges to the AGW consensus will increase rapidly, both in number and volume.
[Response: Wrong again. But feel free to continue ignoring all previous corrections of your faulty thinking. – gavin]
I am not an expert by any definition, but just a layman keenly interested (concerned) about the future of the planet and my children, all our children.
I am also very concerned that the current debate on global warming gets so specialized that the forest may well be missed out for the trees.
There seems to be a lurking expectation in some of the climate scientists and others that a new ice-age may be dawning that will yet save mankind from the apocalypse of melting polar ice and significant rise of sea levels in our lifetime. In other words, there is no warming effect of greenhouse gases and
humans can carry on with Business As Usual, including massive burn of fossil fuels.There is also little or no awareness among the lay public that greenhouse gases are cumulative and the accumulation is exponential in scale today and has been in the last 150 years since the industrial engines appeared.
Somewhere I read that the current production of greenhouse gases is twice as much as what the green plants (on land and in the sea)can neutralize. In other words, the "tipping point" is already far exceeded and there cannot be any new equilibrium of production/neutralization of greenhouse gases.
So any real solution would only come through total and serious cutback in human lifestyles and corresponding energy use.
Please start educating the lay public about global warming in a simple(and stark)way that they can understand. Please also provide a forum for getting some expert advice on what the alternate lifestyles of the future world must look like, in order that we may have a future.
Steve (6) Peer review will never be a guarantee that published papers are free of (even obvious) errors, reviewers editors and authors are all only human and there will always be a chance that none of them will spot the error in time. However here we have seen good science in action in that the error has been spotted and corrected (well done Santer et al!). It also highlights the advantage of pre-prints being made available by the publisher as it means that the correction is made more rapidly that would otherwise be the case (well done IJC).
It is important however that the correction to high profile or contraversial papers are made both in the blogs and in the peer-reviewed litterature, as otherwise the correction is all too easily dismissed by saying "RealClimate, well they would say that wouldn't they?" ;o)
I agree with "the other Gavin". Peer-review isn't the end-all filter for good science. It is simply the first one. And reviewers are often very pressed for time, so sometimes errors fall through the cracks :)
The paper is available at LLNL page
https://publicaffairs.llnl.gov/news/news_releases/2008/NR-08-10-05-article.pdfIts final conclusion is as follows:
"We may never completely reconcile the divergent observational estimates of temperature changes in the tropical troposphere. We lack the unimpeachable observational records necessary for this task. The large structural uncertainties in observations hamper our ability to determine how well models simulate the tropospheric temperature changes that actually occurred over the satellite era. A truly definitive answer to this question may be difficult to obtain. Nevertheless, if structural uncertainties in observations and models are fully accounted for, a partial resolution of the long-standing 'differential warming' problem has now been achieved. The lessons learned from studying this problem can and should be applied towards the improvement of existing climate monitoring systems, so that future model evaluation studies are less sensitive to observational ambiguity."
Please don't forget that many papers are not readily available to the public (most have to buy them).
On the contrary, most university doors are WIDE OPEN to the public, joe six pack merely needs to get off the couch and wander down to his or her local world class university research libraries and look them up. There are costs involved, page charges run anywhere for a few pennies up to a dime a page for the venda copy machines or the laser printer. Many of these papers may be available on a preprint server as well, and if you dig deep enough, they are available as fair use copies on the author's web pages.
Captcha : concluded for
"On the contrary, most university doors are WIDE OPEN to the public, joe six pack merely needs to get off the couch and wander down to his or her local world class university research libraries and look them up."
For most of us that is more than enough, unfortunately, to preclude the use of the term "readily available." I live in an area boasting 10+ universities in the metro area, and I'd still have to budget about 2 hours of round trip driving, and a minimum of an hour–and probably more–to get in, find the material, copy what I need, and get out again. Not so practical. I'm really doing more than I should–"should" in relation to the practicalities of daily life–when I take 40 minutes online to browse a few climate papers that I *can* access.
(captcha: "tieing booked")
> [Response: Wrong again. But feel free to continue
> ignoring all previous corrections of your faulty
> thinking. – gavin]Is there a search string that will find posts by an individual userid that include inline responses?
[Response: Yes. Add 'class="response"' to the string. This picks out the html that we use to colour the inline responses green. – gavin]
Nice work! You all should consider featuring your "Fact Sheet" a bit more prominently, perhaps even before the fold, because it seems to be a definitive resource providing refutations to nearly every single claim advanced by skeptics in the wake of the Douglass debacle.
I'll third the assertion of Figen and "other Gavin"; blogging can be a way of disseminating information to a large group of people rather quickly, but it is most effective in cases like this where it is paired with the traditional, rigorous academic exercise of peer-review.
Re #s 9 and 10: In addition to the errors in the paper seeming like the sort of thing a peer-reviewer ought to have caught, the presence of Fred Singer as a co-author ought to have singled the paper out for special attention. So, as I said, it begins to seem plausible that the editors were aware of the problems and published it anyway. IMHO there's a reason to have done so, i.e. that it's useful for such things to get corrected in a reasonably prominent place. But is that what happened?
For the past year, the satellite troposphere anomalies (20S to 20N) have been negative (as much as -0.5C) – La Nina obviously.
