Slashdot Mirror

You're regurgitating complete nonsense. Once again, here’s figure 1 from Peterson et al. 2008. Notice that papers predicting warming vastly outnumbered those predicting cooling, even in the 1970s. Ironically:

• The term “global warming” was first used in a 1975 Science article by Wally Broecker called “Are we on the brink of a pronounced global warming?”.
• Sawyer 1972 estimated climate sensitivity as 2.4C, and Schneider 1975 gave a preliminary range of 1.5C to 3.0C.
• Manabe and Wetherald, 1975: “The Effects of Doubling the CO2 Concentration on the climate of a General Circulation Model.”
• In 1977, Freeman Dyson wrote that the “prevailing opinion is that the dangers [of the rise in CO2] greatly outweigh the benefits.”
• In 1977, Robert M. White, the head of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, wrote a report for the National Academy of Sciences that said “We now understand that industrial wastes, such as the carbon dioxide released in the burning of fossil fuels, can have consequences for climate that pose a considerable risk to future society.” [White, Robert, 1978, Oceans and Climate Introduction, Oceanus, 21:2-3]
• The 1979 JASON report “The long-term impact of atmospheric carbon dioxide on climate” estimated climate sensitivity as 2.4C to 2.8C.
• The National Academy of Science’s 1979 Charney report estimated climate sensitivity as 1.5C to 4.5C and said “If carbon dioxide continues to increase, [we] find no reason to doubt that climate changes will result, and no reason to believe that these changes will be negligible.”

While Jane is reading those papers, he should also consider addressing this issue with his basic thermodynamics:

Your own insistence that power in = power out (assuming perfect conversion and no entropic losses) belies this argument. You are arguing against yourself and you refuse to see that. If power in = power out (your own stipulation) ... [Jane Q. Public, 2014-12-14]

I'm not the only one insisting that power in = power out through any boundary where nothing inside is changing. Once again, that's a fundamental principle called "conservation of energy". Here are some introductions: example (backup), example (backup), example

No,no. Global cooling. Haven't you read the scientific papers from top agencies and researchers from the 70's. Sheesh

You're regurgitating complete nonsense. Once again, here’s figure 1 from Peterson et al. 2008. Notice that papers predicting warming vastly outnumbered those predicting cooling, even in the 1970s. Ironically:

• The term “global warming” was first used in a 1975 Science article by Wally Broecker called “Are we on the brink of a pronounced global warming?”.
• Sawyer 1972 estimated climate sensitivity as 2.4C, and Schneider 1975 gave a preliminary range of 1.5C to 3.0C.
• Manabe and Wetherald, 1975: “The Effects of Doubling the CO2 Concentration on the climate of a General Circulation Model.”
• In 1977, Freeman Dyson wrote that the “prevailing opinion is that the dangers [of the rise in CO2] greatly outweigh the benefits.”
• In 1977, Robert M. White, the head of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, wrote a report for the National Academy of Sciences that said “We now understand that industrial wastes, such as the carbon dioxide released in the burning of fossil fuels, can have consequences for climate that pose a considerable risk to future society.” [White, Robert, 1978, Oceans and Climate Introduction, Oceanus, 21:2-3]
• The 1979 JASON report “The long-term impact of atmospheric carbon dioxide on climate” estimated climate sensitivity as 2.4C to 2.8C.
• The National Academy of Science’s 1979 Charney report estimated climate sensitivity as 1.5C to 4.5C and said “If carbon dioxide continues to increase, [we] find no reason to doubt that climate changes will result, and no reason to believe that these changes will be negligible.”

This comment was also posted here.

