text:
James Hoggan | June 15, 2009
By James Hoggan • Monday, June 15, 2009 - 10:36
Updated: June 15, 2009
There is a line between public relations and propaganda - or there should be. And there is a difference between using your skills, in good faith, to help rescue a battered reputation and using them to twist the truth - to sow confusion and doubt on an issue that is critical to human survival.
And it is infuriating - as a public relations professional - to watch my colleagues use their skills, their training and their considerable intellect to poison the international debate on climate change.
That's what is happening today, and I think it's a disgrace. On one hand, you have the Nobel Prize-winning Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change – as well as the science academies of every developed nation in the world – confirming that:
- climate change is real;
- it is caused by human activity; and
- it is threatening the planet in ways we can only begin to imagine.
On the other hand, you have an ongoing public debate - not about how to respond, but about whether we should bother, about whether climate change is even a scientific certainty. While those who stand in denial of climate change have failed in the last 15 years to produce a single, peer-reviewed scientific journal article that challenges the theory and evidence of human-induced climate change, mainstream media was, until very recently, covering the story (in more than half the cases, according to the academic researchers Boykoff and Boykoff) by quoting one scientist talking about the risks and one purported expert saying that climate change was not happening – or might actually be a good thing.
Few PR offences have been so obvious, so successful and so despicable as this attack on the science of climate change. It has been a triumph of disinformation – one of the boldest and most extensive PR campaigns in history, primarily financed by the energy industry and executed by some of the best PR talent in the world. As a public relations practitioner, it is a marvel – and a deep humiliation – and I want to see it stop.
Here's how it works: Public relations is not a process of telling people what to think; people are too smart for that, and North Americans are way too stubborn. Tell a bunch of North Americans what they are supposed to think and you're likely to wind up the only person at the party enjoying your can of New Coke.
No, the trick to executing a good PR campaign is twofold: you figure out what people are thinking already; and then you nudge them gently from that position to one that is closer to where you want them to be. The first step is research: you find out what they know and understand; you identify the specific gaps in their knowledge. Then you fill those gaps with a purpose-built campaign. You educate. If people are afraid to take Tylenol (as they were after someone poisoned some pills), you explain the extensive safety precautions now typical in the pharmaceutical industry. If people think Martha Stewart is arrogant and uncaring, you create opportunities for her to show a more human side.
In the best cases – the cases that are most personally rewarding – your advice actually guides corporate behavior. That is, if a client wants to protect or revive their reputation, if they want to convince the public that they're running a responsible company and doing the right thing, the most obvious public relations advice is that they should do the right thing.
It's the kind of advice that, historically, has been a hard sell in the tobacco industry, in the asbestos industry - and too often in the automotive industry. Those sectors have provided some of the most famous examples of PR disinformation: "smoking isn't necessarily bad for you;" "it's not certain that asbestos will give you cancer;" "your seatbelt might actually kill you if you're the one person in five trillion whose buckle jams just as your car flips into a watery ditch."
But few PR offences have been so obvious, so successful and so despicable as the attack on the scientific certainty of climate change. Few have been so coldly calculating and few have been so well documented. For example, Ross Gelbspan, in his books, The Heat is On and Boiling Point sets out the whole case, pointing fingers and naming names. PR Watch founder John Stauber has done similarly exemplary work, tracking the bogus campaigns and linking various pseudo scientists to their energy industry funders.
I have filled a whole book with details of the documented corporate action plans to deny climate change and confuse the public. Climate Cover-up hit the shelves in the fall of 2009.
One of the best proofs of climate disinformation came in a November 2002 memo from political consultant Frank Luntz to the U.S. Republican Party. Luntz followed the rules: he did the research; he identified the soft spots in public opinion; and he made a clever critical judgment about which way the public could be induced to move.
In a section entitled "Winning the Global Warming Debate," Luntz says this:
"The Scientific Debate Remains Open. Voters believe that there is no consensus about global warming within the scientific community. Should the public come to believe that the scientific issues are settled, their views about global warming will change accordingly. Therefore, you need to make the lack of scientific certainty a primary issue in the debate, and defer to scientists and other experts in the field."
If you download the memo and read the whole thing, you will notice that Luntz never expressly denies the validity of the science. In fact, he says, "The scientific debate is closing [against us] but is not yet closed."
" … not yet closed"? Among those who disagreed with that assessment when Luntz wrote this report were the 2,500 scientists in the IPCC, the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the U.S. Geological Survey, the Royal Society of London and the Royal Society of Canada.
In 2004, Donald Kennedy, editor-in-chief of Science magazine, said, "We're in the middle of a large uncontrolled experiment on the only planet we have." And to back up this sense of certainty, he reported that University of California, San Diego science historian Dr. Naomi Oreskes had published an analysis in Science in which she had combed through 928 peer-reviewed climate studies published between 1993 and 2003 and found not a single one that disagreed with the general scientific consensus.
Yet journalists continued to report updates from the best climate scientists in the world juxtaposed against the unsubstantiated raving of an industry-funded climate change denier - as if both were equally valid.
Notwithstanding, Luntz wrote: "There is still a window of opportunity to challenge the science." He recommended that his Republican Party clients do just that. He urged them to marshal their own "scientists" to contest the issue on every occasion. He urged them to plead for "sound science" a twist of language of the sort that George Orwell once said was "designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidarity to pure wind."
Luntz's goal – which was embraced with unnerving enthusiasm by the Bush Administration - was to manufacture uncertainty and to politicize science. Like all tragedy, it would be hilarious if you could play it for laughs.
Luntz himself actually backed off this position a couple of years later, saying that the evidence of climate change was overwhelming. So it's difficult to tell who is being wilfully blind and who, like Luntz, was falling victim to gross negligence in the way they ignore the science - and in the potentially catastrophic risks that they promote. Whichever way you cut it, their actions reflect badly on the whole public relations industry.
As you might assume from my earlier criticism, I'm not suggesting that Frank Luntz or even a dubious cabal of ethics-free PR people are solely to blame for the public confusion on climate change. They have received extensive, if clumsy assistance from the media, which in a facile attempt to provide "balance" is willing to give any opinion an "impartial" airing as long as it is firmly in contradiction with another.
This is not just a feature of the point/counterpoint talking heads that have emerged as the principal vehicle for television news. Newspaper reporters are just as guilty of canvassing "both sides" of every argument, often without providing any critical judgment as to the validity or relative weight of either side.
On the issue of climate change, journalists have consistently reported the updates from the best climate scientists in the world juxtaposed against the unsubstantiated raving of an industry-funded climate change denier - as if both are equally valid. This is not balanced journalism. It is a critical abdication of journalistic responsibility. Any reporter who cannot assess the relative merits of a global scientific consensus - especially in contradiction to an "expert" that the coal industry is paying to help "clear the air" - deserves to have his pencil taken away in solemn ceremony and broken into bits.
There is yet more blame to go around. You could criticize scientists for the dense, cautious and conditional language that they use in talking about the threats of climate change. But in science, credibility is a currency (this, in apparent contradiction to the state of affairs in journalism or PR). A scientist who strays, even momentarily, off the path of certainty or who wanders from hard science into policy is immediately dismissed as someone with an axe to grind.
You could also criticize environmentalists, whose tendency has been to stray too far in the other direction, extrapolating scientific assumptions to create scare stories so dispiriting that they create apathy rather than activism. These, in turn, have made easy targets for the energy industry's climate change deniers.
The important thing at this point, however, is not to assign blame. It is to educate yourself and to join this increasingly urgent political debate. This is not one of those relatively low-level PR boondoggles. We're not talking about single individuals dying because the auto industry held out against seat belt laws. We're not even talking about many 100s of thousands of people dying of lung cancer because the tobacco industry held out for "sound science" while actively increasing the amount of addictive nicotine in their product. We're talking about the future of the planet.
So please read on.
Read everything.
If you are actually practicing public relations, take a close look at your clients and at your own performance. There has to be a point where principle trumps short-term economic gain, a point where you admit to yourself that it's not worth the money to put the planet at risk.
Whatever you do, you must keep a wary eye. By all means, read the sites that deny the reality of climate change. But then check on www.sourcewatch.org to see who paid for those opinions. Read the DeSmogBlog. Don't accept the word of people who pass themselves off as "skeptics." Be skeptical yourself. Ask yourself what motive the scientific community has to gang up and invent a phony climate crisis. Compare that to the motives that ExxonMobil or Peabody Coal might have to deny that burning fossil fuels indiscriminately could change irrevocably our existence on the planet.
And if you still leave the lights on when you're done, make sure they're shining in the shamed faces of the PR pros who are still trying to prevent sound, sensible policy change to affect this, perhaps the biggest threat humankind has ever faced.
Get the book:
Read it and see replied on Permalink
heading towards a global cooling
Only by the lowest ranks of so-called climate experts:
The most "science-challenged" slice of this group is still saying it.
Jim Eager replied on Permalink
So, tell us exaclty
how "those who stand in denial of climate change have failed in the last 15 years to produce a single, peer-reviewed scientific journal article that challenges the theory" is a "lie" and "so ridiculously wrong"?
I googled that exact phase and your comment in this thread is all that came up.
No assertions, just show us the links to the papers in the peer-reviewed scientific literature.
Bruce Frykman replied on Permalink
RE: ""those who stand in
RE: ""those who stand in denial of climate change have failed in the last 15 years to produce a single, peer-reviewed scientific journal article that challenges the theory" is a "lie"
What complete balderdash, this no different that holding forth that no single peer revied study has denied that the Pope in Rome is God's vicar on Earth. Peer review has nothing to to with either validating or invalidating a theory.
Scientific theories are self-affirming or self-denying, opinion isn't worth a damn in this process. Netwon's F=ma is true not because they held a poll in which a self appointed authority, first decided who could vote in the poll, and counted only the votes of those they selected to vote for their idea. F=ma is true because it works every time for the intended purpose.
Anyone who does not understand this is either ignorant or fraud. Science is non authoritarinan and has nothing to do with human opinion. Opinions do not count.
barbiplease replied on Permalink
You are totally brainwashed.
Chris Maddigan wrote:
The first lie comes shortly after when it is stated that the science academies of every developed nation in the world confirm that AGW is threatening the planet in ways we can only begin to imagine. The statements of almost all academies are far more limited and guarded as too what they say about AGW.
Falsehood. It is clear from the abundance of statements issued by leading scientific acadamies of every developed nation in the world–the overwhelming majority of which combine stern warnings with graphic illustrations detailing very explicitly what is highly likely to occur should we fail to heed the scientific warnings (yet variously worded due to a variety of threats to highlight and issued independently of each other so variously stated)–that there is no other way to summarize these scientific opinions other than to say that they confirm that anthropogenic warming is threatening the planet in ways we can only begin to imagine.