But wouldn't that change the analysis – first, the linear trend is now only 0.06C per decade and secondly, the Nina 3.4 region and ENSO are bigger influences than previously thought.
So, am I reading that graph wrong or does the mean of the models exceed the mean of all 10 observation sets , and that the mean of the surface hindcast for both Land and Ocean and SST exceed the 4 observation means as well.?
Also, how about a quick list of the models used? -
The thing is even if Fred Singer's name is probably a flag for a lot of people, as an editor you have to treat everything fairly. if the reviewers did not find fault then one would have to either send the paper to more reviewers (which would take an inordinate amount of time) or rejecta a paper based on its authors list. While that may have been appropriate in this case in hindsight, it opens the door to a slippery slope. Then new or untenured scientists will have a harder time getting published than established ones "in the old boys club."
To avoid all that, I think peer review should be double blind so the work is judged on its own merits and not its authorship or familiarity with specific authors or their affiliated institutions.
In #8 Vinod Gupta wrote … "Please start educating the lay public about global warming in a simple(and stark)way that they can understand". …
although Realclimate has done well in their efforts to do that, the required resources and responibility to succeed on the large scale exist only in governments (who have so far failed, miserably)
Just had a quick glance at the fact sheet.
Have the authors considered the possible effects of El Chichon and Pinatubo in diminishing the relative tropospheric temperature peaks of the ~1983 and ~1992 El Ninos, thereby steepening the tropospheric trend?[Response: The volcanic effects were taking into account in the models, but the precise timing of El Nino events is going to be different in each model – that in fact is a big factor in the variability of the 20 year trends. – gavin]
As a non scientist, but (I would like to believe), a fairly scientifically literate layman, it seems that the evidence for AGW and the physics based explanation for it are irrefutable. The denialists in my opinion are similar to those who believe in the efficacy of accupuncture, homeopathic remedies, and chiropractic medicine. They will seize on any tiny scrap of data supporting their claims while ignoring the vast amount of objective scientifically based evidence to the contrary.
Figen Mekik: "then one would have to either send the paper to more reviewers (which would take an inordinate amount of time) or rejecta a paper based on its authors list. While that may have been appropriate in this case in hindsight, it opens the door to a slippery slope."
You must be joking! Are you seriously suggesting that the Douglass et al paper should have been rejected on the basis of the authors? What are you? The thought police?
Who is to say that the Santer et al paper is correct and free of mistake? Papers are accepted because they are based on sound research and the methodologies are also sound. That is not to mean that they are error free.
Santer et al have produced a paper that argues a different hypothesis to Douglass et al. It does not mean by any means that Santer et al is more correct or more free of potential challenge.
Because Gavin SAYS that it does a better job of comparing trends does not make it so.
[Response: … though it does make it a little more likely ;) – gavin]
Thomas Lee Elifritz writes:
most university doors are WIDE OPEN to the public, joe six pack merely needs to get off the couch and wander down to his or her local world class university research libraries and look them up. There are costs involved, page charges run anywhere for a few pennies up to a dime a page for the venda copy machines or the laser printer. Many of these papers may be available on a preprint server as well, and if you dig deep enough, they are available as fair use copies on the author's web pages.
Some of the most crucial journals are no longer available in paper; if you don't have a multi-hundred-dollar-a-year subscription, you're SOL. The premier planetology journal, Icarus, is an example. Paywalls matter. They are effectively restricting scientific data to professional scientists, which is a bad thing.
As Einstein said, Mr White (22) 10,000 observations may support a theory – it only takes one to refute it. Science would not progress without the one observation out of step.
For example, at my University, many years before the discovery of radioactivity, a professor of Physics noticed that sealed photographic plates in a drawer had been darkened. They were adjacent to a cupboard containing Radium.
He solved the problem by moving the plates to another room.
The tiny scrap of data to which you refer are the satellite temperature records from 1978, which was the year of the global temperature trough following the previous peak in the 1940's.
Because it contradicts AGW theory, that data has been very thoroughly analysed and criticised. Adjustments have been made for all kinds of systematic errors, and at least one arithmetical error has been acknowledged and corrected.
The results (surely worth a glance) reflect all known temperature perturbations, including the 1988 peak. They are published and plotted every month, (Google Global Warming at a Glance), and overlaid onto the GISS surface data on which Anthony Watts (Watts up with That) labours so strenuously.
You might also be interested in Tamino's very interesting post (Open Mind) on the long running Central England Temperature record. His polynomial form fitting suggests a new "hockey stick" shape with an up-tick of 0.5 degrees this decade. Temperatures at the start of the decade were about 10.5 degrees centigrade – high but not remarkably so. His data suggested a temperature up-tick this decade from 10.5 to 11.0 degrees centigrade, which would be absolutely unprecedented.
With 15 months to go there is no sign of the up-tick. This year looks like coming out at 10.2 degrees, the 25th warmest year in the record.
Richard says "Santer et al have produced a paper that argues a different hypothesis to Douglass et al. It does not mean by any means that Santer et al is more correct or more free of potential challenge."
No, that is not correct, both papers seek to determine whether the observational data are consistent with the models, however Douglass et al use a statistical test that actually answers a different question, namely "is there a statistically significant difference between the mean trend of the ensemble and the observed trend". The two questions are not the same, and indeed AFAICS one would not expect the observed trend to be exactly equal to the ensmble mean even if the models were perfect, so it is hardly a reasonable test of the validity of the approach!
