FMH, I am the most read Boeing poster now, notice how all three averages are at all time or close to it highs today and Boeing stock now that it is not being supported by the company financial engineering(stock buyback0 and tanked cash flow and 787 going to 30 Billion in costs , is the number one loser today on the Dow Jones average FMH this is despite your silly delivery and orders and contracts the FMH group has nothing to say because your beat by the numbers and the facts get lost loser boy's buy better stocks like Airbus or the airline stocks which I have told you losers for months now
...To summarize: (1) the Committee will be pleased to have Secretary Clinton appear in a
public hearing to answer questions related to the terrorist attacks in Benghazi as soon as and no
later than 30 days after the Committee has a complete record with which to have a constructive
conversation with Secretary Clinton; and (2) the Committee has unanswered questions related to
the Secretary's unusual email arrangement which directly relate to the completeness of the public
record and the Committee would be pleased to hear from Secretary Clinton on these questions in
the forum of her choosing: (i) private transcribed interview in Washington, DC, (ii) private
transcribed interview at another venue of her choosing more convenient for Secretary Clinton
and her schedule, or (iii) in the alternative i f her previously cited concerns about privacy have
been mollified - a public hearing wherein the members of the Committee can assure themselves
the public record is complete.
Unless we hear differently from you, the Committee will schedule a public hearing with
Secretary Clinton in which to discuss ensuring the public record is complete the week of May 18,
2015, and we look forward to coordinating a day that week convenient for Secretary Clinton. I f
that hearing results in assurances the public record is indeed complete, the Committee will
schedule Secretary Clinton's public hearing with respect to the 2012 terrorist attacks in Benghazi
no later than June 18, 2015, with specific date being selected after consultation with you.
attached were about 100 sample questions re emails and server and security and approvals
Will be picking up some more at the close if it stays down, expecting a pop from the shareholder's meeting Monday.
I watched the Iraq war coverage pretty much full time the week of the invasion, switching among Fox, CNN, and MSNBC constantly. All of them supported the war. None of them featured dissent in any meaningful way. All of them validated that silly stunt when the Army pulled down Saddam's statue, trying to pretend it was historic when it was clearly fabricated. They kept showing the same white mini-pickup with about 10 Iraqis in it celebrating.
Gallup has Rubio at 15% of wingnuts to Jeb's 13%. It is to no avail as the owners of the GOP have already made their pick. The poll is meaningless. Remember, Bachmann and Herman Cain were at the head of the class at one time too, how did that work out
The thread, "About those LLLOOOOOONNNNNNG threads" has itself become one of those LLLOOOOONNNNG threads. Why, you ask? Because the mongeese took them over and won't let go. I am gratified that I could contribute so much to the discussion.
There are a number of reasons for the medias uselessness. One is economic. The decline of newspapers, the rise of infotainment, and media company owners’ insistence on delivering high returns to their shareholders have diminished resources and led to a bottom-line fixation unconducive to aggressive reporting. There are big bucks to be made in being aggressively adversarial, but most of those bucks are on the wingnut right The rapid success of right-wing media outlets like Fake News and ranting demagogues like ElFlushbo has not encouraged media owners, too shortsighted to see that there are viable alternatives to the kind of bland national nanny-ism manifest on the networks, to pursue real journalism.
One satellite data set is underestimating global warming
Posted on 25 March 2015 by John Abraham
A very important study was just published in the Journal of Climate a few days ago. This paper, in my mind, makes a major step toward reconciling differences in satellite temperature records of the mid-troposphere region. As before, it is found that the scientists (and politicians) who have cast doubt on global warming in the past are shown to be outliers because of bias in their results.
The publication, authored by Stephen Po-Chedley and colleagues from the University of Washington, discusses some major sources of error in satellite records. For instance, after satellites are launched, they scan the Earth’s atmosphere and calibrate the atmospheric measurements using a warm target onboard the satellite and cold space. The accuracy with which the atmospheric measurements are calibrated can influence the inferred temperature of the atmosphere (called the warm-target bias). Additionally, over the years, multiple satellites have been launched and the selection of which satellite data are used can play a role. Finally, biases can occur because the satellite orbits drift during their lifetime and the influence of diurnal temperature variation can affect the global temperature trends.
Of these three errors, the last one (probably the most important one), was the focus of the just-published paper.
For instance, NOAA, Remote Sensing Systems (RSS), and the University of Alabama Huntsville (UAH). The problem is, their results don’t agree with each other. In particular, the UAH team, led by Dr. John Christy and Dr. Roy Spencer (who have discounted the importance and occurrence of climate change for years) present results that differ quite a bit from the others. In fact, in the current paper, it is stated that “Despite using the same basic radiometer measurements, tropical TMT trend differences between these groups differ by a factor of three.”
Again, UAH is the outlier.
There's no point in arguing that 9.11 was not a conspiracy, correct. So you're wasting your time when you criticize conspiracy theorists. 9/11 was not done by some lone nut, so by definition it was a conspiracy.
So you are saying the IPCC Climate scientist are lying and can't be trusted?
Dr. John Christy, professor of atmospheric science and director of the Earth System Science Center (ESSC) at the University of Alabama/Huntsville probably knows slightly more than techpath about climate science.
The Earth’s temperature has “plateaued” and there has been no global warming for at least the last 18 years, says Dr. John Christy, professor of atmospheric science and director of the Earth System Science Center (ESSC) at the University of Alabama/Huntsville.
“That’s basically a fact. There’s not much to comment on,” Christy said when CNSNews asked him to remark on the lack of global warming for nearly two decades as of October 1st.
The "plateau" is evident in the climate record Christy and former NASA scientist Roy Spencer compiled using actual raw temperature data collected from 14 instruments aboard various weather satellites.
CNSNews asked Christy why the United Nations’ climate models, which all predicted steeply rising temperatures over the past two decades, were all proven wrong.
“You’re going back to a fundamental question of science that when you understand a system, you are able to predict its behavior. The fact that no one predicted what’s happened in the past 18 years indicates we have a long way to go to understand the climate system,” Christy replied.
“And that the way the predictions were wrong were all to one direction, which means the predictions or the science is biased in one direction, toward overcooking the atmosphere.”
Christy added that basing government policy affecting millions of Americans on “very poor” climate models that have been shown to be inaccurate is “a fool’s errand.”
“Our ignorance is simply enormous when it comes to the climate system, and our understanding is certainly not strong and solid enough to make policy about climate because we don’t even know what it’s going to do, so how can we make a policy that says ‘I want to make the climate do something' when we don’t know what makes the climate do what it does?” he asked.
“A policy is supposed to have a goal. Well, if you don’t know how the system works, that means you don’t know how to make it go toward that goal. And that’s certainly the case now, since none of the climate models are able to tell us what the future is going to be. They’ve certainly failed in the past. And so the policy is really a fool’s errand at this point.”
However, he noted that “there is still a strong belief system that greenhouse gases control the climate, and so if that is your belief system, then it doesn’t really matter what the evidence shows.”
Intelligent people recognize that's not a claim, but a lesson for you about the useless of asking for CV's from anonymous internet posters.
You made claims. You can't back them up.
Public Radio and Public Television totally embraced market values decades ago. You make stuff up, fred.
You've certainly been wasting your time, fred. You've learned nothing, and your name-calling and false dichotomies and GIGO syllogisms and straw men can not change science and facts.