Only a deluded person would come away and conclude therefrom that "almost all acadamies are far more limited and guarded as too [sic] what they say about AGW."
The only dissenting organization–The American Association of Petroleum Geologists–withdrew its statement of dissent in 2007. This leaves us with the handful of noncommital statements with limited and guarded words of which you speak, which are few and far between but are vastly outnumbered and, hence, effectively negated by the overwhelming number of statements in concurrence with the conclusions of the IPCC. To cite the many examples is beyond the scope of this comment, so here is the link:
Given that every leading and respected scientific academy from around the world concurs with the conclusions of the IPCC and has issued strong statements of endorsements expressing their agreement, the remark that the IPCC's scientific accolade amounts to a "Peace Prize which is basicaly [sic] a prize awarded for outstanding political correctness" is uninformed and thoroughly discredited by his own cited sources (e.g., "the statements of almost all academies") and therefore utterly irrelevant.
Then comes another big lie - "those who stand in denial of climate change have failed in the last 15 years to produce a single, peer-reviewed scientific journal article that challenges the theory ". This often repeated statement is so ridiculously wrong that it immediately discredits anyone who states it (Google it if you doubt this).
Why bother googling your dubious claim if you can't even offer a single concrete example yourself? You expect people to take your "word" for it?? Come, now…the burden of proof is on you, the denier–not on me or on any other to furnish evidence.
Otherwise, your claim is dismissed as an unsubstantiated claim. So show me the evidence. (Remember: substandard scientific journals that are not listed in the ISI whose articles are editor-reviewed are unacceptable as evidence, since they are considered low-grade and non-peer reviewed).
If you really want to convince me then you must first embrace the values of rigorous honesty. This would mean that the leaders of the AGW cause should routinely denounce the dishonest and the exaggerators on their own side and refuse to publish any scientist unwilling to fully expose their data and their methodology to public scrutiny. It is not peer review that leads to the truth but open public scrutiny. Peer review just perpetuates group think.
I am highly skeptical of your skepticism and have no need to convince a denier whose mind is made up and who denies that he is even a denier. I don't doubt your sincerity, but it is not you who are skeptical of your claims, it is I. Deniers are not skeptics–their minds are made up.
I don't think you are being willfully deceitful but that you are deceived. You obviously cannot distinguish legitimate scientists from paid contrarian scientists hired by public relations firms. You offer unsubstantiated claims concerning the existence of peer-reviewed studies challenging the consensus but fail to offer examples openly for our scrutiny–which is then refuted by your own argument in the next paragraph (e.g., "It is not peer review that leads to the truth but open public scrutiny. Peer review just perpetuates group think.")
This to me reflects an individual who is brainwashed by think-tanks and PR campaigns. Your comment on peer review indicates that you are unacquainted with the scientific method. Peer review is an indispensible part of the scientific process, without which we cannot have the necessary safeguards to filter out scientific fraudulence and shoddy works of questionable value. So it's not that you are lying–you frankly just don't know what you are talking about. Please do your homework and come back when you are better informed.
Hear, Hear.
Hear, Hear.
Again,real approaches to real
Again,real approaches to real probems. Well said.
anonymous replied on Permalink
Same old same old
There was no scientific consensus of imminent global cooling in the 1970s. That's a line thrown out to muddle the picture, dragged back in and then thrown out again and again..
anonymous replied on Permalink
Re Pot, Kettle, Black
The adoption of an insincere moral tone and appeals for 'fair play' is an old trick used by people who want to create a false picture of equivalency, especially when there are no grounds for complaint. You make claims and allegations, but provide no credible evidence of wrongdoing. It's a variation on the old 'balance' trick.
In fact, please state what evidence for AGW actually would convince you. A finger from the clouds with a booming voice, perhaps? If are a skeptic, what evidence will be enough? Or are you just a denier, for whom there will always be something wrong, even if you have to dig, dig, dig for it until you find it, and if that doesn't work, make it yourself?
Ubuntu Guy replied on Permalink
Religion of denial
I've found quite the correlation between untenable biblical literalism and climate change denial, though one must wonder how much of the religious belief is sincere and how much is conformity internalized.
One constant smear from deniers is 'socialist' or leftie. I've had fun on some forums linking those remarks to pro-climate science statements from Schwarzenegger (Republican), the US Navy (so many commies there!) and a statement from the Vatican (that hotbed of rabid Bolshevism ;). I don't get any response, other than anonymous downward thumbs. I wonder why…?
SirGareth replied on Permalink
I'm agnostic to all belief
I'm agnostic to all belief cults be they original sin cults or AGW cults but you are entitled to your own faith - just not your own definitions.
Ubuntu Guy replied on Permalink
Fictionalizing and politicizing science
We've been hearing this tripe for years. How the best science is found in oil company think tanks, truck stop research projects, misquoted scientists whose retractions are ignored, the unrecognized genius of people who've never done any actually relevant science in the discipline. And somehow thousands of qualified scientist from diverse countries and backgrounds are all part of a 'religion'.
It all seems absurd, like a Monty Python sketch…
[Cardinal Inhofe] "Nooobody expects the Denier Inquisition. Our weapon is fear. Fear and ignorance. …Our two weapons are fear and ignorance – and a fanatical devotion to the Pump. Let me start again… Nooobody expects the Denier Inquisition. Amongst our weapons are fear, ignorance, and a fanatical devotion to the Pump. Cardinal Singer, will you read the charges." [Opens scroll]
[Cardinal Singer] "In the name of our Holy Mother Corp, you are charged with the crime of Accuracy, with Corruption of Profits, and with Treason against their Most Exalted Interests. How do you plead?"
[Scientist] "What? Are you mad?"
[Inhofe] "I see. So be it. Cardinal Fang, get…the cherry-picker."
[Scientist] "The cherry-picker! No! Not that!"
Back in reality, I still see nothing but the same old debunked talking points.
Thank you for blowing smoke.
anonymous replied on Permalink
Thank you, ascienceteacher,
Thank you, ascienceteacher, for a simple, clear and true statement. CO2 is a by-product of fossil fuels. Fossil fuels are dirty and make us sick, probably a good reason to get rid of them anyway. Then of course we have to deal with overpopulation, plastics pollution, acidification of the oceans… Let's stop the bickering and get to work.
SirGareth replied on Permalink
The best science money can buy
You have the American people arrayed against billions of dollars of corporate interests who have bet the farm in bringing this cash cow in.
This site is probably funded by Goldman Sachs, GE, Google and an array of corporate interests who spend billions cultivating ignoramuses whom Stalin refferred to as the useful idiots
The hype is promoted everywhere by these corporate interests and the schools double down on the hype with a propaganda campaign that would do Herr Goebbals proud.
Still its all failing and the global warming corporate hucksters will not meet anyone in open debate so they put up slick websites like this one instead.
The rhetoric becomes more panic stricken each day which is only helping to unravel the con game. Nobody but the penniless idiots and believe this garbage the corporations paying the bills don't believe it
SirGareth replied on Permalink
Not that way
Actually that's not what happened. What happened is that the political hucksters in all countries needed more control over the population so they convened this "scientific body.
They invited a lot of people to join and enjoy the swell benefits of belonging to the faithful group. The real scientists wrote esoteric reports that no one understood and the politicians "summarized" it to say whatever they wanted it to say. The people who cried foul and challenged these summarizers that inverted everything they said they were kicked off the panel
SirGareth replied on Permalink
RE: "I trust the ethics of
RE: "I trust the ethics of scientists (the group of people least likely to have them in my opinion) "
Why do you hold this opinion; is there any scientific basis for it or is it simply your belief?
To me your statement leads more credence to evidence that AGW as an expression of cultism similar to that expressed by the devotees of Jim Jones or even Charlie Manson; as the other great installers of confidence and faith they knew how to pull the strings of the gullible.
SirGareth replied on Permalink
Conservation is the practice
Conservation is the practice of using the earth's resources for maximum utility. In the end everything changes - nature abhors not only vacuums but also "sustainability"
SirGareth replied on Permalink
RE:Some bodies of water are
RE:Some bodies of water are actually cooler in places because particulate matter in the air from pollution and jet plumes dim the sun.
This seems fanciful; it would take months for oceans to respond to small changes in local environments and by that time sea currents would take the water halfway around the world in largely unpredictable.
Otherwise its a great excuse for the failure or your sandwich board doomsday religion
SirGareth replied on Permalink
Great insight; how would
Great insight; how would government school unions be useful in inculcating habits in the children that their parents don't share?
I admit that I had a cakewalk compared with my parents but I still put in 60 hour weeks as a norm and had at best a couple of weeks off each year to get things done on the homestead.
Would the teachers unions set a far better example than I did as a parent on the virtues of self-sufficiency, solid work effort, self-sacrifice, and being accountable to those with whom you interact.
SirGareth replied on Permalink
Go to church, live the life
Go to church, live the life of the ascetic, and above all get off the internet. You can learn how to live on herbs, roots, and an occasional squirrel. You can heat your hut with dried human dung and embrace nature fully by getting off the grid. You will need to get out of your cities and apartments and embrace the vigorous life. Try western North Dakota in January. Bring mittens
SirGareth replied on Permalink
But certified skeptics don't
But certified skeptics don't believe these certified cult priests.
Is this how science is now don't; not by proof but being "certifiable"?
SirGareth replied on Permalink
But shouldn't we be paying a
But shouldn't we be paying a lot more obsequious service to God and what God experts say we should give him? After all Earth isn't much when we compare it to our immortal souls.
Is earth more important to you than the almighty?
SirGareth replied on Permalink
RE: "The waste of natural
RE: "The waste of natural resources is awful."
Who are you saving them for? Surely not the human blight on the planet. Which "natural resources do you want to save? I'm not aware that polar bears and whales are big consumers of oil, iron, coal, etc.
RE: "The biggest problem is the size of the human population. This needs immediate action."
Would you offer to kill yourself in order "save the planet", if so Ill be more than happy provide the means to do it rather painlessly.
Just think of the powerful message you could offer in service to "the planet" if you came out with the statement that the world just has too many people like you and you are going to do your best to correct this imbalance and then simply shoot yourself in the head.
