text:
NGC 4201 (другие обозначения — MCG -2-31-24, IRAS12120-1118, PGC 39120) — линзообразная галактика (S0) в созвездии Дева.

Этот объект входит в число перечисленных в оригинальной редакции «Нового общего каталога».

Примечания

4201
Дева (созвездие)

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaWikipedia


Home » Blog » The apple doesn't fall far from the tree.
From the time I could walk, I've been exploring the big outdoors: chasing woodchucks, catching crawfish and climbing trees. My parents, who constantly took my little sister and I on hikes, cultivated this love of nature. We were taught to identify trees, how to navigate off trail and how to find our way home if we ever got lost.
Although they weren't exactly trying to raise us to enter into the environmental fields, they tried to teach us to appreciate the natural world and to never take it for granted. I think they were pretty successful, seeing as how I have degrees in environmental science and forestry and my little sister is studying to be a wildlife biologist.
My parents weren't at all surprised when I applied to become the intern for the Friends of Scotchman Peaks Wilderness. They had known for years — probably before I did — that I wasn't going to stay in New York after I graduated. So they supported my dream. My mom helped me drive over 3,000 miles to western Montana. And this weekend, my dad came to visit me.
I was so excited that my father was coming to see me! He has shown me the woods of New York, North Carolina, Arizona, and California. Now I was getting the chance to show him the wilderness of North Idaho and Western Montana.
We only had five short days. I promptly began planning hikes…for every single day.
Our first hike was unfortunately canceled because my dad arrived a lot later then expected due to flight complications. But as we drove through North Idaho and crossed the border into Montana I know he already knew why I had fallen in love with the Northwest. It's hard not to be impressed when there are huge mountains everywhere you look.
The next day we hiked the newly cleared Regal Creek Mine Trail #556 with Jim and Sandii Mellen and their two dogs, Coya and Lucy. Five minutes into the hike we scared up a young black bear. As it was high-tailing away from us, my dad was laughing. "We've barely started hiking!" The day continued to be great.
We reached the mine, started to eat lunch and the sky opened up. So Jim and Sandii took refuge in the mine entrance and my dad and I took cover under a big cedar. The storm passed pretty quickly and the skies cleared up enough to take some pictures.
There's an old tread that cuts across the mine trail close to the mine entrance. So we did a typical Mitchell thing and decided to explore off-trail. (My father was constantly taking "shortcuts" when I was little, much to my mother's annoyance as they were typically not shorter). Only this time, it was my idea. Jim and Sandii were all for it, so we headed up the steep slope, which led to an absolutely beautiful view of a waterfall.
While we were on this side trip, FSPW stalwart Mary Franzel, who was trying to catch up with us, reached the mine entrance. She couldn't see us and we couldn't hear her so she headed back down the trail. We finished exploring and headed back down after her — not knowing that she was in front of us. When we reached the cars, Jim found a note from Mary saying she had waited for us until 4:15.
It was a great day and a great hike. I was glad that my Dad got to meet some of my Friends, saw one of the trail projects I had worked on and became introduced to the proposed Scotchman Peaks Wilderness.
The rest of his visit was non-stop hiking and sightseeing. He hiked Scotchman Peak with me, got to see Ross Creek Cedars and the Kootenai Falls, and even ate at Eichardt's in Sandpoint. I had a great time showing him around my new world.
I'm a lucky girl and I know it. I have great parents who are very supportive and I've already gotten to go some amazing places because of that. But I'll always remember the things they taught me while I was wandering around the woods in New York. I'll always know how to get home if I ever get lost. Because it doesn't matter what state I'm in, or what continent I'm on, or even what ocean, my first home will always be on sixteen acres of woods in Bath, NY.
Okay Lauren, so you just made me cry…(and laugh). I am glad that you had such a great time with your dad! I love you!
Lauren, I'm in your Grandma's writer's group, and I can say that the "writing apple" doesn't fall far from the tree either. This was a delightful blog post!


text:
local common = require('test_scripts/Capabilities/UpdateVideoStreamingCapabilities/common')

--[[ Local Variables ]]
local appSessionId = 1
local isSubscribe = false

--[[ Scenario ]]
common.Title("Preconditions")
common.Step("Clean environment", common.preconditions)
common.Step("Set HMI Capabilities", common.setVideoStreamingCapabilities, { common.getVscData() })
common.Step("Start SDL, HMI, connect Mobile, start Session", common.start)
common.Step("Register App", common.registerAppWOPTU)

common.Title("Test")
common.Step("App sends GetSystemCapability for VIDEO_STREAMING", common.getSystemCapability,
  { isSubscribe, appSessionId, common.getVscData() })

common.Title("Postconditions")
common.Step("Stop SDL", common.postconditions)

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaGithub


for all of you having trouble downloading the windows Version of current stable minetest version i attached it to the board.
Topic: I cannot login to server!
Re: I cannot login to server!
Addi...can you look at it? We have several errors with similiar issues to password change topics.