Please read my earlier post carefully. I said it would not be right to reject papers because of their authorship. That is what my comment was all about.
You say "What are you? The thought police? " Again, please read everything one posts before jumping to conclusions about what they are saying. I encourage double blind peer review so no one will act as the thought police. -
most university doors are WIDE OPEN to the public, joe six pack merely needs to get off the couch and wander down to his or her local world class university research libraries and look them up.
That's a pretty high bar. If you're an ordinary person and simply want to check something you've read in a newspaper article, you're unlikely to want (or be able) to invest several hours in doing so.
Re: #25 (Fred Staples)
Gavin is right, you staunchly continue ignoring all previous corrections of your faulty thinking.
You're assigning far too much certainty to the UAH satellite reduction. Yet it's in disagreement with similar satellite reductions from RSS (which is the subject of *this* post), and from the U. of Washington, and from the U. of Maryland. If the satellite data are as surefire as you believe, why do 4 separate groups come to different conclusions based on the SAME raw data?
You completely ignore the fact that satellites don't *measure* lower-troposphere temperature. They measure temperature in very large segments of the atmosphere, and the "T2LT" channel for the lower troposphere is *inferred* from the data of those other channels by attempting to correct for the stratospheric influence and other factors.
As for the CET record, in the context of *this* post you're just trying to change the subject. But for your information, the *data* (which are not mine, but are freely available from the web) suggest a rate of increase of 0.5 deg.C per decade. Anyone interested in what the rate of increase presently is should download the data and fit a regression line from, say, 1975 to the present.
As for "this year coming out at 10.2," are you completely ignorant of the variation present in year-to-year results? The standard deviation of the residuals from a linear regression to annual averages 1975-2007 is 0.472, so we expect a range of variation of roughly +/- 0.94 deg.C from the long-term trend. I guess you're just a member of the "it was cold yesterday in London, so global warming must be false" brigade. You're seriously in need of an education about the statistical nature of noise; this is one of many posts I've done on that topic.
Finally: any flattering reference to Anthony Watts and his blog casts doubt on both your objectivity and your competence. Those interested in the "quality" of the work of Watts and his collaborators should read this and this and this and this and this and this.
Outeast — your local library can borrow any journal they don't carry. Ask about "Interlibrary Lo-an."
(Hyphen for the spamhallucinator software.)
The Reference Librarian will have additional suggestions for searching.
It's easier to find than complain about. -
Hopefully this is not too much off topic, but i was reading this article by Lomborg and am wondering where he goes wrong:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/oct/14/climatechange-scienceofclimatechangeHe doesn't give any sources for his statements about lower temps and sea level rise, so i wonder if they're correct, and if not, what the correct numbers are. Apart from exact numbers, isn't his main error that he's looking too much at short term variations instead of looking at the longer term trends and projections?
"You're seriously in need of an education about the statistical nature of noise;" (Tamino)
Ah that wonderfully scientific term 'Noise'
Here is the full data set from UAH since satellite data became available.
1978 – 1994
1995 – 2000
2001 – Date
So Tamino, you often state that 'noise' can mask the true signal. So what is the true signal here? The cooling periods 1978 – 1994 and 2001 to date being masked by a warming trend from 1995 -2000? Or a warming trend from 1995 – 2000 being masked by cooling trends from 1978 – 1994 and 2001 – 2009?
I cannot see why people are tring to kick up the most almighty panic on these trends especially when this is combined with no visible acceleration in sea level rise to anywhere near the levels predicted by the models.
Also these trends this century are against a background of higher than estimated man made CO2 emmisions and also that the forcing factor of this affect must have already been at its highest level during the 21st century and can only decline as total atmospheric CO2 increases. After all we know the climate does not have a linear response to rising CO2 levels or the Earth would have already suffered a runaway greenhouse effct in its past.
So how do you justify some of the apocalyptic predictions people seem happy to bandy about?
Also just to emphasise this noise versus signal idea.
Here is the data from 1940, when the CO2 signal started to become strongly apparent, to 1977. I use Gis temp data because of course satellite data is only available from 1978.
Again what is the real long term signal and what is the noise?
Noise is the random variability that the system you're not interested in is putting on the signal.
E.g. if you're trying to listen to someone talking, the engine is making noise.
However, if you want to find out where the bite is, that "noise" IS your signal.
So anything that is of a shorter period than climate is noise.
And what period is "climate"? Well if you ONLY had temperatures to go on, and "midsummer" was the warmest day (lets ignore thermal inertia), how many years would you have to sum to find out "the day of midsummer" to within a week? About 50?
Check it out, go back through the temperature records and see.
Alan Millar says "So what is the true signal here? The cooling periods 1978 – 1994 and 2001 to date being masked by a warming trend from 1995 -2000? Or a warming trend from 1995 – 2000 being masked by cooling trends from 1978 – 1994 and 2001 – 2009?"
One way to decide would be to compare the plausibility of the supposed mechanism behind each hypothesis. One advantage of the theory that there has been a warming trend occasionally obscured in the short term by natural variability is that we have a mechanism that explains why there should be a warming trend (CO2) and mechanisms for explaining the variability (IIRC ENSO is responsible for quite a lot of it). Can you provide a more plausible mechanism explaning a cooling trend occasionally masked by natural variation?