... are you accusing me of "baselessly" accusing scientists of "fraud"? If so, would you care to back that up? So far you're about 0 for 100, so I doubt there is much chance of that. But I am curious where and when you imagine this happened. ... [Jane Q. Public, 2014-06-30]

... can you come up with an example of ME, Jane Q. Public, "baselessly" accusing scientists of "fraud", or not? Come on. You don't have an example, do you? ... [Jane Q. Public, 2014-06-30]

... you still don't have an example of me "baselessly" claiming scientists had committed "fraud". Or anyone claiming such, for that matter. ... [Jane Q. Public, 2014-06-30]

... I am still waiting for an example of me "baselessly" claiming scientists committed "fraud". I don't think you have one of those, either. Which is just more evidence that I have been right, all along. [Jane Q. Public, 2014-06-30]

... How fascinating that you still haven't managed to produce a single example of me actually doing this. (Or demonstrated the truth of any of your other claims, for that matter. You're 0 for whatever, now. I've stopped counting.) Is that because you "forgot" where they were? Or is it -- I daresay vastly more likely -- that this is just another "baseless accusation" of the type YOU appear to have been making? ... [Jane Q. Public, 2014-06-30]

"This "study" specifically searched for "global warming". It's self-selecting, i.e., LYING with statistics. Don't lie. And if the "science" were near as solid as they claim, THEY WOULD NOT HAVE TO lie about it, as they consistently have." [Lonny Eachus, 2014-01-29]

"... I know about quite a bit of dishonest "science" going on in the "global warming" ranks. Including, just for one example, that bogus "97%" claim made recently. It's such statistical garbage that the guys who put it forward should have any license to practice "science" revoked." [Jane Q. Public, 2014-03-20]

... are you accusing me of "baselessly" accusing scientists of "fraud"? If so, would you care to back that up? So far you're about 0 for 100, so I doubt there is much chance of that. But I am curious where and when you imagine this happened. ... [Jane Q. Public, 2014-06-30]

... can you come up with an example of ME, Jane Q. Public, "baselessly" accusing scientists of "fraud", or not? Come on. You don't have an example, do you? ... [Jane Q. Public, 2014-06-30]

... you still don't have an example of me "baselessly" claiming scientists had committed "fraud". Or anyone claiming such, for that matter. ... [Jane Q. Public, 2014-06-30]

... I am still waiting for an example of me "baselessly" claiming scientists committed "fraud". I don't think you have one of those, either. Which is just more evidence that I have been right, all along. [Jane Q. Public, 2014-06-30]

... How fascinating that you still haven't managed to produce a single example of me actually doing this. (Or demonstrated the truth of any of your other claims, for that matter. You're 0 for whatever, now. I've stopped counting.) Is that because you "forgot" where they were? Or is it -- I daresay vastly more likely -- that this is just another "baseless accusation" of the type YOU appear to have been making? ... [Jane Q. Public, 2014-06-30]

"This "study" specifically searched for "global warming". It's self-selecting, i.e., LYING with statistics. Don't lie. And if the "science" were near as solid as they claim, THEY WOULD NOT HAVE TO lie about it, as they consistently have." [Lonny Eachus, 2014-01-29]

"... I know about quite a bit of dishonest "science" going on in the "global warming" ranks. Including, just for one example, that bogus "97%" claim made recently. It's such statistical garbage that the guys who put it forward should have any license to practice "science" revoked." [Jane Q. Public, 2014-03-20]

“If you want to go beyond the local maximum AND the local minimum, you will still see we've had no significant warming since around 1900. Surprise! The government's own unmanipulated data shows that quite clearly.” [Jane Q. Public, 2014-05-13]

“NOBODY in their right minds has — and I certainly have not — been arguing that the globe has not been getting warmer! That is not the issue and never was. The globe has been trending warmer for the last 6,000 years! The data are clear. Someone would have to be an idiot or totally uninformed to make such a claim.” [Jane Q. Public, 2007-10-24]

“I do not disagree that the globe is warming. That would be denying facts... the earth has been trending warmer for over 6,000 years!” [Jane Q. Public, 2008-06-22]

“Trying to prove to me that the globe is warming was a pretty silly thing to do. I do not dispute that the earth has been getting warmer, and never did! It has been trending warmer for the last 6,000 years!” [Jane Q. Public, 2009-04-18]

“We know the earth has been warming. It has been doing so for approximately 6,000 years.” [Lonny Eachus, 2009-07-02]

“First, people with at least half a brain — including in the U.S. — know the climate is getting warmer. It has been trending warmer for roughly 6,000 years, industry or not.” [Jane Q. Public, 2011-07-17]

don't forget:

https://www.archive.is/

mod parent up

** What we've learned now:

http://www.reddit.com/r/h1z1/c...