The month of March has been incredibly fun on Facebook. Among several other fun activities and announcements, we've been challenging our Facebook audience to test their ballroom dance knowledge in an ongoing March Madness Ballroom Dance Trivia Contest. Today we wrapped up the contest by revealing the correct answer to our last question about the beautiful dance Paso Doble, and we have a special announcement to make!
Out of all the wonderful contestants we had this month, we have one lucky winner who answered with the most correct answers… Ms. Shirin Head!
2 Private Lessons, 3 Group Lessons and 1 Party!
New to Celebrity Ballroom Dance Studios?
Check out the upcoming Open House Night by clicking this link.
And, no partner or prior dancing experience is required!


Strength United serves the San Fernando and Santa Clarita Valleys located in Los Angeles County. Our service area consists of 2,185,024 residents across 999.24 miles. Our community is culturally, ethnically, economically and socially diverse.
The racial/ethnic make-up of the San Fernando Valley is 41.7% Latino, 40.11% Caucasian, 10.48% Asian, 3.61% African American and 4.33% who identify as other. In the Santa Clarita Valley, the population is 62.36% Caucasian, 23.61% Latino, 6.85% Asian, 3.40% African American and 4.33% registering as other.
Household income disparities exist in our community. In 2009, there were 15.44% reporting annual incomes below $15,000 and 28.79% earning incomes less than $35,000. About 15% of the population in our community is below the federal poverty line.
Our community also has varied education levels. 268,042 residents have less than a high school degree, 191,220 have a high school degree, 286,147 have some college education, 180,201 have a bachelor's degree and 88,725 have a masters degree or higher.
Our community is the largest of eight service planning areas (SPAs) within Los Angeles County. The Service Planning Areas were created to serve as the basic geographic organization units for community health services under the Los Angeles County of Public Health. Our Service Planning Area (SPA 2) has a higher population than any other SPA and includes thirty-six distinct communities.


text:
Home•Prodrive opens new Powertrain Development...
Prodrive opens new Powertrain Development Centre
Prodrive has opened its new advanced Powertrain Development Centre (PDC), reaffirming its commitment to help the automotive and motorsport industry develop solutions for its biggest challenges.
Located at the Banbury headquarters of the world-leading motorsport and advanced technology business, the purpose-built facility represents a £5 million investment and was constructed over a period of six months. Its installation reinforces Prodrive's ability to develop the next generation of electric, hybrid and internal combustion engines for road and competition applications, while also strengthening the expertise and services that it offers existing motorsport and technology clients.
Prodrive has opened its new advanced Powertrain Development Centre following a £5m investment / Picture: Prodrive
Arthur Shaw, chief powertrain engineer at Prodrive, said: "The PDC marks a massive step forward in terms of our engine development capability and complements our existing skills in the design and development of all types of powertrain. The high specification of our new dyno means we are in the best position to calibrate units, allowing our customers to enjoy potential savings in terms of cost and time in comparison to physical testing on the road or track. Additionally, with the new facility bringing the differing stages of our powertrain development all under one roof – spanning the build of the engine right through to its installation in a chassis – there are further efficiency benefits that can be passed on to customers.
"It's one of the biggest investments that Prodrive has ever made, but with our motorsport operations continuing to grow at a pace and increasing enquiries for the development of complex electric vehicle and hybrid technology, now is the optimum time for us to introduce our Powertrain Development Centre," he continued. "The significant expenditure underlines how committed we are to developing future powertrains and enhancing our service, enabling us to offer clients one of the most advanced facilities of its kind in the UK."
Prodrive has future-proofed the facility with scope to double the size of the PDC / Picture: Prodrive
Core to the new Powertrain Development Centre is a 660 kW transient dyno, one of the most powerful of its kind in the UK, which with temperature, humidity and pressure-controlled induction air can replicate all running conditions, while also providing cooling for engines and electric vehicle (EV) batteries and motors. The ability to simulate exact running conditions means the dyno is particularly suited to durability and performance testing, as well as emission simulation and development.
Able to handle engine outputs of up to 880hp, the dyno is located on an easily-adjustable, modular grid system. This ensures that Prodrive can efficiently tailor it to the layout of any powertrain including the ability to test a full four-wheel-drive electric/hybrid drivetrain.
Complementing the transient dyno cell is a dedicated engine build room, fitted out by Dura, which can accommodate the assembly of up to 12 units. This capability, coupled with the PDC being adjacent to the main workshop, enhances Prodrive's ability to build complete vehicles and cater for niche OEM projects requiring circa 200-300 units in short timeframes.
Should demand dictate, there is scope to double the size of the PDC. Prodrive has future-proofed the facility with the potential to add another identical dyno and engine build room, all without extending the existing building.
The creation of the PDC has been supported by OxLEP (Oxford Local Enterprise Partnership) via the government's Local Growth Fund. The official backing recognises the relationship that Prodrive has established with the local community, being one of the region's largest and most high-profile employers. The launch of the PDC is expected to support 25 jobs in the area.
Prodrive's dedicated facility will accelerate its development of the new generation of alternative-fuel powertrains and internal combustion engines / Picture: Prodrive