A long term trend (e.g. 1978-2008) is much less affected by ENSO-related natural variability, and that shows a clear warming trend
The fact that the observed long term trend shows warming strongly suggests that there isn't an underlying long term cooling trend and the overall warming is unlikely to be due to natural variability.
BTW isn't the 1940-1977 cooling is attributable to aerosols?
Re #32, Millard,
"Let us spend one day as deliberately as Nature, and not be thrown off
the track by every nutshell and mosquito's wing that falls on the rails".
Henry David Thoreau (1854) -
Re: #32 and #33 (Alan Millar)
You've illustrated, far better than I could, just how naively some people approach trend analysis.
You say "The cooling periods 1978 – 1994 and 2001 to date…" Did you actually bother to do any analysis? What's next? Will you tout the "cooling period from 8:15 am to 8:23 am"?
To answer your question: it can't be called "true signal" if it fails statistical significance tests.
Here's a question for you: if 1978-1994 and 2001-present are "cooling periods," then what are the rates of cooling, AND what are the uncertainties (confidence intervals) associated with those rates? Be careful: I'm not the only professional statistician who comes around here, and you can bet we'll all be checking your work.
Just thinking on trends.
Last year a friend of mine, who is a skeptic, proposed that the loss of arctic ice was just part of a 20 cycle. So, I asked him when was the last time that the NW passage was fully navigatable? I think it was more than 20 years ago.
Permafrost is melting; the timing of animal migrations is changing; and a host of other things that have great inherent stability are changing. I was wondering how much more energy there must be in the arctic to melt so many more cubic miles of ice. It can be estimated, but suffice to say it is a lot. Why does anyone cling to data sets that are open to interpretation to refute the basic trends that are so readily observable?
"BTW isn't the 1940-1977 cooling is attributable to aerosols?" (Gavin, no not that one, a different one)
Well there is conjecture that that is so (unproven but). If that is a fact, what trend is it actually masking?
There was a long term warming trend upto 1940 that did not seem connected to any man made CO2 emissions.
If the aerosols were, subsequently masking this, apparently natural, trend of recovery from the LIA then continuing that underlying trend to the present time would account for most of the subsequent observed warming and leave only a small amount due to mans CO2 emissions.Indicating a much lower sensitivity to CO2 than the models hypothesise. This seems a perfectly reasonable supposition.
It seems a hell of a coincidence to me that this long term natural trend should cease at precisely the moment aerosols become a factor and man made CO2 start to drive the long term climate. But that is what we are required to believe if we are to see the models hit their targets.
I don't believe that the Earths climate is cooling most indicators say otherwise. What I find hard to believe is the hypothesised rate of change forecast by the models and that the Earths climate is mainly driven by three or more factors ie CO2, CO2, and CO2!
Alan Millar, did you never take a course in data analysis? The "signal" is the portion of the measurement, you are interested in, while the "noise" is that which interferes with your observing the signal. In this case, the theory predicts a "warming" signal, and the data confirm this to high confidence.
You are welcome to try and see how it does with a "cooling" signal, although I expect you will have trouble finding supporting data with out cherrypicking it. Here's a clue. "Climate" is very noisy on short timescales. Measurement errors across satellite systems increase both noise and systematic error. (Note: A couple of colleague of mine has direct experience with this in reconstructing galactic cosmic ray measurements and plasma fluxes far from Earth–no one satellite has produced enough data for a decent model, and yet there are little problems going from one dataset to another.) Best advice, though: Learn the physics and you'll understand your signals and noise much better. CO2's effects last for decades to centuries–it's a trend that's pretty easy to spot.
Re: #31 (Lennart)
See this for a closer look at Lomborg's "statistics."
Ray Ladbury says that the theory predicts a warming signal and the data confirms this to high confidence.
It seems a bit odd that no warming trend at all this decade is confirming to high confidence a warming trend. Imagine how confident he would be if temperatures were actually going up rather than down on GISS since Jan 2001.
Gavin, Ray, Tamino.
I have already answered but my post has disappeared! I will try again to see if my post can beat the censorship on here and whether true discussion is allowed.
"BTW isn't the 1940-1977 cooling is attributable to aerosols?"
It is conjectured that this is so. It is not proven but assuming that it is a fact what trend is it actually masking?
This is the long term trend upto 1940 when it is hypothesised that aerosols started to become a significant masking factor.
Now if you extrapolate this, long standing underlying but masked natural trend, visible from the Earths recovery from the the LIA, to the present date it explains most of the observed warming. It leaves only a fairly small amount of warming attributable to CO2 emissions and therefore indicates a low sensitivity to increased atmospheric CO2.
This seems an entirely reasonable conjecture. If this is not so then one has to assume that this longstanding natural trend came to a complete halt at precisely the same moment that aerosols became a factor and that man made CO2 started to drive the Earths long term climate.
Unless one can produce an accurate model of the Earths climate and I admit I cannot, how do you prove this with any degree of confidence? ( I take comfort in the fact that no one else can either ) Even if I understood completely and could hypothesise the effect of the huge number of factors and correlations and feedback mechanisms that drive the climate I would not have accurate measurements over any significant timescale to prove this. Technolgical man has not been around long enough to measure these things. I would guess that we would have to be present and measuring over a couple of glacial and inter-glacial periods to have great confidence in any models.