I could video the whole thing and put it on you-tube and perhaps inspire all of the planet's greenies to follow your powerful leadership in correcting this problem. Think of the mass suicides you could inspire among all of the dedicated greenies - it would be a wonderful inspirational message to us all
Of course as your body molders in the ground, the decay will emit carbon dioxide as it rots; you would need to pay your carbon taxes up front. The polar bears have set up a fund for this because humans would just use the taxes to consume more of earths precious resources. Such taxes are safer in the hands, the paws, the flippers, etc of the animals who are the only creatures who would use it to live "sustainably"
RE: "The charm of the CO2 man made global warming is that it might lead to burning less oil. This is absolutely necessary."
Why is it necessary to burn less oil? I can understand why YOU might want to burn less, its expensive; but both Barack Obama and I can afford to use as much of it as we want. OK we all have to pay for Obama's oil but nonetheless there is a market price for oil that reflects its scarcity.
If it gets real scarce only a few of us will be able to afford it and those who can't afford it will simply die early off as prices for everything you need into order to live will explode.
This will cull the lower classes and interrupt their ability to breed and thus not be able to generate more evil human spawn - that should make you all delighted right?
Antonio Moralez replied on Permalink
to Anonymous
In the Earth history was 3 or more ice ages when climate was changed totally. Researching polar directions of ancient pyramids all around a world show, that a North Pole all the time moving from Canada and Greenland to modern position of North Pole. Also, in those periods the Earth was underwent much more temperature changes than from human energy sources and without human at all. So, have sence to take into consideration those facts.
SirGareth replied on Permalink
Good points, Kids need to be
Good points, Kids need to be toughened up. They need to learn how to be productive. They need to learn that nothing is "sustainable";
Nature despises "sustainability" The spoiled children of a people that built a great nation with unparalleled liberty must learn that it is all "unsustainable" Nature destroys every creature that surrenders to her. Nature is always destructive of individuals, of species, of eco-systems, of continents; of planets, of stars; of galaxies; of the universe itself!
Our children will learn that they are not really entitled to a "minimum wage." They will learn that getting a useless college degree entitling them to a government job at wages that are based upon fantasy is also unsustainable. They will learn that governments that borrow money from their competitors can do so for one or two generations at best before the chips are called in. Governments are only viable to the extent they can live off the productivity of their citizens nations of unproductive citizens die. Nations that pay 4 to 10 natural costs of energy will die because they cannot compete. "Policies" can not change this fact.
Governments can not and never have produced wealth, they can only consume wealth; Governments who try to do this are no better off than a snake that tries to sustain itself by swallowing itself, tail first
anonymous replied on Permalink
nukes to solve climate change
Are you nuts?
xyz123 replied on Permalink
Satellite measurement
"I have heard (from global warming deniers, i.e. The Heartland Institute) that NASA satellite mean global temperature levels for the last ten years have not measured any increse; in fact a non-statistically significant increase has been measured. Is this correct? And if it is how do you explain this?"
The Heartland "Institute" is wrong. Why? See here…
"A global map of 31-year MSU/AMSU channel TMT trends shows large regions of significant warming over eastern and central Asia, and northern Canada, cooling over the southern oceans, with moderate warming over most other regions. A map of channel TLT trends shows a very similar pattern, but with more pronounced mid-latitude warming." http://www.remss.com/msu/msu_data_description.html#rss_msu_data_analysis
SirGareth replied on Permalink
Pray its all true. If it
Pray its all true. If it isn't socialism is in for a very bad end.
SirGareth replied on Permalink
But channel TLS shows sharp
But channel TLS shows sharp cooling over the same period - maybe we should ignore that. Additionally Channel TTS is flat which is the most significant issue. Oceans are the integrators of atmospheric temperatures and are therefore the only reliable indicator of climatic trends. They appear to be flat. The other trends are either increasing or decreasing by small deviations from a norm. ie noise.
For you greenies who took art classes and the like when the rest of us were studying real science, integration has nothing to do with buses in Selma Alabama.
SirGareth replied on Permalink
Politicians worry about
Politicians worry about money, environmentalists worry about money, taxpayers worry about money.
Polar bears do not worry about money; they worry about their next meal. You could go up to Churchill in Canada, bath yourself in honey and walk out into the tundra and at least solve the Polar Bear's worries.
Here is some wonderful news for you if you follow my advice; you will no longer need to "worry about the climate"
I think the human kind is more of a blessing when in the right mind. The ironic the amount of ignorance that people exhibit, when they know very little about how the world works, you should give us a little more credit, I mean, we created the computer. :)
Thunderbuck replied on Permalink
The whole point being made
The whole point being made here is that many "sides" to the global warming debate don't represent legitimate scientific positions as so much as acting more like fun house mirrors, deliberately distracting and misdirecting the public.
There's surely room for legitimate debate on the issue, but when "professional deniers" object for the sole sake of clouding public opinion, that's deeply wrong.
Ryan Webb replied on Permalink
Just a note on your wording...
A scientist who strays, even momentarily, off the path of absolute certainty or who wanders from hard science into policy is immediately dismissed as someone with an axe to grind.
No scientist would ever claim absolute certainty. The very nature of the scientific method precludes such an attempt. A theory or model can only be subjected to continuous attmepts at falsification, never proven (see Popper or Kuhn). This does not mean to say that scientists are not in pusuit of truth, only that in our pursuit we can never be absolutely certain of our conclusions. This is why we have a scientiffic consensus, the idea being that if many scientists have attampted to falsify a theory or conclusion many times than it must hold some (perhaps high) degree of explanatory relevance.
Perhaps you mean to say A scientist who strays, even momentarily, off the path of credible peer-reviewed science or who wanders from hard science into policy is immediately dismissed as someone with an axe to grind.
SirGareth replied on Permalink
Your statement is correct,
Your statement is correct, but it does not go far enough. Real science in fact produces no truth. Nothing of science deals with truth. Instead it deals with hypothesis and theory and as science progresses it does not refine truth but rather destroys all that some might currently pretend is the truth. Quantum theory is not true; it is false. It simply works well for the purposes we use it. It fails at everything. We cannot advance in physics/chemistry until quantum theory and all known theories are discarded.
We are incapable of ultimate understanding, or would those who argue that we are hold also that nature has created only one god-like creature (humans) capable of it? Presumable of this small subset hold only that a select few who earned PhDs on college campuses and work for some government are only those among the chosen few.
Oddly, this sounds very theocratic. Kings and priests as the holders of ultimate truth and by so knowing are the only people fit to rule us.
Kevin Grandia replied on Permalink
Point taken
And particularly well put. Thank you.
Ryan Webb replied on Permalink
And with particularly sloppy spelling...
I also wonder about the last part of that statement regarding the intersection of science and policy. Specifically, should there be a separation and how should it occur?
It seems clear that if one conducts research with the intent of pursuing a particular conclusion <i>a priori</i>, with an axe to grind as you put it, then one will often find loads of circumstantial evidence to support any conclusion. These reseaerches should be considered mouthpieces and nothing more… But does this mean that real scientists can/should have no input for policy? That any scientist who proposes relevant policy solutions has an axe to grind? I wonder what Dr. Suzuki would say about that… or Dr. Oppenheimer… or a research economist for that matter… It seems these should be precisely the people that we should be listening to for policy guidance.
garhane replied on Permalink
A few years back the Marshall Institute or Fund ( I am a little weak on correct names here) proposed to organize a fund to develop research and"scientific facts" that would tend to disestablish
climate science. The idea they had, and their articles are quite open and found today still
on the net, was to foster uncertainty. And this is exactly what they called it: uncertainty.
They did not propose to fund original or new research, and theirs was a political and not
a scientific pursuit. They represent interests who did not want to see the claims of climate
science accepted as certain, so they were going to foster uncertainty, plain and simple.
They are one of the small group of very well funded groups that are listed commonly
wherever the dissemination of science fraud is advocated. The weird thing is, if they are
so obvious, and they are, wny does anyone pay attention?
Anonymous replied on Permalink
Global Warming Denial is now
Global Warming Denial is now the moral equivalent of Holocaust Denial. It deserves the same amount of respect (zero).
Bruce M
Who is in denial?
Who exactly is in denial that the world has not warmed in the past 150 years?
Could you please provide some links to statements made by people who claim that the world has not warmed at all in the past 150 years?
Anonymous replied on Permalink
Kudos! The PR industry badly
Anonymous replied on Permalink
here you go
Not really
When someone says (my emphasis):
Tim Ball: Yes, it warmed from 1680 up to 1940, but since 1940 it's been cooling down. The evidence for warming is because of distorted records. The satellite data, for example, shows cooling.
how is he denying that it has warmed over the past 150 years?
Thunderbuck replied on Permalink
You realize that quoting Tim
You realize that quoting Tim Ball as a climate authority automatically casts doubt on your own credibility in this argument.
Don't be disingenuous. What we're discussing here is man made climate change.
Theo Richel replied on Permalink
Wow Bruce, what an
Wow Bruce, what an impressive contribution. Now let's take this a bit further: what would you recommend we do with these people: take away their jobs? punish them? Put them in jail? Kill them? Treat them as terrorists?
I think the holocaust was real, but if you would ask me to prove that… I really couldnt. I simply believe it. (And I have seen the sorry fate of some people who dared to ask questions about it).
I also think the earth has been warming lately. But I do not think that this will go on indefinitely, and nor do I think that it will be a big problem and nor that humans have much to do with it. Does that make me a denier? Do I deserve the same treatment as a holocaust denier?
hockey stick & denial
the hockey stick is one small part of the climate argument, and certainly not the only. you can lose the hockey stick (tho i don't think it's necessary) and still have heaps of evidence for human induced climate change. in fact, this is why there is a "scientific consensus:" because thousands of scientists, working with different areas of research, are consistently finding confirmation of the base principles of climate science: a) climate change is happening, b) human's are having a big impact on climate and c) a and b are bad news.
this, actually, is how science works. many different and independent bits of evidence, cross-referenced and corroborating, give a full picture. all of this feeds back into climate models, and the kicker for a scientific theory is when it becomes verifiably predictive: that is, the theory predicts X, Y, Z and then X, Y, Z actually happen. As with climate change (reduction in glacier size, changes in animal migration patterns, increased frequency of storms etc etc etc).
if you like graphs, here is my favourite:
This shows you what the climate looked like over the last 400k years, and it's relation to CO2 (scroll up). Note that the past 10k years have been relatively warm & stable. also, human civilization coincidently developed during this 10k years.
if you like human civilization, then you'll want to avoid those big spikes (hot) and big dips (cold) … both of which mean instability, meaning bye bye agriculture systems, meaning bad news all around.
denial of climate science is similar to denial of evolution: picking little bits of conflicting information doesn't invalidate the rest of the evidence, which is overwhelming.