PC Gamer at 00:33 on 10 April 2014
Story: http://www.pcgamer.com/2014/04...

Archived: https://archive.is/kbRot

on these goings on, including some exceptional conversations.

https://www.schneier.com/

also, search his blog entries here:

https://www.archive.is/

fantastic free page archival service.

There are several Satoshi Nakamotos living in North America and beyond - both dead and alive - including a Ralph Lauren menswear designer in New York and another who died in Honolulu in 2008, according to the Social Security Index's Death Master File. There's even one on LinkedIn who claims to have started Bitcoin and is based in Japan. But none of these profiles seem to fit other known details and few of the leads proved credible. Of course, there is also the chance "Satoshi Nakamoto" is a pseudonym, but that raises the question why someone who wishes to remain anonymous would choose such a distinctive name. It was only while scouring a database that contained the registration cards of naturalized U.S. citizens that a Satoshi Nakamoto turned up whose profile and background offered a potential match. But it was not until after ordering his records from the National Archives and conducting many more interviews that a cohesive picture began to take shape.

Here is an archive link to the article as originally printed: http://archive.is/wbw97

"It's possible that both the AGW deniers and AGW alarmists are wrong. Climate change could be real, but caused by natural factors that are out of our control, the same ones that have caused ice ages and warm periods in the past when carbon outputs were nowhere near as high as they are now."

The problem with this is that it is exactly what many of those so-called AGW "deniers" have been saying all along. [Jane Q. Public]

Exactly what who's been saying all along? Aside from all your short term "cooling/recovery" trends, you've smeared paleoclimate studies while making these uncited claims about the paleoclimate:

NOBODY in their right minds has -- and I certainly have not -- been arguing that the globe has not been getting warmer! That is not the issue and never was. The globe has been trending warmer for the last 6,000 years! The data are clear. Someone would have to be an idiot or totally uninformed to make such a claim. [Jane Q. Public, 2007-10-24]

Not quite 0.74 degrees, but yes it has warmed. So what? The earth has been trending steadily warmer for the last 6,000 years!!! [Jane Q. Public, 2008-06-22]

The trend over 5 or 6 THOUSAND years has been warmer. [Jane Q. Public, 2008-06-22]

I do not disagree that the globe is warming. That would be denying facts... the earth has been trending warmer for over 6,000 years! [Jane Q. Public, 2008-06-22]

Trying to prove to me that the globe is warming was a pretty silly thing to do. I do not dispute that the earth has been getting warmer, and never did! It has been trending warmer for the last 6,000 years! [Jane Q. Public, 2009-04-18]

We know the earth has been warming. It has been doing so for approximately 6,000 years. [Lonny Eachus, 2009-07-02]

Certainly the globe has been warming... it has been trending warmer for thousands of years. [Jane Q. Public, 2010-02-03]

First, people with at least half a brain -- including in the U.S. -- know the climate is getting warmer. It has been trending warmer for roughly 6,000 years, industry or not. [Jane Q. Public, 2011-07-17]

Jane and Lonny Eachus are wrong. According to Marcott et al. 2013 (PDF), the world has actually been cooling for most of the last 6,000 years.

Arctic ice extent is expanding again... [Jane Q. Public]

Here we go again. Jane's comments on sea level, UAH and surface temperatures follow a pattern. First, Jane plucks a short term trend from the noise and waves it around. Scientists then point out that Jane's trend is so short that it just represents weather noise, not climate signal. Jane then insists that waving around short term trends isn't meant to imply anything about the long term trend. Rinse, repeat.

... the Antarctic summer is colder than usual, with even more sea ice.

So, consistent with Manabe et al. 1991 page 811: "... sea surface temperature hardly changes and sea ice slightly increases near the Antarctic Continent in response to the increase of atmospheric carbon dioxide."