Of course we are talking 100s of thousands of years for this to happen, a small period indeed when we are talking about the Earths climate but daunting if you are looking for a rush to judgement.
So do I think the Earth is on cooling trend? No, I think most indicators suggest a moderate medium term warming trend that started well before any significant man made CO2 emissions and continues to this date.
On the contrary, most university doors are WIDE OPEN to the public, joe six pack merely needs to get off the couch and wander down to his or her local world class university research libraries and look them up.
Not all people have easy access to a university library, or even a library of any description. Even when I lived in a major city, it was not easy to get to the university library, but now my nearest physics library is an 8-hour drive away. The closest public library is a little over 3 hours away, in a different jurisdiction so I am unable to borrow books or use interlibrary loa^n. (The ^ is to defeat the spam detector).
@ Tamino
What are you talking about ?? Confidence intervals are estimate intervals of a true endpoint, which could be human population parameters, distance to the moon or temperature trends. You don't apply confidence intervals on the true endpoint but on proxies or measures to estimate the true endpoint. A – 0.1 temp trend from 2001 to 2008 is a -0.1 temp trend from 2001 to 2008 – period. There are NO confidence intervals. It is the true final endpoint, if you define it that way. You may argue that a short-term trend from 2001- 2008 is not a proper TRUE endpoint. Fine. You may then apply statistics (but which ones ??? good luck) to determine the confidence intervals to estimate the TRUE endpoint. But tell us – what is the TRUE endpoint ? Temperature trend from 1980 to 2030 ? From 2000 to 2099 ? Up to you to cherry pick but PELEASE DO NOT apply confidence intervals on the true endpoint.
Re: #37 (Tamino)
What would you say is the minimal period of time that one should use to ensure that it contains a "signal" (and not just noise). What is the formal statistical method that one would use to ensure that the time frame is long enough?
To Figen Mekik,
My apologies for not understanding your meaning. It was just the part about "While that may have been appropriate in this case in hindsight" that worried me. I thought that the statement implied that you approved of elimination on the basis of the authorship.
I apologise for getting it wrong in this case.
Richard, no worries at all.
Raobcore different versions giving different results is quite confusing for me.. From what I gather, Raobcore 1.4 should be considered the better most perfect version, if so, why show the older ones?
I suggest a flaw in analysis which is the apparent segmentation of the Upper Air profile, in the Arctic, the real action is happening between 1000 and 650 mb, segmenting upper air levels 850,700, and 500 mb reduces resolution and misses some real important air volumes at higher pressures, where anything can happen between 1000 and 850, 850 and 750 mb etc… Raobcore profile looks a little unrealistic, and it is likely that the models are more correct for the lower troposphere than Raobcore.
However, its very curious, oblate sun refraction method agrees with Raobcore calculated trends at the same location, which is for a warmer lower troposphere at virtually every year, but not with the actual radiosonde measurements varying a lot, which is strange…… This leads me to conclude that Raobcore resolution needs to be increased… But this depends on whether my interpretation of Raobcore is right, which is the most accurate, corrected perfect data available.
As a lurker, it seems to me that Allan Millar makes a good point. Most models seem to have a very large margin of error, so that almost any recent temperature result can be said to fall within the M of E and validate the model. It is therefore difficult to 'disprove' the theory. But the basing of the AGW theory upon a short warming trend 1995-2000 seems to be a stretch if you can (I think reasonably) argue that the facts can also support a contrary view. It comes down to \We have a theory of what causes the warming and you don't – So we're right and you're wrong.\ Why are \deniers\ castigated for saying \We don't know what causes the warming\ when the AGW theory cannot explain what initiates the warming that CO2 exacerbates?


text:
SUWA is the only non-partisan, non-profit organization working full time to defend Utah's redrock wilderness. Our power comes from people like you from across the nation who want to protect this irreplaceable heritage for all Americans.
Ask your employer if they have a matching gift policy. Your donation today could be doubled!
Please note: We are unable to ship thank-you gifts to international addresses.
Includes all membership benefits plus the choice of a thank-you gift below.
Includes 3 issues of our Redrock Wilderness newsletter. *Please enter listing preference below.
Includes 3 issues of our Redrock Wilderness newsletter.
SUWA offers a reduced $20 membership for students on a limited budget.
Choice of a thank-you gift is included with all donations of $100 or more.


text:
Life in Chesapeake Bay
Chesapeake Bay and its watershed support more than 3,600 species of plants, fish and animals. 2,700 species of plants alone live in the Chesapeake Bay area. These plants serve as the base for the foodchain in this system. Without these plants, the fish, birds and other animals couldn't exist.Some of the most important plants in Chesapeake Bay live completely underwater. They are known as SAV or submerged aquatic vegetation. These underwater grasses provide food for fish, birds and shellfish. They also provide a place for fish and other creatures to lay their eggs and hide their young. During photosynthesis, SAV's release oxygen to the water which is necessary for other creatures. Human actions like agriculture, construction, destruction of forests for new malls and parking lots, and pollution threaten healthy growth of SAV. Since the rest of the life in Chesapeake Bay depends on SAV growth, it seems logical that humans need to look closely at things they do that upset the balance for the rest of life in Chesapeake Bay.