What Evidence?
You say "you can lose the hockey stick (tho I don't think it's necessary) and still have heaps of evidence for human induced climate change". Can you tell me why the IPCC have 'lost' the Hockey Stick graph then if it isn't because it's totally discredited?
You claim there's "heaps of evidence for human induced climate change". Please show me, not another computer model, but an actual/real high CO2 related to temperature chart in either the last 420,000yrs or recent please?
You claim also;
a) climate change is happening - where?
c) a and b are bad news - like what type of bad?
Can you show the chart you omitted regarding "climate looked like over the last 400k years, and it's relation to CO2 (scroll up)."
You say "human civilization coincidently developed during this 10k years… if you like human civilization, then you'll want to avoid those big spikes (hot) and big dips (cold) … both of which mean instability, meaning bye bye agriculture systems, meaning bad news all around.."
I agree Hugh the cold is bad news (less plants and therefore less animals and men) but we've survived through 400,000 yrs (not 10,000yrs) of cold spells. However I disagree the hot spells are 'bad'. They are 'very good' in fact for all - they lead to the greatest growth of plants, insects, animals, fish and man. The last warm Medival period was 2 Degrees warmer than today, how was it 'bad'?
Computer-Scientist replied on Permalink
Strawman shotdown
The previous post was NOT suggesting any kind of punishment for global warming OR holocaust deniars. He was merely equating the level of their credibility.
I'm glad to see that you acknowledge that the earth is warming (pretty hard for anyone to deny that anymore, though the deniars certainly tried for a long time), but your faith that humans have little (if anything) to do with it isn't based on evidence. Therefore, I'll give your GW denial the same level of credibility I give the holocaust deniars. You are free to believe that, but I won't take you seriously until you present an extraordinary amount of evidence that contradicts the extraordinary amount of evidence supporting the human factor of GW.
Straw Evidence!
Hey Computer Scientist, if you've got 'extraordinary amount of evidence supporting human warming' can you give it to the IPCC because they haven't got any!! All the IPCC have got are computer-game simulations of CO2 driving temperature. That's it!
Nobody has got any link science between CO2 and temperature going up in 420,000yrs, in fact all the geological evidence points in the oppostite direction!
As for the temperature records the last 7yrs have hardly changed despite a 20% increase in CO2. Same now as from 1940 onwards.
Likening me to a Holocaust denier suggests to me you need to grow up before someone gets hurt. If you can't debate without dragging it down the gutter go see a stress manager ok and while you're at it brush up on your climate science.
SirGareth replied on Permalink
How do you know how warm the
How do you know how warm the earth is?
I know how warm my backyard is but I haven't instrumented the earth for temperature and neither has anyone else.
Of course the earth is warmer than it was "before" but its also colder than is was "before" It always depends on just which "before" suits your purpose doesn't it. I don't have faith in anything - show me. Why do you have "faith" that humans need to be taxed and controlled to hold back the tide, tame the tempest, or modulated the temperature to your desired setting.
I see only extraordinary PR and outright fraud but Zero evidence of anything.
Banning climate change contrarianism
The issue of whether people who "dare to ask questions" about "the Holocaust" should be put in prison, as can happen and has happened in some Western European countries deserves consideration in its own right more than instrumentalization for extraneous purposes.
The idea that it might be appropriate for people who share the political analysis of this blog to start thinking about demanding legal prohibition of the view that there can be, or is, no proof of a causal connection between human activity and climate change is something I examine in an article on Paul Crutzen's recently publicized proposals to fill the stratosphere with sulphur to mitigate climate change.
The article is on line at http://www.climateimc.org/?q=node/611


text: On Wed, 10 Apr 2002 tegner at nada.kth.se wrote: > Very helpful! Thanks! > > But I'm still curious about how you make - automagically - the hardware ethernet > line in dhcpd.conf initially. Say you have 100 machines. One way I would think > of would be to use kickstart and: > > Install the machines and boot them up in sequence and using the range statement > in dhcpd.conf (so that the first machine gets 192.168.1.101, the second > 192.168.1.102 ...) > > Once all nodes are up use some script to extract the mac addresses for all the > nodes and either modify dhcpd.conf - or - discard of dhcp completely and > hardwire the ip-addresses to each node. > > But I'm sure there are better ways to do this? Not that I know of. Maybe somebody else knows of one. I'd just use perl or bash (either would probably work, although parsing is generally easier in perl), parse e.g. Apr 11 08:18:09 lucifer dhcpd: DHCPREQUEST for 192.168.1.140 from 00:20:e0:6d:a0:05 via eth0 Apr 11 08:18:09 lucifer dhcpd: DHCPACK on 192.168.1.140 to 00:20:e0:6d:a0:05 via eth0 from /var/log/messages on the dhcp server, and write an output routine to generate # golem (Linux/Windows laptop lilith, second/100BT interface) host golem { hardware ethernet 00:20:e0:6d:a0:05; fixed-address 192.168.1.140; next-server 192.168.1.131; option routers 192.168.1.1; option domain-name "rgb.private.net"; option host-name "golem"; } and 192.168.1.140 golem.rgb.private.net golem and append them to /etc/dhcpd.conf and /etc/hosts respectively, and then distribute copies of the resulting /etc/hosts -- as Josip made eloquently clear your private internal network should resolve consistently on all PIN hosts and probably should have SOME sort of domainname defined so that software the might include a getdomainbyname() call and might not include an adequate check and handle of a null value can cope. It's hard to know what assumptions were made by the designer of every single piece of network software you might want to run... Of coures you'll probably want to do the b01, b02, b03... hostname iteration -- I'm just pulling an example at random out of my own log tables. rgb > > Thanks again, > > /jon > > Quoting "Robert G. Brown" <rgb at phy.duke.edu>: > > > On Wed, 10 Apr 2002 tegner at nada.kth.se wrote: > > > > > Quoting "Robert G. Brown" <rgb at phy.duke.edu>: > > > Is there a convenient way to obtain static ip-addresses using dhcp > > without > > > having to explicitly write down the mac-addresses in dhcpd.conf? > > > > > > Regards, > > > > > > /jon > > > > Static? As in each machine gets a single IP number that remains its own > > "forever" through all reboots and which can be identified by a fixed > > name in host tables? > > > > Following the time-honored tradition of actually reading the man pages > > for dhcpd, we see that the answer is "sort of". As in in principle yes, > > but only in a wierd way and would you really want to? > > > > First of all, let us consider, how COULD it do this? All dhcp knows of > > a host is its mac address. System needs IP number. System broadcasts a > > DHCP request. What can the daemon do? > > > > It can assign the address out of a range without looking at the MAC > > address (beyond ensuring that isn't one that it recognizes already) or > > it can look at the MAC address, do a table lookup and find it in the > > table, and assign an IP address based on the table that maps MAC->IP. > > This is pretty much what actually happens, and of course the lookup > > table CAN ensure a static MAC->IP matchup. > > > > The only question is how the lookup table is constructed. > > > > The obvious way is by making explict per-host entries in the dhcpd.conf > > file. dhcpd reads the file and builds the table from what it finds > > there. You make the dhcpd.conf entries by hand or automagically by > > means of a clever script. In general this isn't a real problem. You > > have to make a per-host entry into e.g. /etc/hosts as well, or you won't > > know the NAME the host is going to have to correspond to the IP number > > the daemon happened to give it the first time it saw it. The same > > script can do both, given e.g. the MAC address and hostname you wish to > > assign as arguments. > > > > Now there is nothing to PREVENT the daemon from assigning IP numbers out > > of the free range, creating a MAC->IP mapping, and saving the mapping > > itself so that it is automagically reloaded after, say, a crash (which > > tends to wipe out the table it builds in memory. By strange chance, > > this is pretty much exactly what dhcpd does. It views IP's assigned out > > of a given subnet range as "leases", to be given to hosts for a certain > > amount of time and then recovered for reuse. It saves its current lease > > table in /var/lib/dhcp/dhcpd.leases. Periodically it goes through this > > table and "grooms" it, cleaning out expired leases so the IP numbers are > > reused. In many/most cases where range addresses are used, this is just > > fine. Remember, dhcp was "invented" at least in part to simplify > > address assignment to rooms full of PC's running WinXX, a well-known > > stupid operating system that wouldn't know what to do with a remote > > login attempt if it saw one. Heck, it doesn't know what to do with a > > LOCAL login a lot of the time. The IP<->name map is pretty unimportant > > in this case, because you tend never to address the system by its > > internet name. So it's no big deal to let IP addresses for dumb WinXX > > clients recycle. > > > > Of course this isn't always true even for WinXX, especially if XX is 2K > > or XP or NT. Sometimes systems people really like to know that log > > traces by IP number can be mapped into specific machines just so they > > can go around with a sucker rod (see "man syslogd" and do a search on > > "sucker") to administer correction, for example, even if they cannot > > remotely login to the host in question. > > > > dhcpd allows you to pretty much totally control the lease time used for > > any given subnet or range. You can set it from very short to "very > > large", probably 4 billion or so seconds, which is (practically) > > "infinity". Infinity would be your coveted static IP address > > assignment. > > > > Once again I'd argue that although you CAN do this, you probably don't > > want to in just about any unixoid context including LAN management and > > cluster engineering. There is something so satisfying, so USEFUL, about > > the hostname<->IP map, and in order for this map to correspond to some > > SPECIFIC box, you really are building the hostname<->IP<->MAC map, > > piecewise. And of course you need to leave the NIC's in the boxes, > > since yes the map follows the NIC and not the actual box. Although it > > likely isn't the "only" way to control the complete chain, > > simultaneously and explicity building /etc/hosts (or the NIS, LDAP, > > rsync exported versions thereof), the various hostname-related > > permissions (e.g. netgroups) and /etc/dhpcd.conf static entries is > > arguably the best way. > > > > To emphasize this last point, note that there is additional information > > that can be specified in the dhcp static table entries, such as the name > > of a per-host kickstart file to be used in installing it and more. dhcp > > is at least an approximation to a centralized configuration data server > > and can perform lots of useful services in this arena, not just handing > > out IP addresses. Unfortunately (perhaps? as far as I know?) dhcp's > > options can only be passed from it's own internal list, so one can't > > QUITE use it as a way of globally synchronizing whole tables of > > important data (like /etc/hosts,netgroups,passwd) across a subnet as > > systems automatically and periodically renew their leases. The list of > > options it supports as it stands now is quite large, though. > > > > I also don't know how susceptible it is to spoofing -- one problem with > > daemon-based services like this is that if they aren't uniquely bound at > > both ends to an authorized server and somebody puts a faster server on > > the same physical network, one can sometimes do something like > > dynamically change a systems "identity" in real time and gain access > > privileges you otherwise might not have had. Obviously, sending files > > like /etc/passwd around in this way would be a very dangerous thing to > > do unless the daemon were re-engineered to use something like ssl to > > simultaneously certify the server and encrypt the traffic. > > > > Hope this helps. BTW, in addition to the always useful man pages for > > dhcpd and dhcpd.conf (e.g.) you can and should look at the linux > > documentation project site and the various RFCs that specify dhcp's > > behavior and option spread. > > > > rgb > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Beowulf mailing list, Beowulf at beowulf.org > To change your subscription (digest mode or unsubscribe) visit http://www.beowulf.org/mailman/listinfo/beowulf > -- Robert G. Brown http://www.phy.duke.edu/~rgb/ Duke University Dept. of Physics, Box 90305 Durham, N.C. 27708-0305 Phone: 1-919-660-2567 Fax: 919-660-2525 email:rgb at phy.duke.edu

subset: commoncrawl


text:
Ron Paul's bill to audit the Federal Reserve (HR 1207) now has 134 co-sponsors, and the numbers keep growing!