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


Carefully identified states and their respective event triggers keep containers acting within set parameters and are key to lifecycle management.
Container deployment involves a repeatable series of steps or processes -- from preparing an application to making it available to users or other apps in the form of containers and clusters. This process-centric approach gives rise to container lifecycle management, and it should include an orchestration tool or script.
Virtualized hosting follows a traditional deployment path, whether for containers or VMs: Prepare applications for hosting -- usually a development or onboarding task; select a pool of resources for the deployment of related applications and components; and then deploy each within that selected pool. Finally, connect those hosting points to one another, to users and to other integrated applications.
Container lifecycle management has specific steps that closely relate to the server resources and virtualization tools in use, so it also has a lot of commonality with operations management processes. Designing management processes to be repeatable across applications will cut your work in half or more and improve application lifecycle management. It also will eliminate other steps you'd traditionally have to take when making changes to virtualization resources, platforms or applications.
Repeatable processes require not only standardized infrastructure, but also a standardized view of the operations lifecycle. In operations, an application has a normal state and a series of alternative states that are responses to special conditions. The heavy load state, for example, could represent a response to something that's unusual but not considered a fault, while the primary-data-center hosting failure state clearly indicates an error. Conditions or events trigger these states; processes that run are the response. Defining the states and events for each application is a good starting point to optimize processes in container lifecycle management.
A simple application could have three states: normal, failure and loaded.
A simple application could have three states: normal, failure and loaded. For each state, define the conditions that signal when to enter that state, and then identify the steps to get there. This is where careful process design starts.
As an example, let's refer to the process of entering the normal state when you launch an application as the deploy process. This process likely looks similar to the process created to recover from a failure, as well as the one used to spin up another copy of an application in response to high workload demands. Instead of designing three different deploy processes -- deploy, redeploy and scale-out -- simply define one process, and supply parameters to customize it.
The processes defined in application operations are broken down into steps for deploying hosting resources and connecting elements. These two areas are where container operations differ most from VM-based operations. So, start with container-specific processes for deployment and connection, and then move to application processes with a focus on making them reusable.
Container deployment is hierarchical: Create clusters; select a pod or cluster for the application where related components will deploy and where internal addresses are mutually available; and then host those components within the cluster. You should use an orchestration tool or script, such as Kubernetes, to support these processes.
Scaling and redeployment processes are associated with host and cluster conditions, which can be reflected in various ways. Kubernetes, for example, has pre- and post-deployment lifecycle events that you can define handlers for; it also has container and cluster events that you can move to Stackdriver for logging and processing.
If you've taken the time to define standard events, such as a signal for scale-out, scale-back or redeploy for failure, you can define a process template for each of these. When the IT organization defines the processes to handle any sort of events as standard tools, developers and operations personnel involved in container lifecycle management can control the way applications respond to load and failures; they also can manage changes in components associated with in-use applications.
All of this demands a consistent container environment. Having a mix of hypervisors and virtualization or cloud software tools in a VM environment invites errors and instability. The same is true for containers. Pick a single strategy for containers, as well as a single container orchestration tool. Having one hosting environment helps standardize the operations processes.
Standardize how you assign application addresses. Most companies use private IP addresses, as outlined in RFC 1918. It is helpful to assign a group of related applications to a single subset of the enterprise's private address space and then further subdivide it for the individual applications -- and then for the components. Related applications would be hosted in Pods or clusters with standardized addresses, which makes it easier to use DevOps commands to respond to lifecycle events using standard templates.
Not everything in your enterprise is based on container hosting -- even if you have a strong container strategy. Evaluate ways to integrate noncontainer steps, such as how to manage user-to-application connections or how to use VM or bare-metal servers. Standardize these processes, and use similar tools to support them. The result will be a more efficient operation that better serves users.
How does your organization approach container lifecycle management?