The Bay is home to many fish, from the Bay anchovy to the sandbar shark. It supports blue crabs, horshoe crabs and American oysters. In fact, humans get over 500 million pounds of seafood from the Bay each year! Sea turtles, eels, dolphins, rays, seahorses, and jellyfish also fill the Bay waters.
And hundreds of thousands of birds call Chesapeake Bay their home. Some stay all year round, others only winter there. Beautiful species like bald eagles, snowy egrets, great blue herons, geese, swans, ducks and gulls all live in this place.


text:
"A More Excellent Way," Ensign, May 1992, 61
A More Excellent Way
In an important message to the Latter-day Saints in Nauvoo just one year before his tragic and untimely martyrdom, the Prophet Joseph Smith said:
"If we would secure and cultivate the love of others, we must love others, even our enemies as well as friends. … Christians should cease wrangling and contending with each other, and cultivate the principles of union and friendship in their midst." (History of the Church, 5:498–99.)
That is magnificent counsel today, even as it was 150 years ago. The world in which we live, whether close to home or far away, needs the gospel of Jesus Christ. It provides the only way the world will ever know peace. We need to be kinder with one another, more gentle and forgiving. We need to be slower to anger and more prompt to help. We need to extend the hand of friendship and resist the hand of retribution. In short, we need to love one another with the pure love of Christ, with genuine charity and compassion and, if necessary, shared suffering, for that is the way God loves us.
In our worship services, we often sing a lovely hymn with text written by Susan Evans McCloud. May I recall a few lines of that hymn for you?
Savior, may I learn to love thee,
Walk the path that thou hast shown,
Pause to help and lift another,
Finding strength beyond my own. …
Who am I to judge another
When I walk imperfectly?
In the quiet heart is hidden
Sorrow that the eye can't see. …
I would be my brother's keeper;
I would learn the healer's art.
To the wounded and the weary
I would show a gentle heart.
I would be my brother's keeper—
Lord, I would follow thee.
(Hymns, 1985, no. 220.)
We need to walk more resolutely and more charitably the path that Jesus has shown. We need to "pause to help and lift another" and surely we will find "strength beyond [our] own." If we would do more to learn "the healer's art," there would be untold chances to use it, to touch the "wounded and the weary" and show to all "a gentle[r] heart." Yes, Lord, we should follow thee.
"A new commandment I give unto you," he said, "That ye love one another; … By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another." (John 13:34–35.) This love that we should have for our brothers and sisters in the human family, and that Christ has for every one of us, is called charity or "the pure love of Christ." (Moro. 7:47.) It is the love that prompted the suffering and sacrifice of Christ's atonement. It is the highest pinnacle the human soul can reach and the deepest expression of the human heart.
We have a feeling of appreciation that our women's Relief Society organization, celebrating this year its sesquicentennial anniversary, has always had as its theme "Charity Never Faileth." Charity encompasses all other godly virtues. It distinguishes both the beginning and the end of the plan of salvation. When all else fails, charity—Christ's love—will not fail. It is the greatest of all divine attributes.
Out of the abundance of his heart, Jesus spoke to the poor, the downtrodden, the widows, the little children; to farmers and fishermen, and those who tended goats and sheep; to strangers and foreigners, the rich, the politically powerful, as well as the unfriendly Pharisees and scribes. He ministered to the poor, the hungry, the deprived, the sick. He blessed the lame, the blind, the deaf, and other people with physical disabilities. He drove out the demons and evil spirits that had caused mental or emotional illness. He purified those who were burdened with sin. He taught lessons of love and repeatedly demonstrated unselfish service to others. All were recipients of his love. All were "privileged the one like unto the other, and none [were] forbidden." (2 Ne. 26:28.) These are all expressions and examples of his unbounded charity.
The world in which we live would benefit greatly if men and women everywhere would exercise the pure love of Christ, which is kind, meek, and lowly. It is without envy or pride. It is selfless because it seeks nothing in return. It does not countenance evil or ill will, nor rejoice in iniquity; it has no place for bigotry, hatred, or violence. It refuses to condone ridicule, vulgarity, abuse, or ostracism. It encourages diverse people to live together in Christian love regardless of religious belief, race, nationality, financial standing, education, or culture.
The Savior has commanded us to love one another as he has loved us; to clothe ourselves "with the bond of charity" (D&C 88:125), as he so clothed himself. We are called upon to purify our inner feelings, to change our hearts, to make our outward actions and appearance conform to what we say we believe and feel inside. We are to be true disciples of Christ.
As a young man, Brother Vern Crowley said he learned something of the crucial lesson the Prophet Joseph had taught the early Saints in Nauvoo when he told them to "love others, even our enemies as well as friends." This is a good lesson for each of us.
After his father became ill, Vern Crowley took responsibility for running the family wrecking yard although he was only fifteen years of age. Some customers occasionally took unfair advantage of the young man, and parts were disappearing from the lot overnight. Vern was angry and vowed to catch someone and make an example of him. Vengeance would be his.