This is history in the making, and victory is within reach. Imagine what will happen if HR 1207, The Federal Reserve Transparency Act, comes up for vote in Congress! With 30.8% of the House of Representatives already co-sponsoring this bill, it has real potential to pass — BUT only if we educate and rally the people to support it and get our Congresspeople to put it to vote and pass it.
Step 1: Your Representative
If your representative is not on the following list of HR 1207 co-sponsors, call their offices, write to them, email them, etc. Let them know they need to support HR 1207. If you live in their district, let them know. Go to their office.
Capitol Switchboard: (202) 224-3121
HR 1207 Co-Sponsors (as of 5/7/2009)
Rep Abercrombie, Neil [HI-1] – 2/26/2009
Rep Aderholt, Robert B. [AL-4] – 5/6/2009
Rep Adler, John H. [NJ-3] – 5/6/2009
Rep Akin, W. Todd [MO-2] – 3/19/2009
Rep Alexander, Rodney [LA-5] – 3/10/2009
Rep Austria, Steve [OH-7] – 5/6/2009
Rep Bachmann, Michele [MN-6] – 2/26/2009
Rep Bachus, Spencer [AL-6] – 4/29/2009
Rep Baldwin, Tammy [WI-2] – 4/21/2009
Rep Barrett, J. Gresham [SC-3] – 4/28/2009
Rep Bartlett, Roscoe G. [MD-6] – 2/26/2009
Rep Barton, Joe [TX-6] – 5/4/2009
Rep Biggert, Judy [IL-13] – 4/28/2009
Rep Bilbray, Brian P. [CA-50] – 4/21/2009
Rep Bilirakis, Gus M. [FL-9] – 5/4/2009
Rep Bishop, Rob [UT-1] – 4/21/2009
Rep Blackburn, Marsha [TN-7] – 3/16/2009
Rep Blunt, Roy [MO-7] – 3/24/2009
Rep Bono Mack, Mary [CA-45] – 4/29/2009
Rep Brady, Kevin [TX-8] – 4/22/2009
Rep Broun, Paul C. [GA-10] – 2/26/2009
Rep Brown, Henry E., Jr. [SC-1] – 4/28/2009
Rep Buchanan, Vern [FL-13] – 3/17/2009
Rep Burgess, Michael C. [TX-26] – 3/19/2009
Rep Burton, Dan [IN-5] – 2/26/2009
Rep Buyer, Steve [IN-4] – 4/30/2009
Rep Calvert, Ken [CA-44] – 4/29/2009
Rep Campbell, John [CA-48] – 5/4/2009
Rep Capito, Shelley Moore [WV-2] – 4/1/2009
Rep Carter, John R. [TX-31] – 3/31/2009
Rep Cassidy, Bill [LA-6] – 5/4/2009
Rep Castle, Michael N. [DE] – 3/17/2009
Rep Chaffetz, Jason [UT-3] – 3/6/2009
Rep Cole, Tom [OK-4] – 4/21/2009
Rep Crenshaw, Ander [FL-4] – 5/4/2009
Rep Culberson, John Abney [TX-7] – 3/26/2009
Rep Davis, Geoff [KY-4] – 5/6/2009
Rep Deal, Nathan [GA-9] – 3/23/2009
Rep DeFazio, Peter A. [OR-4] – 3/9/2009
Rep Dent, Charles W. [PA-15] – 5/6/2009
Rep Doggett, Lloyd [TX-25] – 4/21/2009
Rep Duncan, John J., Jr. [TN-2] – 3/6/2009
Rep Ehlers, Vernon J. [MI-3] – 4/21/2009
Rep Fallin, Mary [OK-5] – 4/2/2009
Rep Fleming, John [LA-4] – 3/18/2009
Rep Foxx, Virginia [NC-5] – 3/10/2009
Rep Franks, Trent [AZ-2] – 3/23/2009
Rep Garrett, Scott [NJ-5] – 3/5/2009
Rep Gingrey, Phil [GA-11] – 3/30/2009
Rep Gohmert, Louie [TX-1] – 4/23/2009
Rep Goodlatte, Bob [VA-6] – 4/28/2009
Rep Granger, Kay [TX-12] – 4/28/2009
Rep Graves, Sam [MO-6] – 4/22/2009
Rep Grayson, Alan [FL-8] – 3/11/2009
Rep Hall, Ralph M. [TX-4] – 4/29/2009
Rep Heller, Dean [NV-2] – 3/6/2009
Rep Hensarling, Jeb [TX-5] – 5/4/2009
Rep Herger, Wally [CA-2] – 4/21/2009
Rep Herseth Sandlin, Stephanie [SD] – 5/6/2009
Rep Hoekstra, Peter [MI-2] – 4/28/2009
Rep Inglis, Bob [SC-4] – 4/23/2009
Rep Jenkins, Lynn [KS-2] – 4/23/2009
Rep Johnson, Sam [TX-3] – 4/22/2009
Rep Johnson, Timothy V. [IL-15] – 4/23/2009
Rep Jones, Walter B., Jr. [NC-3] – 2/26/2009
Rep Kagen, Steve [WI-8] – 2/26/2009
Rep Kaptur, Marcy [OH-9] – 4/23/2009
Rep Kingston, Jack [GA-1] – 3/6/2009
Rep Kline, John [MN-2] – 4/29/2009
Rep Lamborn, Doug [CO-5] – 4/21/2009
Rep Latham, Tom [IA-4] – 4/21/2009
Rep LaTourette, Steven C. [OH-14] – 4/28/2009
Rep Linder, John [GA-7] – 5/6/2009
Rep LoBiondo, Frank A. [NJ-2] – 5/4/2009
Rep Lucas, Frank D. [OK-3] – 4/21/2009
Rep Luetkemeyer, Blaine [MO-9] – 4/21/2009
Rep Lummis, Cynthia M. [WY] – 3/19/2009
Rep Manzullo, Donald A. [IL-16] – 4/21/2009
Rep Marchant, Kenny [TX-24] – 3/11/2009
Rep Massa, Eric J. J. [NY-29] – 4/22/2009
Rep McCarthy, Kevin [CA-22] – 5/4/2009
Rep McCaul, Michael T. [TX-10] – 4/21/2009
Rep McClintock, Tom [CA-4] – 3/6/2009
Rep McCotter, Thaddeus G. [MI-11] – 3/19/2009
Rep McDermott, Jim [WA-7] – 4/29/2009
Rep McHenry, Patrick T. [NC-10] – 4/30/2009
Rep McHugh, John M. [NY-23] – 5/4/2009
Rep McMorris Rodgers, Cathy [WA-5] – 5/4/2009
Rep Miller, Candice S. [MI-10] – 4/28/2009
Rep Miller, Jeff [FL-1] – 3/24/2009
Rep Moran, Jerry [KS-1] – 5/4/2009
Rep Murphy, Tim [PA-18] – 4/29/2009
Rep Myrick, Sue Wilkins [NC-9] – 4/28/2009
Rep Neugebauer, Randy [TX-19] – 4/30/2009
Rep Olson, Pete [TX-22] – 4/21/2009
Rep Paulsen, Erik [MN-3] – 3/30/2009
Rep Pence, Mike [IN-6] – 4/21/2009
Rep Peterson, Collin C. [MN-7] – 3/19/2009
Rep Petri, Thomas E. [WI-6] – 3/10/2009
Rep Pitts, Joseph R. [PA-16] – 4/28/2009
Rep Platts, Todd Russell [PA-19] – 3/19/2009
Rep Poe, Ted [TX-2] – 2/26/2009
Rep Posey, Bill [FL-15] – 2/26/2009
Rep Price, Tom [GA-6] – 3/10/2009
Rep Putnam, Adam H. [FL-12] – 4/28/2009
Rep Radanovich, George [CA-19] – 5/6/2009
Rep Rehberg, Denny [MT] – 2/26/2009
Rep Roe, David P. [TN-1] – 4/21/2009
Rep Rohrabacher, Dana [CA-46] – 3/6/2009
Rep Rooney, Thomas J. [FL-16] – 4/22/2009
Rep Ros-Lehtinen, Ileana [FL-18] – 4/28/2009
Rep Schakowsky, Janice D. [IL-9] – 5/6/2009
Rep Schock, Aaron [IL-18] – 5/6/2009
Rep Sessions, Pete [TX-32] – 3/23/2009
Rep Shimkus, John [IL-19] – 4/22/2009
Rep Simpson, Michael K. [ID-2] – 4/28/2009
Rep Smith, Adam [WA-9] – 4/22/2009
Rep Smith, Adrian [NE-3] – 4/28/2009
Rep Smith, Lamar [TX-21] – 4/2/2009
Rep Stark, Fortney Pete [CA-13] – 3/26/2009
Rep Stearns, Cliff [FL-6] – 3/6/2009
Rep Taylor, Gene [MS-4] – 3/6/2009
Rep Terry, Lee [NE-2] – 3/30/2009
Rep Thompson, Glenn [PA-5] – 4/22/2009
Rep Tiahrt, Todd [KS-4] – 4/28/2009
Rep Tiberi, Patrick J. [OH-12] – 4/28/2009
Rep Upton, Fred [MI-6] – 4/29/2009
Rep Walden, Greg [OR-2] – 5/4/2009
Rep Wamp, Zach [TN-3] – 3/16/2009
Rep Westmoreland, Lynn A. [GA-3] – 4/2/2009
Rep Wilson, Joe [SC-2] – 4/29/2009
Rep Wittman, Robert J. [VA-1] – 4/1/2009
Rep Woolsey, Lynn C. [CA-6] – 2/26/2009
Rep Young, Don [AK] – 3/6/2009
Step 2: Financial Services Committee
HR 1207 is now in the House Committee on Financial Services. This is THE MOST IMPORTANT STEP in this legislation! If it doesn't get out of committee it will not come to a vote! There are 71 members on this committee and they are all listed below.