"And of course once the data is published, others are free to reinterpret it and/or use it in another way."
It seems that one good step would be for journals to require public archiving of all primary data & methods as a condition of publication. Would you support this?
Re #65: There is a great deal of unarchived data pertaining to multiproxy studies e.g. a list of the 387 sites in Briffa et al  (which may or may not be archived); measurement data for many sites used in Esper et al ; data versions used in Mann and Jones ; methods of Mann and Jones ; data as used in Crowley and Lowery  or data citations for the versions used; measurement data for many Jacoby sites studied in the last 10 years except Mongolia; sample data for Thompson's ice cores, etc. etc. Sometimes data is archived in password protected sites like SO&P. Will you join in seeking to improve standards of data archiving implemented by journals such as Nature and Science and in studies funded by NSF?
You wonder how they can say these things with a straight face.
As to the censorship of my comment, they really are pathetic. Gavin Schmidt has posted here in the past and is welcome to post here in the future.
This entry was written by Stephen McIntyre, posted on Oct 2, 2005 at 7:40 PM, filed under General. Bookmark the permalink. Follow any comments here with the RSS feed for this post. Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed.
Maybe they are huddling before they release it. You are kind of a big guy and they want to plan their blue within-the-post, voice of God, reply carefully.
I'd be surprised if it sees the light of day, especially given Gavin's fatuous in-the-box response, which is readily refuted. Daylight is their enemy.
If you're in the UK, shouldn't you be sound asleep at this time?
As for the so called "realclimate" folks, would anyone seriously consider buying a used car from any of them?
Steve, I have had no direct communications with you over any of these issues and so I'm not quite sure why you feel so antagonistic towards me. I answered your sock puppet sincerely. That you feel that I am being 'fatuous' is unfortunate, and possibly part of the reason why you don't get treated more seriously. I have no influence on any of the studies you cite and SO&P is an ongoing project, not a published study. Just because I have disagreed with the importance of your substantive points concerning MBH, it does not imply that I am somehow against openness in climate science. You are making a serious error if you conflate the two things.
fiction can be stranger yet.
You're not doing yourself any favors by calling Armand MacMurray a sock puppet. Do you or do you not have input as to whether or not a message by Steve can be posted on RealClimate and if not, why not?
And if you don't know why Steve complains about how he's been treated, perhaps you should actually try reading some of the material here instead of just being mock angry.
I need to apologise. I understood from the text of the post that Steve had posted both comments (in my defense, it was quite late in the evening). I have subsequently been informed that this was not the case, and so I apologise to both Steve and Armand for the confusion my statement caused.
I don't care about sock puppets or anger or if there is a cause for anger. But Steve's post is on topic and should be put on the board. No, you don't control those studies, Gavin. No one is expecting you to do pugil stick drills with USMC Jones to get data out. 🙂 Just post Steve's comment (even if you disagree and have a blue voice of God reply) so that community can discuss it. Y'all told me he could post there as long as he followed rules.
Gavin, re #5. Your response may have been "sincere", but it was inaccurate. Not only that, but you suppressed a post that provided objective information on the topic, thereby helping to incite your readers. I used the term "pathetic" not in an antagonistic way, but in a descriptive way. These petty little acts of daylight prevention are pathetic. As to "fatuous", it was a little Mannian, but not entirely uncalled for, given your deletion of objective information and dissemination of "sincere" disinformation. Under the circumstances, I lapsed into realclimate use of adjectives, but generally I work pretty adjective-free. You are projecting antagonism onto me. I'm too old to be angry; that's for younger people like yourself. I find hypocrisy amusing. My usual (and preferred) voice is one of irony. Sometimes I don't adhere to it, but that's my objective. Our articles were written in a formal voice. Whether they deserve serious consideration or not is independent of the occasional subsequent use of an adjective here and there on an active blog. I might add that any such use occurred well after unsupportable and slanderous assertions of "dishonesty" by your realclimate cohort were made to a journal in an attempt to forestall publication of an article. I don't see much evidence of scientific "openness".
PS. You still haven't posted my comment at realclimate.
Re #5. I had said that Gavin had posted here in the past. In #5, Gavin seems to deny this. This is untrue – see here http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=213#comment-1561.
Gavin, more substantively, if you support data archiving, will you join with me in writing to the journals and to NSF requesting that data be archived for a list (to be jointly agreed) of studies in which the archiving has not been done? Or if you prefer, will you write on your own account requesting the journals to correct this, if I provide you with a list which you can independently confirm (and the ones mentioned in my comment are all important examples)?
I have never understood why the Hockey Team is so stupid about not releasing data and methods. I've been in a litigation and lawyers teach you that there's no point fighting over stuff that you're going to lose. Gavin has no obligation to defend poor practices by others and I don't know why he does (I know why he does, but you know what I mean).
I've always felt completely convinced that daylight would prevail on data and methods at some point, that attempts to withhold data and methods could not succeed. Fighting this is a waste of time in one sense; I've spent a vast amount of time that could have been productively applied to other topics. But it's a big secondary issue in its own right that anyone can understand. There's a real chance of influencing practices as only the most devout Mannians will support the Hockey Team in keeping their data concealed and their methods described only in generic terms.