... all the while, we've been experiencing a weak "El Nino" event. So even with ENSO on the warming side, it has been very cold in much of the world.

The last point on NOAA's MEI index is -0.312, which is on the La Nina side but effectively neutral.

This was from my friendly neighborhood meteorologist, last Monday. It is possible he is wrong, but he is a recognized expert in his field, not a "meteorologist" on TV. I suppose we shall see.

No link and no name = argument from inscrutable authority. In reality, we might have an El Nino by July which will serve as the basis for the talking point I mentioned at WUWT.

Some of those who disagree did so from the very beginning, on the premise that it's the Sun and other natural factors that drives climate change, not CO2. Just a fact.

Yes, many contrarians operate under the premise that climate change is natural and not driven by human CO2 emissions. In contrast, scientists measure contributions from many natural factors, and many human factors. Scientists don't start from either biased premise, but obviously contrarians do. Thanks for finally being honest, Jane.

Lonny Eachus responds to a tweet using the acronym RWNJ with a rant about "Nut Jobs" (NJ):

That is what ideologues do. They can't stand to even hear you disagree. THOSE are real NJ, and why they must not win. Another example: Reddit just banned any discussion that does not agree with "climate change" from their science forum. They claimed that "deniers" were rude, aggressive, and not actually discussing science. Funny, but I've seen exactly the opposite: THEIR "side" doing that. [Lonny Eachus, 2013-12-17]

... says Lonny Eachus, who is rude, aggressive, and doesn't actually discuss science. Perhaps Lonny Eachus refers to Jane Q. Public's rude, aggressive comments that don't actually discuss science. After all, Jane insists he's NOT a contrarian, so maybe Lonny Eachus wrongly thinks Jane Q. Public is on the side of mainstream science?

Or maybe Lonny refers to my visit to WUWT, when David M. Hoffer suggested at 3:16pm that I should be referred to as "it". His suggestion obviously appealed to ATheoK, who agreed at 7:44pm that I don't deserve a human pronoun. Other WUWT commenters called me a corrupt lying Godless Anti-American murderer, which WUWT regular geronimo found so distasteful that he assumed Anthony Watts would apologize... until I pointed out that Watts already knew and had responded by banning me from WUWT. Maybe Lonny Eachus wrongly thinks Anthony Watts and WUWT commenters are on the side of mainstream science?

Or maybe Lonny Eachus refers to Foxgoose whose egregious victimization rippled back in time. Or maybe Lonny Eachus refers to Geoff Chambers's blog, where commenters like Foxgoose called me and others lying borderline insane cult member guard dogs committing savage attacks. Maybe Lonny Eachus wrongly thinks Foxgoose and Geoff Chambers are on the side of mainstream science?

Here's what Dr. Nathan Allen, reddit science forum moderator, actually said. My emphasis:

...no topic consistently evokes such rude, uninformed, and outspoken opinions as climate change.

Instead of the reasoned and civil conversations that arise in most threads, when it came to climate change the comment sections became a battleground. Rather than making thoughtful arguments based on peer-reviewed science to refute man-made climate change, contrarians immediately resorted to aggressive behaviors. On one side, deniers accused any of the hard-working scientists whose research supported and furthered our understanding of man-made climate change of being bought by "Big Green." On the other side, deniers were frequently insulted and accused of being paid to comment on reddit by "Big Oil."

After some time interacting with the regular denier posters, it became clear that they could not or would not improve their demeanor. These problematic users were not the common "internet trolls" looking to have a little fun upsetting people. Such users are practically the norm on reddit. These people were true believers, blind to the fact that their arguments were hopelessly flawed, the result of cherry-picked data and conspiratorial

Lonny Eachus responds to a tweet using the acronym RWNJ with a rant about "Nut Jobs" (NJ):

That is what ideologues do. They can't stand to even hear you disagree. THOSE are real NJ, and why they must not win. Another example: Reddit just banned any discussion that does not agree with "climate change" from their science forum. They claimed that "deniers" were rude, aggressive, and not actually discussing science. Funny, but I've seen exactly the opposite: THEIR "side" doing that. [Lonny Eachus, 2013-12-17]

... says Lonny Eachus, who is rude, aggressive, and doesn't actually discuss science. Perhaps Lonny Eachus refers to Jane Q. Public's rude, aggressive comments that don't actually discuss science. After all, Jane insists he's NOT a contrarian, so maybe Lonny Eachus wrongly thinks Jane Q. Public is on the side of mainstream science?