We need to let all members of the House Committee on Financial Services know that we want them to allow full House consideration of HR 1207 so it can move forward; we need them to support this. Now is the time.
Call their offices, write to them, email them, etc. Let them know they need to support HR 1207. If you live in their district, let them know. Go to their office.
House Committee on Financial Services
Republican Members
Rep. Michele Bachmann, MN [co-sponsor] Rep. Spencer Bachus, AL
Rep. J. Gresham Barrett, SC [co-sponsor] Rep. Judy Biggert, IL [co-sponsor] Rep. John Campbell, CA
Rep. Michael N. Castle, DE [co-sponsor] Rep. Scott Garrett, NJ [co-sponsor] Rep. Jim Gerlach, PA
Rep. Jeb Hensarling, TX
Rep. Lynn Jenkins, KS [co-sponsor] Rep. Walter B. Jones , NC [co-sponsor] Rep. Peter King, NY
Rep. Leonard Lance, NJ
Rep. Christopher Lee, NY
Rep. Frank D. Lucas, OK [co-sponsor] Rep. Donald A. Manzullo, IL [co-sponsor] Rep. Kenny Marchant, TX [co-sponsor] Rep. Thaddeus McCotter, MI [co-sponsor] Rep. Kevin McCarthy, CA
Rep. Patrick T. McHenry, NC
Rep. Gary G. Miller, CA
Rep. Randy Neugebauer, TX
Rep. Shelley Moore Capito, WV [co-sponsor] Rep. Ron Paul, TX [sponsor] Rep. Erik Paulsen, MN [co-sponsor] Rep. Bill Posey, FL [co-sponsor] Rep. Tom Price, GA [co-sponsor] Rep. Adam Putnam, FL [co-sponsor] Rep. Edward R. Royce, CA
Democratic Members
Rep. Gary L. Ackerman, NY
Rep. John Adler, NJ
Rep. Joe Baca, CA
Rep. Melissa L. Bean, IL
Rep. Michael E. Capuano, MA
Rep. Andre Carson, IN
Rep. Travis Childers, MS
Rep. William Lacy Clay, MO
Rep. Emanuel Cleaver, MO
Rep. Joe Donnelly, IN
Rep. Steve Driehaus, OH
Rep. Keith Ellison, MN
Rep. Bill Foster, IL
Rep. Alan Grayson, FL [co-sponsor] Rep. Al Green, TX
Rep. Luis V. Gutierrez, IL
Rep. Rubén Hinojosa, TX
Rep. Jim Himes, CT
Rep. Paul W. Hodes, NH
Rep. Paul E. Kanjorski, PA
Rep. Mary Jo Kilroy, OH
Rep. Ron Klein, FL
Rep. Suzanne Kosmas, FL
Rep. Stephen F. Lynch, MA
Rep. Dan Maffei, NY
Rep. Carolyn B. Maloney, NY
Rep. Carolyn McCarthy, NY
Rep. Gregory W. Meeks, NY
Rep. Brad Miller, NC
Rep. Walt Minnick, ID
Rep. Dennis Moore, KS
Rep. Gwen Moore, WI
Rep. Ed Perlmutter, CO
Rep. Gary Peters, MI
Rep. David Scott, GA
Rep. Brad Sherman, CA
Rep. Jackie Speier, CA
Rep. Nydia M. Velázquez, NY
Rep. Maxine Waters, CA
Rep. Melvin L. Watt, NC
Rep. Charles Wilson, OH
Help with this all important public outreach. NOW REALLY IS THE TIME!
Here's a sample letter you can use:
Dear Representative,
Please co-sponsor and/or support H.R.1207, an effort to audit the Federal Reserve.
Recently, it has come to light that there is little to no accountability to the people on the part of the Federal Reserve. While the citizens of this country are required by law to give an accounting of every penny they come in contact with, the Federal Reserve has never been held to the same standard. During this time of extreme economic crisis, the people deserve an accounting of where our money is going.
Currently there are 134 co-sponsors for this legislation, and it is enjoying bi-partisan support. Your efforts in supporting this important legislation would go a long way in proving to your constituents that you not only hold the Federal Reserve to the same standard as you do your constituents, but it would also show that you believe in transparency. Anything less than support for this resolution suggests that you are in favor of secrecy and a lack of accountability to the people who pay the bills. We pay the tab; we have a right to know where our money is going.
Unlike recent bills that you voted in favor of that had hundreds of pages and just a few hours to read, this bill can be read in under 5 minutes. I encourage you to take the time to read it, and then move to support it.
Thank you in advance for your attention on this important legislation. I have every expectation that you will do right by your constituents and support this measure.
Step 3: The People
Tell everyone you know about HR 1207 and ask them to support it and to contact their representative as well. Link to this page and to CampaignForLiberty.com.
This initiative is crucial and we need to redouble our efforts to get HR 1207 passed.


text:
© 2009 MLB Advanced Media, L.P. All rights reserved.
Nats take precaution with Strasburg
Knee injury not serious, but righty scratched from start
By Bill Ladson / MLB.com
WASHINGTON -- Nationals right-hander Stephen Strasburg has been scratched from Saturday's start in the Arizona Fall League championship game because of a twisted left knee, suffered during a Phoenix Desert Dogs workout on Thursday afternoon.
The injury is not considered serious. An MRI showed inflammation in the knee.
As a precaution, Strasburg is scheduled to fly to Los Angeles on Friday to be examined by Dr. Lewis Yocum.
Strasburg, who was the first overall pick in the 2009 First-Year Player Draft, made five starts, going 4-1 with a 4.26 ERA. He struck out 26 batters in 19 innings for the Desert Dogs.
It marks the second time Strasburg was injured during the AFL season. Previously, a neck injury forced him to miss a start.
Strasburg reportedly hurt his left knee while shagging fly balls.
Bill Ladson is a reporter for MLB.com. This story was not subject to the approval of Major League Baseball or its clubs.


text:
Hey people! A friend at work got me into Naruto a few months ago he told me to watch the japanese version instead of the english version and I watched it and loved it and have been hooked ever since, I gotta say I fell in love with Konohas Number 1 Noisy Ninja.
So I was talking with the same friend at work and he told me another guy at work has started reading the manga and hes already up to Sasuke Vs. Deidara, so I decided to check out the manga and found this happy place.


text:
I figure if I had this question, other people probably do as well. I have gotten lots of advice off forum, but figure we should put the information together into one place besides the camping section of the site. While that is really good, it does not cover rally specific camping which is probably pretty much the same, but never hurts to ask...
So here are the items I figure I need to get still...
- Sun hat
- dog tags for id
- camping chair
- waterproof bag
- cooler/ice holder
Things that I already have/planning on taking...
- sleeping bag
- sleeping pad
- sun screen
- insect repellant
- sleeping pad
- flashlight/headlight
- ear plugs
- tylenol
of course there are the other non-critical but just as important things like...
- cigars
- bottle opener
- martini fixings
- location indicator
- humor
So what else is there to bring?


text:
Unsung Films watched Mike Freedman's Critical Mass this year when it screened at the Biografilm Festival in Bologna, Italy. On approaching the filmmaker with a short review of his documentary, we ended up with a great deal more: a 3000-word interview taking readers deep into the story of how Freedman's film came together, how it affected him – both personally and professionally — and what we should expect in the years to come.
Here's what happened…
Critical Mass is an immensely impacting documentary. Where did the fuel to make it happen come from? Had it been brewing for a long time? Did you just get out of bed one day and pick up a camera?
First of all, thank you for the compliment; I'm gratified by your response to the film.
The fuel to make it happen, I suppose, can be portioned into three categories – intellectual, emotional and circumstantial.
The intellectual fuel is a confluence of factors, really – I was lucky enough to be raised in a family which kept books and encouraged debate and rational inquiry. That, coupled with the added luck of receiving a decent education, gave me the foundation I needed to throw myself into the researching of the film, to follow lines of inquiry, figure out who I should talk to and what I should ask them, how to approach such a big topic in what I hope is an accessible way.
On the emotional front, I have had, for a long time, the conviction that underlying the bulk of global social and environmental issues is the common denominator of human population growth. As a filmmaker, I watch a lot of films and of course a lot of documentaries, in particular those on environmental or social issues. I noticed that I was seeing a number of environmental documentaries that were very powerful and well-researched, but which dealt almost exclusively with the consequences of certain trends rather than the causes. When one says, for example, that there is a terrible depletion rate of global fisheries and that this is caused by a huge spike in consumption over the past forty years, to the extent that we may have extinguished most species of large fish within the next fifty years, it follows logically that this spike in consumption is inextricably linked to a matching spike in human numbers. I decided that I wanted to make a film about human population growth and consumption, within the social as well as environmental context, in order to make this connection obvious to an audience and in the hope that, rather than being extreme in one form or another, we can start to centralise the issue of population in the discussion of environmental and social pressures.
Circumstantially, a friend of mine introduced me several years ago to the work of Desmond Morris. I was immersing myself in anthropology (a life-long fascination of mine) and environmental writing at the time, and the work of Desmond Morris, E.F. Schumacher and Eugene Marais gave me the intellectual framework and technical language with which to explore and clarify this huge landscape. At around this time, I heard about the experiments of John B. Calhoun and suddenly I had the story which would provide the metaphor and dramatic arc necessary for the film to have an emotional resonance rather than merely being some kind of warning dirge about people as some sort of plague, destroying the planet. It wasn't my intention to portray humans as if we are in some way undesirable or inherently dangerous, but rather to investigate the way in which social and environmental circumstances create, in an emergent manner, the conditions in which we find ourselves today. I was lucky enough to have, from my previous work in the industry, friends who could help me make the film to a professional standard. During my research, I was told about a forum in Italy being held by the Global Footprint Network, and they were very accommodating in providing us with access to the amazing range of experts that were there. After a week in Italy, we had seventeen interviews in the can and on the flight home I realised "I'm making a film here!".
How long did the entire project take to complete? And how many people were involved?