2. Gavin is actually pretty good fellow (for the crew). I really don't think he was wrong when he said that he had not had discussions with you. Don't get too tough with the dude verbally. Not all those guys have my pumped up Internet trolling (and YMCA weightlifting) muscles. Some of them will get their feelings hurt with rough talk.
3. Well of course (re methods). McFreedom about said it all, with his comment about "Mann, you lose!" in response to the defiant, "I will not show the algorithm". These dudes are so far from Feynman or Wilson or any of the real voices of science.
IMHO, Gavin doesn't deserve some of the scorn being heaped on him here. He seems to be the most reasonable of the realclimaters. In fact, his second response above was quite gracious. He seems to have a genuine scientific streak.
When you first come across realclimate, it comes off very well. They know their stuff and they maintain a fairly high tone. After a while, though, their attitude becomes quite disturbing. For instance, they very recently wrote a post about GW increasing hurricane intensity. They cited Emanuel extensively (almost exclusively), but didn't mention any criticisms of Emanuel, and, more bizarely, didn't mention Landsea at all (except for a cite to one of his papers). Obviously not the stuff of disinterested scientific investigation and inexplicable given their professed reverence for consensus.
I tried to post a comment asking why they didn't mention Landsea or the criticisms of Emanuel but they wouldn't post it or any other post pointing this out. There appears to be a good bit of sanitizing going on there, which, when you think about it, is essential to their apparent mission to maintain their claims of consensus.
Also, you really have to have some pity for Mann himself. His papers were written when he was just a research pup, and his whole reputation rides on them. In academia, many reputations have been established the way he established his: flimsy papers based on shaky pemises supported by flawed and manipulated empirical work that produce weak and non-robust results. Often, researchers get away with this because there is so little checking of their work and because it is impolite to point these things out. Such an academic's worst nightmare is to have some pest relentlessly and very publicly burrow into his work and expose the sloppiness.
Terry, I wouldn't say that it was particularly "gracious" to withdraw an untrue ad hominem, but I guess that's about as good as it gets with the Hockey Team.
Mann makes it pretty hard for anyone to have pity on him. He's been pretty savage on people like Soon and Baliunas. He's engaged in some very unprofessional activities with us, such as writing to journals distributing false and scurrilous Environmental Defense Fund claims that I was associated with ExxonMobil and accusing Ross and I of "dishonesty". Natuurwetenschap & Techniek were shocked. They tried to hammer us pretty good at realclimate when they started up and spread a lot of disinformation. They all seem to think that it's all right for them to take swings at Ross or me, and then get all sniffy and precious when there's some blowback.
What should worry you is that realclimate attitudes are probably representative of IPCC. Based on what you see at realclimate, would you trust them to give full disclosure of adverse results.
When you first come across realclimate, it comes off very well. They know their stuff and they maintain a fairly high tone. After a while, though, their attitude becomes quite disturbing…..
…There appears to be a good bit of sanitizing going on there, which, when you think about it, is essential to their apparent mission to maintain their claims of consensus.
That, to me, is what is insidious about "RealClimate". It purports to be an academic weblog of climate science but when you scratch the surface, you realise that all is not what it appears.
In my opinion, RealClimate is a political propaganda site for an extremist environmentalist worldview. The subtle and not-so-subtle censorship of opposing evidence that does not fit that worldview, is all pervasive. RC studiously avoids all mention of this weblog and refers to Steve McIntyre and Ross McKitrick only in negative and emotive terms.
This is a classic obfuscation. Where was the confusion? That Armand McMurray and Steve McIntyre were not the same person would have been obvious to any administrator within seconds by looking at their IP addresses. But Schmidt pointedly does not apologise for the censorship, nor restore Steve's comments, nor invite Steve to repost them, nor answer the substance of what Steve commented on. Schmidt is sorry over trivia but makes no amends for the censorship of Steve McIntyre's sensible request.
Underpinning all of this is the real purpose of "RealClimate": to defend Michael Mann from the reality of what he has done. No criticism of Michael Mann's documented actions is ever allowed.
Like Steve, I take the long historical view that daylight will come and the truth will out. But first, the darkness must be made visible.
Hello, Tim. Care to engage in the real arguments while you're here ?
RE #20 and 21: Tim, thanks for chipping in on this even if it's only here. It would be nice if you noted this on your own blog. The realclimate pettiness is one thing; but it symbolizes a very unfortunate aspect of Hockey Team climate science – their unwillingness to disclose adverse information. The same mentality governs this petty censorship as animated Mann's original withholding of adverse cross-validation statistics and sensitivity information.
fFreddy, I'm OK with Tim not weighting in on other matters. Speaking from my own experience, he's got a lot to do in creating material for his own blog.
Re #30: 29 and 30 crossed in the mail. Please take this to Lambert on Cos Latitudes or Spam Karma or Debunkers.
Let's be nicer to Gavin. I like him.
Fair enough, I thought the whole topic had been shut down and hadn't noticed the Sept. 2, 2005 comment by John A after the topic had been closed. I've re-opened the Is It Karma? post where the comment is made for a little while to give you a chance to reply on it if you want.
re 26 What do you like about Gavin? Censoring critics?
After several unsuccessful attempts, I finally got one of my posts on Realclimate today. This was not a very controversial topic. It was a comment on Quantoken's claim that the total quantity of fossil fuel reserves is known.
I posted another one today in answer to a poster about GW and seismic activity. If they were related, the people working on earthquage prediction would have published this correlation since the data is so easy to obtain. I wonder if this one will make it.