Or maybe Lonny refers to my visit to WUWT, when David M. Hoffer suggested at 3:16pm that I should be referred to as "it". His suggestion obviously appealed to ATheoK, who agreed at 7:44pm that I don't deserve a human pronoun. Other WUWT commenters called me a corrupt lying Godless Anti-American murderer, which WUWT regular geronimo found so distasteful that he assumed Anthony Watts would apologize... until I pointed out that Watts already knew and had responded by banning me from WUWT. Maybe Lonny Eachus wrongly thinks Anthony Watts and WUWT commenters are on the side of mainstream science?

Or maybe Lonny Eachus refers to Foxgoose whose egregious victimization rippled back in time. Or maybe Lonny Eachus refers to Geoff Chambers's blog, where commenters like Foxgoose called me and others lying borderline insane cult member guard dogs committing savage attacks. Maybe Lonny Eachus wrongly thinks Foxgoose and Geoff Chambers are on the side of mainstream science?

Here's what Dr. Nathan Allen, reddit science forum moderator, actually said. My emphasis:

...no topic consistently evokes such rude, uninformed, and outspoken opinions as climate change.

Instead of the reasoned and civil conversations that arise in most threads, when it came to climate change the comment sections became a battleground. Rather than making thoughtful arguments based on peer-reviewed science to refute man-made climate change, contrarians immediately resorted to aggressive behaviors. On one side, deniers accused any of the hard-working scientists whose research supported and furthered our understanding of man-made climate change of being bought by "Big Green." On the other side, deniers were frequently insulted and accused of being paid to comment on reddit by "Big Oil."

After some time interacting with the regular denier posters, it became clear that they could not or would not improve their demeanor. These problematic users were not the common "internet trolls" looking to have a little fun upsetting people. Such users are practically the norm on reddit. These people were true believers, blind to the fact that their arguments were hopelessly flawed, the result of cherry-picked data and conspiratorial

Lonny Eachus responds to a tweet using the acronym RWNJ with a rant about "Nut Jobs" (NJ):

That is what ideologues do. They can't stand to even hear you disagree. THOSE are real NJ, and why they must not win. Another example: Reddit just banned any discussion that does not agree with "climate change" from their science forum. They claimed that "deniers" were rude, aggressive, and not actually discussing science. Funny, but I've seen exactly the opposite: THEIR "side" doing that. [Lonny Eachus, 2013-12-17]

... says Lonny Eachus, who is rude, aggressive, and doesn't actually discuss science. Perhaps Lonny Eachus refers to Jane Q. Public's rude, aggressive comments that don't actually discuss science. After all, Jane insists he's NOT a contrarian, so maybe Lonny Eachus wrongly thinks Jane Q. Public is on the side of mainstream science?

Or maybe Lonny refers to my visit to WUWT, when David M. Hoffer suggested at 3:16pm that I should be referred to as "it". His suggestion obviously appealed to ATheoK, who agreed at 7:44pm that I don't deserve a human pronoun. Other WUWT commenters called me a corrupt lying Godless Anti-American murderer, which WUWT regular geronimo found so distasteful that he assumed Anthony Watts would apologize... until I pointed out that Watts already knew and had responded by banning me from WUWT. Maybe Lonny Eachus wrongly thinks Anthony Watts and WUWT commenters are on the side of mainstream science?

Or maybe Lonny Eachus refers to Foxgoose whose egregious victimization rippled back in time. Or maybe Lonny Eachus refers to Geoff Chambers's blog, where commenters like Foxgoose called me and others lying borderline insane cult member guard dogs committing savage attacks. Maybe Lonny Eachus wrongly thinks Foxgoose and Geoff Chambers are on the side of mainstream science?