We shot the initial round of interviews in June 2010, at which point I had been researching and making my notes for a couple of months. We completed the film in June 2012, which is pretty bang on two years, although due to a lack of funds, probably about six to eight months of that could have been skipped if I'd been able to pay people to take time off from their day jobs or to get an assistant in to do certain things instead of doing them myself.
About fifteen people were directly involved in the production, in the sense that they had credited, technical roles on the film. Then there are of course the sixty or so people we interviewed, about twenty of which ended up in the final film. Then there are the assistants, administrators and press officers who made all of those interviews possible, the close friends and family who collaborated with me or otherwise helped out at various points in the process, the teachers who gave me the tools necessary to be capable of a task like this, the natural flow of events which has, over the course of my life, filled me with the experiences and perspectives that gave me the personality which underpins the film. Now there are the kind people who are helping me to find a way to get the film out and available to the viewing public, who are of course the ultimate and largest group of contributors, because in the end it is all for them.
Was the making of the film an educational experience for you? Through speaking to the people featured in your documentary, do you feel much more informed on the issue?
Absolutely. I feel like I've gone to university, in many ways. The education I received at the hands of the people I interviewed is invaluable – I got a chance to spend around two or three hours apiece with some of the brightest and most compassionate people in the world. That intensity of contact and variety of knowledge was, to paraphrase Terry Pratchett, like being a turtle my whole life with the entire world only a circle of two feet around me and then suddenly being picked up by an eagle and seeing my horizons expand incalculably. From a creative and technical standpoint, as a filmmaker, needing to manage, marshall and co-ordinate so many moving parts while maintaining focus on the end goal was an exponential learning curve. It's important to be clear, however, that this doesn't put me in some hubristic position of being convinced about how much I know – if anything, consistently meeting and being challenged by people far smarter than I am has forced me to reassess and occasionally discard previously held beliefs and embrace how little I know and how much more there is to learn. This is exactly the same with the filmmaking process – now that I've done this and come this far, I see how much more there is to explore and discover. Like climbing a mountain, where every peak you reach reveals a far higher one, wreathed in clouds and daring you to go on.
Was Critical Mass influenced by other documentaries? Is there a filmmaker or documentarian who you really admire?
One of my all-time favourite films is Koyaanisqatsi – I saw part of it in a poetry class when I was thirteen and was smitten. If I had never been introduced to that film, it's very doubtful that I would have made this film the way that I did. Godfrey Reggio is definitely someone I admire. Peter Watkins is another director I am a tremendous fan of – The War Game was one of the most powerful films I've seen and, if I'm not wrong, one of the first mockumentaries. In fact, when I began the editing process of Critical Mass, I tracked down Michael Bradsell who edited The War Game (in 1960!) and he came in for a couple of sessions to take a look at the rushes and talk about structure. In the end, his health precluded him from working on the film full-time, but he was very helpful and a truly wonderful man. Desmond Morris inspired this film as well and he did work for a time as a documentary filmmaker, although it was his writing which had the impact on this film rather than his television work. Adam Curtis at the BBC is a fantastic documentarian and he has a knack for drawing together disparate disciplines and story strands to provide a comprehensive overview of a topic, which I suppose is a similar tactic to what we do in the film – I definitely admire him, but he never responds to my fanboy emails! Another inspiration, although not directly on the making of Critical Mass, has been meeting other filmmakers my age who are also doing tremendous work – it makes me feel almost like a member of a graduating class in a way, going back to that sense of having been to university. Guys like Nick Brandestini (Darwin) and Jesse Vile (Jason Becker: Not Dead Yet) who I can enjoy a drink with and, when they ask me what I thought of their films, I don't have to lie because they're excellent!
We have a lot of readers asking about possible ways to view the entire documentary. Is it going to appear in cinemas? Will it be available online? Or was it a festival-specific project?
We're currently meeting with sales agents and distributors and the hope is that we will be able to secure a modest theatrical run for the film followed by the usual DVD and VOD outlets. Personally, I'd love to support the release of the film with a Q&A tour, particularly universities and high schools. We recently launched an Indiegogo campaign to raise some finishing funds to clear the archive footage so that we have all the rights secured for commercial release and have the flexibility we need to make sure the film comes out as widely as possible. We have some great rewards on offer and I'd be grateful to your readers for any donations they can afford. They can go to Critical Mass page at indiegogo or donate via PayPal on our website.
How extensive is your experience in filmmaking? This is an incredibly well-crafted film, how is it possible that Critical Mass is your debut?
The short answers are "not very", "thank you" and "I don't know!". My father writes and directs theatre, and I grew up doing sound, lights and stage management for him, which gave me an idea of story-telling, blocking, the interplay of music and light within a story and of course, how to work with actors. I started working in the film industry I suppose from around the time I was eighteen, doing odd jobs, being an extra, making coffee and tea on set, scouting locations. Then I made a couple of short films, music videos, standard learning curve stuff. In no way whatsoever was I prepared for how intense and demanding the process of making my first feature would be. I kind of walked into it thinking "okay, today I'll do this" and that one-day-at-a-time approach helped me stay on track. Don't obsess, just get 'er done! One thing I would say is that I've been utterly blessed with incredibly talented friends and colleagues who have put their own mark on the film – I'm a collaborative type who loves bouncing ideas off of other people and working with rather than dictating to them. I guess that's really the key – find people who are smarter, more experienced and skilled than you, listen to them and trust their judgement as well as your own.
Is this the beginning of a cinema-based career for you? Or did the film's motivation come from a desire to say something about a specific issue?
I certainly hope so! I got into filmmaking because I want to make theatrical features, that's been my dream since I was twelve. The motivation to make this film absolutely came from a desire to portray and discuss a specific issue, and I hope that people see the theatrical potential in it that I do. I don't think there's a mutual exclusivity between a love of cinema, reaching an audience and having an issue to share. In the end, at the risk of sounding dangerously cliché, it's all story-telling. We, as a species, are fascinated by one another – that's why we go to the movies, to see people acting, feeling, living, experiencing. The story we tell in Critical Mass is about all the people, so I don't see that as conflicting with broader audience engagement just because there's a serious issue at the root of it. The film that made me want to be a filmmaker, Inherit the Wind, has a serious issue at the root of it, but it is also a fantastic story, brilliant technically and artistically, packed with excellent performances. I suppose the best films (and I'm not claiming this mantle for our film, just making a point) are those which speak to the mind, the emotions and the soul in a single holistic master stroke, combining those three occasionally battling or over-emphasised aspects of ourselves to bring us a complete experience.
What comes next? Something along the same lines, or something entirely different?
I have a list of all the films I want to make, be they documentaries or features. I recently calculated that if it took me two years to do each of them, I'll be busy until I'm sixty. As for which one of those, or perhaps something that comes up first, will be next, at the moment I don't know for sure. There are three in particular that are foremost in my mind; I'm researching one, writing the second and planning to meet the author of the novel of the third. One documentary, one feature with documentary strands and one pure fiction feature. I'd like to think that they would all be entirely different, because like most people my age I'm both wary of and impatient with repetition. One of the great challenges is that we live in this media-saturated age where so many stories have been told, rebooted, remade, adapted, packaged and sold; all the while you watch this highway of speeding cars rush by and try to place yourself, try to see a you-shaped gap that isn't the same as everything else coming off the assembly line, and again, it's all about bringing something new or interesting or powerful or hopefully all three to an audience that have seen it all before – what gift do you bring for someone who has everything?
Critical Mass says a lot about our actions and choices as human beings. Namely, the decision to reproduce. Has this affected your personal life and your desire to start your own family?
My wife and I have discussed this, as most couples have, and we're in a place right now where we would both like to have a family but neither of us is in a position to take the time out to do it. We're lucky though, in the sense that we're both comfortable with adoption if, for whatever medical or personal reasons, we're unable to have a child which is biologically ours. Adoption is attractive because of that but also because you are caring for a child that already is here in the world and needs a loving family, which would be a good deed regardless of any population concerns. I'd like to stress, however, that the decision to reproduce is itself exactly the key – there are women worldwide who do not have the right or the wherewithal to make that decision for themselves, or (and we're seeing this increasingly in the US) are having their options reduced precipitously by ideologues and political opportunists. When there are huge numbers of maternal deaths and unsafe abortions around the world at the same time that there are children who are described by their own mothers as 'unwanted' or 'unplanned', you obviously have a logistical challenge to provide the healthcare and contraceptive means by which to redress that balance. Simultaneously, you have an ideological or informational challenge to dispel the myths or outright lies surrounding maternal healthcare and contraception in order to put that decision to reproduce where it belongs, which is in the hands of the woman who carries the child, not the government minister who is pandering to religious extremists or the husband or mother-in-law who wants a large family to keep up appearances in their community. Ironically, making this film did change my attitude to having a family, but not in the way that you'd think. As I learnt about the issues and began to understand their complexity, I discarded my more knee-jerk attitudes, which were a holdover from my younger years, and came to realise that we need what Calhoun called a "compassionate revolution". We need to help one another to be free, to be ourselves, to choose how we live, how we work, how we feed our families and with what, whether we have families or not, and we need to do this from a positive, constructive foundation, not negativity and finger-pointing. My wife and I would love to have a family, to be parents, to have that aspect of personal growth and fulfilment in our lives, but we'd stop at two, or we'd adopt. What other people do is up to them. There are no good guys or bad guys in this world, just people who know what's up and people who have been mis- or ill-informed. It's not a fear thing, it's a love thing.


text:
Nearly 200 people have called the University of Florida privacy office and call center worried that they are victims of identity theft.
Nearly 200 people have called the University of Florida privacy office and call center worried that they are victims of identity theft after Wednesday's announcement that a former employee had been arrested for his involvement in an identity theft ring that potentially affects over 14,000 patients at the UF&Shands Family Medicine at Main practice in Gainesville.
UF spokesperson Melissa Lutz Blouin said that, as of Thursday afternoon, 179 patients at the clinic had called the call center, which is helping identity theft victims with fraud resolution services.
An investigation conducted by the state attorney, Internal Revenue Service and U.S. Secret Service found that a UF employee at the Main practice, Arthur Thomas, was involved in an identity theft ring. Thomas was arrested Tuesday. UF had fired him in October, when the investigation began.
Thomas was employed from March 1, 2009 to Oct. 31, 2012, so UF on Tuesday sent letters to all 14,339 patients seen at the Main clinic during that period who might have been targeted in the identity theft, Lutz Blouin said.
She added that the number reflects the people who "could have been exposed. That does not necessarily mean he used all of those records in a criminal manner," she said, adding that patients seen at UF&Shands' other clinics during the period in which Thomas was employed are not implicated as potential victims of identity theft from this case.