It is strange and dissapointing that they don't post Steve's on topic, non-trolling argument regarding GW studies and data disclosure.
TCO, it is certainly not "strange" that RC won't post up Steve's comment, I suggest you do not understand the thinking of those people who run that site. Posting up such a comment would force them to acknowledge that Steve has something worthwhile to say, which RC has spent 10 or so months desperately trying to deny. Disappointing I can agree with.
They said Steve could post. They have let other people debate both sides of the issue. I think there is some misunderstanding or reason that they think steve is off-topic.
Come on, they said I could post, but when I tried, they didn't post it.
If there was a "misunderstanding", Gavin came on here and had a chance to explain it. He didn't. I don't believe that there was a misunderstanding.
b. being an argument against a position of his.
This is a report on some recent postings (and failed postings) at the RealClimate website. It casts doubt on the claim by the Group of Contributors to the site, in their "Welcome statement' of almost a year ago, that 'the discussion here is restricted to scientific topics', and that they "will not get involved in political or economic issues that arise when discussing climate change.' I value the opportunity that ClimateAudit affords me to place this report on the record, without having to fear that it will be censored or subjected to interpolated comments before publication.
This was an elementary error that Schmidt would not have made if he had read the Terms of Reference of the IPCC Special Report on Emissions Scenarios, which referred to "The advent of integrated assessment (IA) models [that had] made it possible to construct self-consistent emissions scenarios that jointly consider the interactions between energy, economy, and land-use changes', and stated explicitly that the new scenarios "were intended to have broader uses than simply a set of emissions trajectories to drive climate models.' The wider uses of the SRES in the IPCC's current Assessment Report (AR4) were of course extensively discussed on this site on the strings "Ian Castles on IPCC Economic Assumptions' and "Major British Review on Economics of Climate Change' – but the RealClimate site does not provide a link to ClimateAudit on its site (but does provide this facility to the sites of Tim Lambert (Deltoid), William Connelley (Stoat) and Stephen Schneider).
By 12 November the RealClimate site happily published a contribution (#43) which explained that most of the members of the House of Lords are "appointed by the Prime Minister of the day', but that "There is no scrutiny of the PM's selection … So now, Tony Blair has in effect packed the Senate with placemen of his own choice'. Another posting on the same day claimed that Lord Lawson is in a "a fairly (sic) unique position', because "As a member of the House of Lords he … no longer has any accountability', and "can therefore say anything he likes, without any fear of reprisals from the cabinet, whips, or the electorate. His current "job' will never be at risk.' (His position may perhaps be likened to the Group of Contributors to RealClimate, who state that their posts "do not represent the views of the organisations for which they work', and that they "are solely responsible for the content of the site').
In lengthy comments on 15 and 16 November (#56, #63 and #64), I attempted to correct some of the errors made by the RealClimate contributors, but their responses indicated that they still had not grasped the point that the IPCC scenarios are used by all three of the Panel's Working Groups, not just Working Group I. William Connolley responded to my posting #64 with the observation that "Leaning on the House of Lords committee for support is feeble: the HoL did a PRETTY POOR JOB' (the words that I have reproduced in capitals were hyperlinked to a posting headed "House of Lords subverted by sceptics' on Connelley's own website, which alleged, inter alia, that the Committee had "degenerated into bald-faced lying').
In a posting on 19 November (#73), David H quoted from a speech made in the House of Lords during the previous week in which Lord May, President of the Royal Society (U.K.), had referred to "the issue about which the group of distinguished economists on the committee of the noble Lord, Lord Wakeham, said so many good and wise things', so apparently Lord May did not share William Connelley's view that the Committee had done a "pretty poor job'.
At #60, a correspondent noted that he has "seen several "serious' contrarians' remarks that would be nearly libelous or slanderous.' He went on to claim that "These "contrarians' have no footing left and are attempting to drag some of the most respected scientists (like Drs. Mann, Bradley, Hughes, Schneider, and Trenberth) down the hill with them. On the other hand, I have seen no comments by these respected scientists which attempt to attack the "contrarians' in such a libelous or slanderous manner.' There would be differing opinions on that score.
"[S.S.] On the one hand, as scientists we are ethically bound to the scientific method, in effect promising to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but – which means that we must include all the doubts, the caveats, the ifs, ands, and buts. On the other hand, we are not just scientists but human beings as well. And LIKE MOST PEOPLE WE'D LIKE TO SEE THE WORLD A BETTER PLACE, WHICH IN THIS CONTEXT TRANSLATES INTO OUR WORKING TO REDUCE THE RISK OF POTENTIALLY DISASTROUS CLIMATE CHANGE. TO DO THAT WE NEED TO GET SOME BROADBASED SUPPORT, TO CAPTURE THE PUBLIC'S IMAGINATION. THAT, OF COURSE, ENTAILS GETTING LOADS OF MEDIA COVERAGE. SO WE HAVE TO OFFER UP SCARY SCENARIOS, MAKE SIMPLIFIED, DRAMATIC STATEMENTS, AND MAKE LITTLE MENTION OF ANY DOUBTS WE MIGHT HAVE. This 'double ethical bind' we frequently find ourselves in cannot be solved by any formula. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest. I hope that means being both.
"[S.S.] [Misquoters] also omit my solutions to the double ethical bind: (1) use metaphors that succinctly convey both urgency and uncertainty, and (2) produce an inventory of written products from editorials to articles to books, so that those who want to know more about an author's views on both the caveats and the risks have a hierarchy of detailed written sources to which they can turn. What I was telling the Discover interviewer, of course, was my disdain for a soundbite-communications process that imposes the double ethical bind on all who venture into the popular media. To twist my openly stated and serious objections to the soundbite process into some kind of advocacy of exaggeration is a clear distortion. Moreover, not only do I disapprove of the "ends justify the means" philosophy of which I am accused, but, in fact have actively campaigned against it in myriad speeches and writings. Instead, I repeatedly advocate that scientists explicitly warn their audiences that "what to do" is a value choice as opposed to "what can happen" and "what are the odds," which are scientific issues.