Here's what Dr. Nathan Allen, reddit science forum moderator, actually said. My emphasis:

...no topic consistently evokes such rude, uninformed, and outspoken opinions as climate change.

Instead of the reasoned and civil conversations that arise in most threads, when it came to climate change the comment sections became a battleground. Rather than making thoughtful arguments based on peer-reviewed science to refute man-made climate change, contrarians immediately resorted to aggressive behaviors. On one side, deniers accused any of the hard-working scientists whose research supported and furthered our understanding of man-made climate change of being bought by "Big Green." On the other side, deniers were frequently insulted and accused of being paid to comment on reddit by "Big Oil."

After some time interacting with the regular denier posters, it became clear that they could not or would not improve their demeanor. These problematic users were not the common "internet trolls" looking to have a little fun upsetting people. Such users are practically the norm on reddit. These people were true believers, blind to the fact that their arguments were hopelessly flawed, the result of cherry-picked data and conspiratorial

Jane Q. Public writes "Christ Turney, a climate researcher at University of New South Wales, and some other researchers chartered a ship to go to Antarctica to further their Anthropogenic Global Warming ("climate change") research. The expedition, consisting of 74 researchers and crew, radioed for help on Christmas day, stating that they are trapped in the ice. A chinese ice breaker called "Snow Dragon" came within a few miles of the stuck ship but had to turn back. The researchers and crew are now hoping that the ice breaker Aurora Australis, out of Australia, will be able to reach them." [Jane Q. Public, 2013-12-28]

As Tom Curtis noted:

"There is an irony about the various sailors, scientist, reporters and tourists currently being trapped in sea ice. They are not trapped because of the growth of Antarctic Sea Ice. Although the current Antarctic SI is 1.5 million square kilometers greater than 1979-2008 mean for this time of year, it is nonetheless melting rapidly, including just north of Commonwealth Bay where the Shokalskey is trapped. Rather, it is trapped as a consequence of portions of ice shelves breaking of the Antarctic coast line. Specifically, in 2010, Iceberg B-9B, a remnant of a calving event on the Ross Ice Shelf in 1987, collided with the tongue of the Metz Glacier, breaking it of. The debris from that collision, it appears, has remained more or less in situe for the last three years, until b winds shifted out from the terminus of the Metz Glacier towards Commonwealth Bay, trapping the Shokalskey. This is described in more detail on the mission blog."

Tom also noted that the mission's 2nd goal was to "explore changes in ocean circulation caused by the growth of extensive fast ice and its impact on life in Commonwealth Bay."

For some strange reason, the CFACT link Jane provided tells a different story.

Jane Q. Public writes "Christ Turney, a climate researcher at University of New South Wales, and some other researchers chartered a ship to go to Antarctica to further their Anthropogenic Global Warming ("climate change") research. The expedition, consisting of 74 researchers and crew, radioed for help on Christmas day, stating that they are trapped in the ice. A chinese ice breaker called "Snow Dragon" came within a few miles of the stuck ship but had to turn back. The researchers and crew are now hoping that the ice breaker Aurora Australis, out of Australia, will be able to reach them." [Jane Q. Public, 2013-12-28]

As Tom Curtis noted:

"There is an irony about the various sailors, scientist, reporters and tourists currently being trapped in sea ice. They are not trapped because of the growth of Antarctic Sea Ice. Although the current Antarctic SI is 1.5 million square kilometers greater than 1979-2008 mean for this time of year, it is nonetheless melting rapidly, including just north of Commonwealth Bay where the Shokalskey is trapped. Rather, it is trapped as a consequence of portions of ice shelves breaking of the Antarctic coast line. Specifically, in 2010, Iceberg B-9B, a remnant of a calving event on the Ross Ice Shelf in 1987, collided with the tongue of the Metz Glacier, breaking it of. The debris from that collision, it appears, has remained more or less in situe for the last three years, until b winds shifted out from the terminus of the Metz Glacier towards Commonwealth Bay, trapping the Shokalskey. This is described in more detail on the mission blog."