Just after his father had started to recover from his illness, Vern was making his rounds of the yard one night at closing time. It was nearly dark. In a distant corner of the property, he caught sight of someone carrying a large piece of machinery toward the back fence. He ran like a champion athlete and caught the young thief. His first thought was to take out his frustrations with his fists and then drag the boy to the front office and call the police. His heart was full of anger and vengeance. He had caught his thief, and he intended to get his just dues.
Out of nowhere, Vern's father came along, put his weak and infirm hand on his son's shoulder, and said, "I see you're a bit upset, Vern. Can I handle this?" He then walked over to the young would-be thief and put his arm around his shoulder, looked him in the eye for a moment, and said, "Son, tell me, why are you doing this? Why were you trying to steal that transmission?" Then Mr. Crowley started walking toward the office with his arm around the boy, asking questions about the young man's car problems as they walked. By the time they had arrived at the office, the father said, "Well, I think your clutch is gone and that's causing your problem."
In the meantime, Vern was fuming. "Who cares about his clutch?" he thought. "Let's call the police and get this over with." But his father just kept talking. "Vern, get him a clutch. Get him a throwout bearing, too. And get him a pressure plate. That should take care of it." The father handed all of the parts to the young man who had attempted robbery and said, "Take these. And here's the transmission, too. You don't have to steal, young man. Just ask for it. There's a way out of every problem. People are willing to help."
Brother Vern Crowley said he learned an everlasting lesson in love that day. The young man came back to the lot often. Voluntarily, month by month, he paid for all of the parts Vic Crowley had given him, including the transmission. During those visits he asked Vern why his dad was the way he was and why he did what he did. Vern told him something of their Latter-day Saint beliefs and how much his father loved the Lord and loved people. Eventually the would-be thief was baptized. Vern later said, "It's hard now to describe the feelings I had and what I went through in that experience. I, too, was young. I had caught my crook. I was going to extract the utmost penalty. But my father taught me a different way."
A different way? A better way? A higher way? A more excellent way? Oh, how the world could benefit from such a magnificent lesson. As Moroni declares:
"Wherefore, whoso believeth in God might with surety hope for a better world, …
"In the gift of his Son hath God prepared a more excellent way." (Ether 12:4, 11.)
President David O. McKay once said:
"The peace of Christ does not come by seeking the superficial things of life, neither does it come except as it springs from the individual's heart. Jesus said to his disciples: 'Peace I leave with you, my peace I give unto you: not as the world giveth, give I unto you.'" (Gospel Ideals, Salt Lake City: Improvement Era, 1953, pp. 39–40.)
In all the realms of daily living and in a world of so much need, we should so live that one day we will hear the King of Kings say to us:
"For I was an hungred, and ye gave me meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me in:
"Naked, and ye clothed me: I was sick, and ye visited me: I was in prison, and ye came unto me." (Matt. 25:35–36.)
And if we should have occasion to say:
"Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, and fed thee? or thirsty, and gave thee drink?
"When saw we thee a stranger, and took thee in? or naked, and clothed thee?
"Or when saw we thee sick, or in prison, and came unto thee?" (Matt. 22:37–39.)
Then I am certain we will hear this reply: "Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me." (Matt. 25:40.)
We need a more peaceful world, growing out of more peaceful families and neighborhoods and communities. To secure and cultivate such peace, "we must love others, even our enemies as well as our friends." The world needs the gospel of Jesus Christ. Those who are filled with the love of Christ do not seek to force others to do better; they inspire others to do better, indeed inspire them to the pursuit of God. We need to extend the hand of friendship. We need to be kinder, more gentle, more forgiving, and slower to anger. We need to love one another with the pure love of Christ. May this be our course and our desire.
I add my witness that Jesus is the Christ, the Savior of the world, and that this is his church, in the name of Jesus Christ, amen.


text:
Hurricane Maria will take a path somewhat similar to Jose and may be a concern next week for the East Coast after it slams Puerto Rico and the Caribbean Islands the next few days.
Packing 155 mph winds, Maria was just two mph short of Category 5 status when it made landfall on the southeastern coast of Puerto Rico early Wednesday morning.
The latest indications are that Maria will not trek as far to the west as Irma did, according to AccuWeather.com. Irma moved westward to the Florida Keys, then made a rather abrupt northward turn across the Florida Peninsula.
AccuWeather meteorologists do not expect Maria to make landfall in Florida. Maria will take more of a curved path late this week and into this weekend.
Following the direct hit on Puerto Rico, Maria is "likely to remain a major hurricane as it moves northwestward on Thursday," according to AccuWeather Hurricane Expert Dan Kottlowski.
Maria may pass close to the Dominican Republic and could have a direct hit on part of the Turks and Caicos islands on Friday, AccuWeather.com said.
During early next week, Maria will likely remain offshore of the southeastern U.S.
During the middle to latter part of next week, possibilities range from the hurricane remaining offshore to an encounter with the U.S. mainland from the Carolinas on north.
There is much uncertainty regarding Maria's path. Check back to Daily Voice for updates.
Click here to follow Daily Voice Armonk and receive free news updates.


text:
RENO - A federal judge has agreed to let the U.S. Bureau of Land Management resume the roundup of dozens of wild mustangs in northern Nevada but says she remains concerned about critics' complaints the agency is treating the animals inhumanely.