Schmidt neglected to mention that prominent "contrarians' such as Julian Simon ("The Ultimate Resource 2, 1996) and Bjorn Lomborg (response to critique of "The Skeptical Environmentalist', 2002 at http://greenspirit.com/lomborg/ ) had already made Schneider's position just as "perfectly clear' as he had — i.e., they had reproduced every word of the "full quote' given by Schmidt.
Gavin, Your response to #69. In 1976, Stephen Schneider wrote: "I have cited many examples of recent climate variability and repeated the warnings of several well-known climatologists that a cooling trend has set in – perhaps one akin to the Little Ice Age – and that climate variability, which is the bane of reliable food production, can be expected to increase along with the cooling" (quoted in Julian Simon, "The Ultimate Resource", p. 267). That was a scary scenario and Schneider made no mention of any doubts he may have had. Maybe he didn't have any doubts. But there must always be the suspicion, which is not in the least corrected by the fuller explanation of his position that you have quoted, that in this case Schneider believed that it was more important to be effective than to be honest. It is no answer to express the "hope" that one can be both. Either Schneider believed that a cooling trend had set in, in which case he was categorically wrong; or he had decided not to "include all the doubts, the caveats, the ifs, and buts" in the interests of being effective.
It is simply not true that "dozens of authors and hundreds of IPCC reviewers" had characterised all of the scenarios as "equally sound" – and in any case, as Schneider knew perfectly well, such a judgment says nothing whatever about the probability of their occurrence. Does anyone seriously suggest that the IPCC scenario with the highest economic growth rates instantly became three times more likely than the other three marker scenarios when the IPCC decided (after the main scientific review had been completed) to add "Fuel Intensive" and "Technology" variants to the A1 marker scenario, but not to any of the others)?
An ad hominem argument, according to Wikipedia, is "a logical fallacy that involves replying to an argument or assertion by attacking the person presenting the argument or assertion rather than the argument itself.' The point of my post was to reply to the argument mounted by Stephen Schneider in 1989 by reference to his own statements in 1976 and 2002. If some of my comments can be construed as a personal attack on Professor Schneider I withdraw them and plead that (a) I am genuinely puzzled about why he believes his responsibilities as a scientist may be at odds with his responsibilities as a human being, and (b) that he made a personal attack on me from the floor of the IPCC Expert Meeting on the Use of Emissions Scenarios in Research in Amsterdam in January 2003.
The suggestion that my posting amounted to "character assassination' is a bit rich, coming as it does from a "working scientist' who has casually accused Professor Richard Lindzen of being "sneaky'. In his written evidence to the House of Lords Committee inquiry, Professor Lindzen noted that he had been conducting research into various aspects of the physics of climate for the past 45 years, and had held professorships successively at Chicago, Harvard and MIT. Instead of criticising the Committee for the conclusions that they have drawn after examining Professor Lindzen (as well as Dr. Pachauri, Sir John Houghton, Sir David King and a number of other distinguished scientists and economists), I would be interested as a layperson to have from one of the RealClimate team a considered analysis of Professor Lindzen's written and oral evidence before the Committee.
I would like to thank you for that, and for your several other, informative comments here.
Would you provide a link for the testimony that Lindzen gave to the House of Lords Committee inquiry? Thanks.
By redacting your attempted post Gavin once again has proven that he decides when to "tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but – which means that we must include all the doubts, the caveats, the ifs, ands, and buts. [S.S.]" Sadly, this reflects poorly on his intellectual honesty.
After reading threads on RC, I get the feeling that many AGW supporters have the same blissfully ignorant attitude that I had during the time that I attended university. They seem to believe that the world is simple place and if only we could do a few things to make the world a better place then we would be moving closer to the utopia toward which they are striving. They do not want to accept any differing viewpoints because they are so convinced of the "rightness" of their views.
These attitudes may be charming when expressed by a sophomore, however coming from a scientist they are dismaying to say the very least.
Re #50. Paul, I think the best way is to go to http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200506/ldselect/ldeconaf/12/1202.htm , which will take you to the Report (section by section). At the foot of the page are links to each of the days of the hearings. Click on 25 January 2005, which was the day that Professor Lindzen (and also my co-author, Professor David Henderson) appeared before the Committee. The written evidence is reproduced immediately before the transcript of oral evidence.
You can find Dr. Linzen's testimony at http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200506/ldselect/ldeconaf/12/12ii.pdf for the Adobe version (2.5 MB) or http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200506/ldselect/ldeconaf/12/5012501.htm for the html version. Sorry, I don't know how to incorporate the direct link.
5: There must be a middle ground somewhere!
6: information on website controlled to keep the site popular with true believers and encourage promotion of the site.
10: Site may be just the beginning of a Nixonian-like damage control scheme, hockey team may start checking each other for hidden recording devices. Next IPCC report to prominently feature a graph of a million years of low CO2 to be dubbed "Hockey Stick Two". Confusion over the two graphs will help deflect attention by discouraging normal people from wanting anything to do the subject.