Tom also noted that the mission's 2nd goal was to "explore changes in ocean circulation caused by the growth of extensive fast ice and its impact on life in Commonwealth Bay."

For some strange reason, the CFACT link Jane provided tells a different story.

Jane Q. Public writes "Christ Turney, a climate researcher at University of New South Wales, and some other researchers chartered a ship to go to Antarctica to further their Anthropogenic Global Warming ("climate change") research. The expedition, consisting of 74 researchers and crew, radioed for help on Christmas day, stating that they are trapped in the ice. A chinese ice breaker called "Snow Dragon" came within a few miles of the stuck ship but had to turn back. The researchers and crew are now hoping that the ice breaker Aurora Australis, out of Australia, will be able to reach them." [Jane Q. Public, 2013-12-28]

As Tom Curtis noted:

"There is an irony about the various sailors, scientist, reporters and tourists currently being trapped in sea ice. They are not trapped because of the growth of Antarctic Sea Ice. Although the current Antarctic SI is 1.5 million square kilometers greater than 1979-2008 mean for this time of year, it is nonetheless melting rapidly, including just north of Commonwealth Bay where the Shokalskey is trapped. Rather, it is trapped as a consequence of portions of ice shelves breaking of the Antarctic coast line. Specifically, in 2010, Iceberg B-9B, a remnant of a calving event on the Ross Ice Shelf in 1987, collided with the tongue of the Metz Glacier, breaking it of. The debris from that collision, it appears, has remained more or less in situe for the last three years, until b winds shifted out from the terminus of the Metz Glacier towards Commonwealth Bay, trapping the Shokalskey. This is described in more detail on the mission blog."

Tom also noted that the mission's 2nd goal was to "explore changes in ocean circulation caused by the growth of extensive fast ice and its impact on life in Commonwealth Bay."

For some strange reason, the CFACT link Jane provided tells a different story.

The AK's I saw at the last gun show ranged from $650 up to $2000. Where are you getting them for $30?

You live in rich country full of gun collectors who drive up the price for nice examples. In Africa, AK-47s can be had for around $300 [reference:http://blog.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2007/06/12/looking_for_a_deal_on_ak_47s_go_to_africa#sthash.IpUFO50V.dpbs].

It's also possible that at certain situations (e.g., after a proxy war) markets in very poor countries may be flooded with very cheap weapons, with ak-47s selling for as little as $6 [reference http://archive.is/5gesc%5D. However this is obviously not a sustainable price; it only reflects a glut on the local market. Also, these aren't places you'd want to live, despite the occasional gun purchase bargain.

Not now.

That is exactly what Open Library does:
http://blog.archive.org/2010/06/29/small-moves-open-library-integrates-digital-lending/
WSJ article: http://archive.is/1qgty

Whether this type of fair use would stand up in court remains to be seen.

Surfed from the story to “Streisand Effect” at wikipedia.org ending somehow at this story which is very much on topic
in fact mentioned three times to this articles single at the bottom
http://blog.sweetiq.com/2013/08/groupon-rep-threatens-sf-restaurant-posts-bad-reviews/

"UNBELIEVABLE CUSTOMER SERVICE EMAIL FROM GROUPON - Threatening me with Bad yelps for not letting him bully me into a sales pitch!!!!! Talk about Abusive business practices (my response is below)" http://archive.is/lIFF5 (archive of facebook posting of orginial posting by Sauce)

If you'd like to watch Andrew Johnston show a lack of understanding how threating someone in print is a bad thing, demonstrate how sales is not handled, lose this job and put Sauce on the map do give it a read.

I figure most of us know what happened to Mitnick, but just in case, what happened was that the government convinced a judge that Mitnick could literally launch America's nuclear-armed ICBMs merely by whistling into a phone.

Props for the Wayne Gretzky reference, eh.

Popularized in tech by Steve Jobs, who was obviously inspired by Gretzky:

http://archive.is/20120916/http://www.engadget.com/2007/01/09/live-from-macworld-2007-steve-jobs-keynote