You're right crank; it's called "churning the account", When in court and their client is out of money, they tell the judge to postpone it of the case for a while ("Motion to Continue")as they're looking for "Mister Green". [ as in Daddy "Greenbacks"] This is even after they got that whopper of a retainer up front and took the RSA Ch. 311:6 oath that they ignore all the time. The one that reads of to delay no man for lucre nor malice. - - - - - As for his "lie" that Ardinger calls a "false"hood, see: http://www.courts.state.nh.us/committees/attydiscip/index.htm over to: http://www.nhattyreg.org/ for where to file an official complaint as against the Rules http://www.courts.state.nh.us/rules/pcon/ and in particular: Rule 8.4(c) at: http://www.courts.state.nh.us/rules/pcon/pcon-8_4.htm in that: " It is professional misconduct for a lawyer to: . . . c) engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation;" . So if Ardinger is really serious she WILL file a complaint to this PCC: Professional Conduct Committee, but then Feltes might apologize first? I doubt it, as he seems to be more of the Socialist here of wanting to buy votes of those with children of that age and what? put the baby sitters in the free enterprise system out of business!? (:-) At least Ardinger is going in the right direction of to privatize "education" to some degree. ...(full comment)
For those of you waiting for the movie, Robert DeNiro will play Arthur T; George Clooney, Arthur S. Paul Shaffer (David Letterman's bandleader) will do all stunt work for both Arthurs. They're still looking for someone to play Brian Boucher, so get down there and audition, Mayor Bouley! ...(full comment)
The company hemorrhaged 10 mil a day while employees were on sabbatical. It is not likely that MB will stay in business without price hikes. Nice work, as the company will fold because of your tantrum.
I guess you really showed the man. ...(full comment)
The figures you have here are averages. One can be parboiled in a ocean with an "average" temp. of 10 degrees Celsius, you can drown in a river that is an "average" of six inches deep. I am not arguing that geothermal sources of heat are larger than solar. Of course solar is far stronger. What I am saying is that it would be easy to mistakenly attribute the heat obviously seen deep in the ocean for the supposedly atmospheric heat the climatologists are looking for. It is amazing how often scientists find exactly what they are looking for- easy to do when they do not account for all variables. They do not appear to have even recognized that there are sources of geothermal heat in the oceans. If they see heat- and they do, because it is really there- they immediately assume it is the atmospheric heat that seems missing from their equations. There is considerable geothermal (also called hydrothermal) heat in all of the oceans of the world. This is not a rare type of mistake. If you looked at any of the sites I listed above, you would have seen that there are some very hot spots in our oceans. I could have listed a lot, lot more, but would get carpal tunnel syndrome if I tried. .Overall, the oceans are very cold of course. This idea that atmospheric heat is sequestered deep in the Atlantic Ocean- at specific points, no less- then is somehow maintained there like it's in a thermos bottle. I am not sure if the differential salinity of the currents can offset the mixing to achieve an equilibrium- what you normally see in nature. ...(full comment)
The IR generally diminishes between sunset and sunrise. Depending on data sets used and the time frame you look at, there may be warming, or may appear to be warming, but it is generally less than the climate models, which generally overstate warming. ...(full comment)
Where is energy flow from Earth's interior, the 0.09 W/m squared derived from? Is it derived from a multitude of sites, or just a few? Where are the data gathering stations located? It would seem to vary a lot from place to place. ...(full comment)
The claim by Sail/BPR regarding the Australian Bureau of Meteorology allegedly falsifying data is untrue. Like so much that he posts, it is derived from a non-science website/blog, and makes claims that are not supported by the facts. All raw data from the Bureau is posted online, and when adjustments are made, they are clearly explained: “Professor Neville Nicholls, of Monash University, worked at BoM for more than 30 years and from 1990 until he left in 2005 had led efforts to analyse rainfall and temperature readings from across the country. He told me:
‘The original raw data is all still there – it has not been corrupted. Anyone can go and get that original data. Pre-1910 there was not much of a spread but also there was more uncertainty about how the temperatures were being measured. By 1910, most temperatures were being measured in a Stevenson Screen. A lot of measurements were taken at Post Offices but in many cases these were moved out to airports around the middle of the 20th century. That produces artificial cooling in the data. Towns for example in coastal New South Wales originally had temperatures taken near the ocean because that’s where the town was. But as the town grew the observations would move inland and that is enough to affect temperature and rainfall. Are we supposed to just ignore that? A scientist can’t ignore those effects. It’s not science to just go ahead and plot that raw data.’
Nicholls said if people didn’t trust the way the BoM was presenting the data they could look elsewhere, such as a major project known as Berkeley Earth undertaken by former sceptic Professor Richard Muller which also used BoM data from as early as 1852 to mid-2013…
Dr Lisa Alexander, the chief investigator at the ARC Centre of Excellence for Climate System Science, explained that in Australia it was not uncommon for temperature stations to be moved, often away from urban environments.
She said that, for example, sites moved only a kilometre or so to more exposed areas such as airports would tend to record lower temperatures.
That then creates a jump in the time series that’s not related to a jump in the climate. The bureau is altering the temperature data to remove those non-climatic effects that are due to changes like new instrumentation or site movements.
Is the bureau fiddling the figures to fit with a global warming conspiracy? No! Are they amending the records to make them consistent through time? Yes.”
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/change/acorn-sat/ It needs to be pointed out that the "scientist" making this claim has received repeated funding from denier sources; and that instead of submitting her findings for peer review and publication is a science journal, she sent them to denier sources for maximum hype BEFORE her claims could be addressed by the Bureau. The intended result is posts such as the one by Sail/BPR, who adopts the chimpanzee strategy of flinging poo whenever he can. Fortunately for the rest of us, most of it winds up on him.
Thank you for the question- it is a good one. I need to track down some examples. We are diving into the history of science here, I think. There are definitely examples. I need to do some work, but I'll be back. ...(full comment)
Operative word: "evaluation". Most of what passes for "evaluation" of Obama on this site can accurately be described as "rant". For synonyms of "rant", see "Sail/BPR", "Itsa", "GWTW", "RabbitNH". ...(full comment)