U.S District Judge Miranda Du explained Thursday she was granting the government's request to lift an emergency injunction that halted the roundup last week because opponents had failed to prove the agency lacked authority to remove the mustangs from the high desert near the Idaho line.
The judge said she intended to issue a formal order on Friday but hadn't decided yet if it's necessary to include specific restrictions to ensure the roundup is conducted humanely after BLM wranglers were recently captured on video repeatedly shocking mustangs with electric prods and in one case chasing several into a barbed wire fence with a helicopter.
"I will craft the order to ensure the matter is conducted in a humane manner," Du said at the conclusion of a two-hour hearing, adding she hadn't determined yet if BLM's actions constituted inhumane treatment under the law.
She told BLM's lawyer from the Justice Department that the agency could resume the roundup first thing Friday even if her order hasn't been formalized by then but cautioned, "You're taking the risk the methods you use could be prohibited in the order."
Du earlier told BLM she was willing to postpone Thursday's hearing so agency experts could have more time to provide evidence and testimony to help prove the treatment is not inhumane.
But Justice Department lawyer Erik Petersen said the delay in the roundup already has added $100,000 to the cost of the gather of the additional 50 horses because the contractors are sitting idle but still being paid.
"The plaintiffs have got us in a bind. It's costing taxpayers $20,000 a day," he said. "My client's goal is to get this injunction lifted today and resume the gather tomorrow."
BLM argues the herd in the Owyhee Horse Management Area is too large to be sustained given lingering drought and warned that some of the animals may die if they are not removed before spring.
"To whatever extent that plaintiff might be harmed by the gather, that harm is not irreparable in light of the fact that the gather is designed to promote the health of the wild horses in the Owyhee Complex, thereby ensuring the continued existence of thriving, free-ranging herds on the range," BLM's lawyers wrote in court briefs filed before the hearing.
Wild horse protection advocates countered by accusing the agency of shamefully exaggerating the threat to the animals in an area
"I think it is fiction, your honor," said Gordon Cowan, a Reno lawyer for the plaintiff, Laura Leigh and her Wild Horse Education group. "There's really no emergency out there. There's no proof of stress on the range."
Cowan also argued that it is "BLM's choice to waste $20,000 per day in budget funds is its own choosing rather than those of the court or Ms. Leigh's." He accused the BLM of engaging in "shameful scare tactics" intended to "dissuade, censor, intimidate or silence those like Ms. Leigh who, in good faith, bring an agency's bad conduct to light."
Cowan said it's part of a pattern of intimidation and pointed to a confrontation between Interior Secretary Ken Salazar and a reporter for a Colorado Springs, Colo., newspaper who was questioning him about wild horses in November.
"This is the same agency whose top leader, the secretary of Interior, threatened to punch out a journalist when inquiring of the BLM's links to selling wild horses to a 'kill buyer' for slaughter," Cowan wrote in a footnote to court briefs filed on Wednesday.
Salazar subsequently apologized to the reporter.
Use the comment form below to begin a discussion about this content.


text:
The ALL NEW PureGlide mouse skates have been completely redesigned to provide smooth, rounded edges, and industry leading calibrated thickness to within 0.05 mm. These skates are sure to increase your control and accuracy, while reducing wrist strain caused by grip tension.
- Includes 2 Sets
- Smooth, rounded edges
- 100% High Quality PTFE
- OEM Thickness (0.7mm +/- 0.05mm)
- Powerful 3M Backing
- 6+ Month Life Expectancy


text:
We're just days away from the first six :01 titles showing up at your favorite bookstore!
Like many of you who've been writing me, I'm thoroughly enjoying Eddie Campbell's behind-the-scenes glimpses as he counts down to his book's release. The Fate of the Artist continues to get tremendous buzz and anticipation, right around the world.
Right now I'm in the Four Seasons hotel in Houston, Texas, for the Texas Library Association and the Bluebonnet acceptance. Blogging in a nice hotel bathrobe is a treat. I should try this more often. Starting today, I'll be sprinkling in some of my own little moments, behind-the-scenes of these books we're doing.
With our first list, we launch a brilliant new series called The Lost Colony by Grady Klein. He's a newcomer in graphic novels, with some remarkable work behind him in editorial illustration and animation. Book one of The Lost Colony is The Snodgrass Conspiracy and when I first saw sample pages of it, I knew this was work of visionary brilliance. The more I work with Grady and the more I visit his weird and wonderful little island, the more that first impression is confirmed.
When I get submissions of work that's entirely digital, I mostly cringe. It tends to feel like Photoshop owns the artist, not the other way around. Not so with Grady for whom it just happens to be the right tool. In his hand, it's the pen, the brush in which we get a true author's handwriting.
There's so much in The Lost Colony world that defines why First Second was started in the first place: a personal voice, innovation, high adventure, skilled artistry and excellent writing, and throughout it all, an author wrestling with things, exploring –– and doing what he loves. I'll champion that any day.
Each episode has a clear focus but in the course of the whole series, an over-arching story is unfolding, continually revealing surprising depths and contradictions to the island's characters, and their tangled relationships. Book 2 is due out next Spring, and the ones after that each Spring to follow.
More about discovering The Lost Colony in next entries, along with some glimpses —like this one— from the second book, which is called The Red Menace. Glorious stuff. I haven't been this excited about a new series since the first seasons of the Simpsons.