text:
Freedom to Worship ≠ Freedom of Religion
Shane Vander Hart: Limiting the First Amendment to the "freedom to worship" would relegate our faith to our personal lives and our place of worship.
Ernst, Lee Introduce Paid Parental Leave Plan
First Amendment,
freedom of religion,
freedom of worship,
"The freedom to worship is one of our nation's most fundamental rights. That First Amendment guarantee should never be used to undermine other Americans' civil rights or subject them to discrimination on the basis of race, gender, sexual orientation, or gender identity," U.S. Senator Kamala Harris (D-California) said introducing the "Do No Harm Act" this month.
That bill, in essence, nullifies the Religious Freedom Restoration Act when religious freedom comes head to head with LGBTQ interests.
It is telling that Harris used the phrase "freedom to worship" instead of "freedom of religion."
She's not the first to do so. Former President Barack Obama would substitute "freedom of worship" for "freedom of religion." Former Secretary of State and presidential candidate Hillary Clinton would as well.
The first public draft of the Democratic Party Platform in 2016 stated, "We are horrified by ISIS' genocide of Christians and Yezidis and crimes against humanity against Muslims and others in the Middle East. We will do everything we can to protect religious minorities and the fundamental right of freedom to worship and believe."
The final platform, to their credit, now reads, "We will do everything we can to protect religious minorities and the fundamental right of freedom of religion."
Even the ACLU boils the freedom of religion to "the right to worship or not as you choose."
It's a fundamental mistake, whether or not it is intentional or not would require me to have the ability to read their minds, but there is a fundamental difference between "freedom to worship" and the "freedom of religion."
The First Amendment of the Constitution states, "Congress shall pass no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."
It does not limit our freedom to just the act of worship.
To say someone has the "freedom to worship" implies that the government will not interfere with what you do corporately in your place of worship or privately in your home.
Communist China has the "freedom of worship." Article 36 of the Constitution of the People's Republic of China reads:
Citizens of the People's Republic of China enjoy freedom of religious belief. No state organ, public organization or individual may compel citizens to believe in, or not to believe in, any religion; nor may they discriminate against citizens who believe in, or do not believe in, any religion. The state protects normal religious activities. No one may make use of religion to engage in activities that disrupt public order, impair the health of citizens or interfere with the educational system of the state. Religious bodies and religious affairs are not subject to any foreign domination.
Their "freedom of worship" is not religious freedom at all.
Freedom of religion encompasses much more than private belief and corporate worship. It guarantees the exercise of our faith throughout our public and private lives: what we say, what we do, and what we will not do in keeping with the tenets of one's particular faith.
It means that we can share our beliefs without fear of government retribution. It says the government can't coerce to participate in activities that violate our conscience. It means our pulpits are free from government censorship.
Limiting the First Amendment to the "freedom to worship" would relegate our faith to our personal lives and our place of worship instead of letting it permeate throughout every aspect of our lives.
crosshugger says:
The democrat party does not recognize the one true God….they worship the devil with their agenda…abortion, infanticide, perversion, lying, power, wealth attained through manipulation. Jesus did not bow to satan when tempted with what satan had to offer in the wilderness…the democrats have
Phil Robertson Suspended Indefinitely Following Gay Remarks
I once heard Alistair Begg say something along the lines of how…
Christians: Contradictions in the World
Father Jerzy Popieluszko, a Polish Roman Catholic priest who preached Christ during…
Saving 1000 Babies at the Orlando Women's Center
At one of the most active abortion clinics in the nation; God, through John Barros' ministry at the Orlando Women's Center, has saved 1000 babies.
Posted on August 20, 2013 October 11, 2013
What is True For Me, Is Not Necessarily True For You! Is That True? Not Necessarily.
Jerry Brown: "I mean Clinton's a nice guy but whoever said he…
David Shedlock