Although UF has not disclosed what Thomas' position was, Lutz Blouin said investigators "are able to tell what this person had access to" and that Thomas had "willful intent to misuse privileged information."
She added that generally patient access "is limited to people who need to do something with that information," such as putting something in a chart or mailing a bill. The university reviewed its hiring practices as part of its own investigation into the matter, and sent out a memo to employees "asking people to be vigilant and to report suspicious activity to supervisors," Lutz Blouin said.
A former intern at the Brentwood Primary Center, which is affiliated with Shands at Jacksonville, was also arrested for her involvement in the same identity theft ring. The intern, Daremia Crews, was arrested in January.
Shands at Jacksonville sent letters, also on Tuesday, to 1,025 patients who are potential victims of Crews' involvement in the ring and has received 50 calls so far, said spokesperson Dan Leveton.
UF&Shands at both sites is offering fraud resolution services for victims free of charge.
"We can help them write letters and get notifications out there so they are not spending extra time fixing the fallout of this," said Susan Blair, chief privacy officer at UF&Shands.
"We're all deeply disappointed in this whole episode," Blair said. "This type of data breach has not happened before." Blair added that UF has been victim of hacking episodes.
Florida is the No. 1 state for identity theft, according to the Federal Trade Commission. Already this year, four hospitals or health centers have been targets of identity theft through employees, according to Privacy Rights Clearinghouse, a California-based consumer education and advocacy nonprofit.
These include South Miami Hospital, Palm Beach County Health Department, Boca Raton Regional Hospital and Tallahassee Memorial Healthcare.
If there's any lesson to be learned from the UF episode, it's that "you need to check your credit report annually if you're a Floridian," Blair said.
She added that people can get a free credit report annually from Experian, Equifax and TransUnion credit agencies, and she advises using them four months apart, to keep track of their credit each year.
"If new accounts are being opened that you didn't know anything about, you need to take immediate action through credit agencies," Blair said.
People who suspect they've been victims of identity theft at UF&Shands Main clinic can call 877-552-1299. The number for the Jacksonville Support Center is 877-676-0383.
For more information: http://privacy.ufl.edu.
Contact Kristine Crane at 338-3119, or firstname.lastname@example.com.


text:
Miscues derail Gorzelanny's impressive outing
PHOENIX -- Take a cursory glance at the Brewers' box score from Friday and one would typically feel safe in assuming a positive outcome. On most nights, doubling the hit total of your opponent and not allowing an earned run all game would usually translate into a victory.
But that's not how the 2013 season has gone for Milwaukee.Full Game Coverage
PHOENIX -- Take a cursory glance at the Brewers' box score from Friday and one would typically feel safe in assuming a positive outcome. On most nights, doubling the hit total of your opponent and not allowing an earned run all game would usually translate into a victory.
But that's not how the 2013 season has gone for Milwaukee.Full Game Coverage
The Brewers went 1-for-12 with runners in scoring position and committed two costly errors in the field as they dropped their third straight game, spoiling a workmanlike start from Tom Gorzelanny in a 2-1 loss.
"That's the story all season, when it rains, it pours," catcher Jonathan Lucroy said. "It was a battle, everything that could go wrong, did. We struggled tonight, and we beat ourselves."
Twice the Brewers put a runner on third with nobody out and twice the runner was stranded there, leaving a total of 11 on base while striking out 14 times. Afterward, Brewers manager Ron Roenicke voiced his disappointment with his club's RISP production, which ranks 25th in the Majors at .239.
"We certainly had opportunities, we just can't get it done," Roenicke said. "We don't do a good job with people on base, to have that many opportunities and not to have somebody come through ... it just shouldn't go on this long."
Lucroy, who continued his recent hot streak Friday by going 2-for-3 with a walk, said part of the reason for the struggles has to do with teammates trying to overcompensate for all the mainstays missing from the lineup.
"It's tough when you don't have Ryan Braun, Aramis Ramirez and Corey Hart in there, those guys are deadly," Lucroy said. "We have good hitters in here now, just guys are pressing to do too much because they feel the burden to perform. We have to slow everything down and try to stay within ourselves."
Making his third start of the season for Milwaukee on his 31st birthday, Gorzelanny turned in an excellent performance and certainly pitched well enough to win but received little help from the club's hapless offense and two errors, one of which he committed. Lifted for a pinch-hitter after just 84 pitches, the lefty finished his outing allowing just two unearned runs on three hits as he took the hard-luck loss.
"That's baseball, that's how it happens," Gorzelanny said. "Everything can't happen perfectly every time, I just have to deal with it and move on."
Even though Gorzelanny hasn't given up an earned run over 12 innings in his past two starts, the club isn't sure if he'll remain in the rotation after the All-Star break, saying only that he'll be considered.
"He'll be in the conversation, without a doubt," Roenicke said. "We'll regroup and try to see what our rotation will be in the second half, but he's done a good job and we'll definitely talk about him."
As they did Thursday, the Brewers took a lead in the first inning, this time without even hitting the ball out of the infield. After Jean Segura beat out a grounder to second for a single, a sacrifice bunt moved him over, and two wild pitches from All-Star lefty Patrick Corbin allowed him to score.
The lead didn't last long though, as in the bottom of the inning Gorzelanny threw wildly on a pickoff attempt to first, letting Adam Eaton move all the way to third on the error. The National League's RBI leader, Paul Goldschmidt, drove in Eaton moments later to tie the game at 1.
"I tried to get over there too quick and the ball slipped in my hand as I was throwing it," Gorzelanny said of the errant throw. "Everything from start to finish wasn't good, just a bad throw."
An inning later, the D-backs capitalized on another Brewers miscue to take the lead. With two outs and a runner on second, Yuniesky Betancourt couldn't handle a sharp grounder off the bat of Cliff Pennington as the ball deflected off his glove and into foul territory in left field, allowing Cody Ross to scamper home for the go-ahead run.
The Brewers appeared poised to even the score in the fourth when Lucroy led off the frame with a double and moved to third on another wild pitch. The next three batters, however, all were unable to push the run in as Rickie Weeks popped out, Sean Halton flied out to shallow right and Betancourt struck out.
Milwaukee blew another prime scoring opportunity in the seventh, putting runners on the corners with nobody out. But after pinch-hitter Khris Davis struck out and Norichika Aoki popped out, a Segura walk chased Corbin from the game and the D-backs brought in Will Harris to face Carlos Gomez, who chased a cutter up in the zone on a 3-2 pitch to end the inning.
The final missed chance to extend the game came when the Brewers worked the bases loaded once more in the eighth, only to see A.J. Pollock steal a go-ahead hit from Martin Maldonado with a full-extension diving catch in center field.
"I thought it had a good chance to drop, the guy made a good play on it," Roenicke said. "They are doing things not to lose, they are making plays fundamentally, we are not."
Tyler Emerick is an associate reporter for MLB.com.


text:
Everybody panic! President Obama is going to speak to the nation's schoolchildren on Tuesday. And a new group of worrywarts -- call them "speechers" -- can't stand the idea.
The prospect of the nation's elected leader addressing its youngest citizens has turned into a coast-to-coast freakout, with parents threatening to pull their children from school lest Barack Obama pollute their minds with his thoughts about the importance of staying in school and getting an education.
Even schools in the liberal stronghold of northern California, where Barack Obama pulled nearly four times as many votes as John McCain in last year election, are begging parents not to pull their kids from class for the president's address.
The Pleasanton Unified School District east of San Francisco sent parents a note announcing that they may pull their children from the classroom if teachers choose to show the speech, joining a number of school districts coast to coast which are letting parents opt out.
In the note, Myla Grasso, a spokesperson for the district, wrote that "there have been some questions from families" about the speech and that "a few parents have expressed concern about their child viewing the President's address." She also added: "Know the facts: Students will not be asked to sign any sort of 'pledge' related to Mr. Obama's speech."
"Speechers," as Twitter's jillosopher has dubbed them, have been spreading the rumor that students would have to pledge support for the president's agenda, a charge tha tthe White House has denied. White House spokesman Robert Gibbs has dismissed such talk as sign of a political "silly season."
The "speecher" silliness is akin to the persistent critics known as "birthers" who maintain, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary, that Barack Obama's U.S. birth certificate is somehow suspect.
Why dignify the conspiracy theory and let students opt out of hearing from their elected leader?
"We had enough concern about it that we wanted to set the record straight," Grasso told me. "We had parents say that they were going to keep their kids from school."
And that's a bottom-line concern. If enough "speechers" pulled their kids from school, an already-strapped school district would take a further financial hit. The Pleasanton School District has cut its budget by 16 percent -- approximately $17 million -- over the last two years, according to Grasso.
"I think some parents don't realize that any absence, excused or unexcused, costs the district money," says Grasso -- nearly $50 per absent student per day.
That's beyond silly, and speaks volumes about "speechers": If Obama's for education, they're against it.
What do you think? Have your say on "speechers" in the comments.


text:
Fleur Rollercoaster Table
|Will Draw Kids Like A Magnet!
Kids will not be able to resist the tempting site of our Fleur Rollecoaster Table! It is a wonderful activity center for homes, schools, waiting rooms and doctors' offices or an eye-catching centerpiece for any child's room! Its colorful beads and balls will keep your little tykes contentedly occupied for hours, as they develop color recognition, counting, eye-hand coordination and cooperative play!
|Product Rating
|(0 Ratings)
|Write a Review


text:
Electronic Resources
Digital Special Collections
Digital Special Collections of the American Museum of Natural History's Research Library provides access to our rich collections of digitized archival photographic images, art and memorabilia images and Rare Book Collection illustrations.
AMNH Library Digital Repository
The AMNH Library Digital Repository is a digital archive maintained by the Research Library for AMNH Scientific Publications and materials digitized by the Library.
E-Journals available through the AMNH Research Library.
Reference List
Citation & Full-text Databases
Citation Databases (Indexes and abstracts) provide a way to locate bibliographic citations for journal and newspaper articles.
Biodiversity Heritage Library
A consortium of natural history and botanical libraries that cooperate to digitize and make accessible the legacy literature of biodiversity held in their collections and to make that literature available for open access and responsible use as a part of a global "biodiversity commons."
Online Resource
NY Public Libraries & Other Catalogs
A number of useful databases are available from New York City public libraries and you may gain remote access to many of these resources just by having a library card.
Online Resource
Online Reference Shelf
Tools include standard reference works such as encyclopedias, dictionaries, and directories, as well as more specialized reference databases.