Also known as the O Club. Here on the front page in the right margin there is a yellow box in which the O Club is listed. Click on it to walk in the front door.
to the right of the graphic next to the text input box you will see a tiny Christmas tree graphic.
Hover your mouse over the Christmas tree and what will pop up is a list of 42 Christmas songs. The playlist starts automatically and plays randomly. The songs are a eclectic mixture of traditional and contemporary Christmas songs, nothing controversial, no Dennis O'Leary, no "Grandma Got Run Over by a Reindeer." Just a collection of heartfelt songs celebrating the birth of Jesus Christ.
All SFW.
The list comes from "Playlist". If you have suggestions for additions to the list kindly post the URL in the O Club and I will add it as soon as I can.
Popups and javascript must be enabled in your browser in order for the playlist to work.
If you want to use the javascript and html code in your own web page you can download the files here. The link contains all the code and instructions you need to make your own play list.
You can thank bossman (Fred) for his kind permission to make this happen.
The link to the music will remain until Jan 2nd, 2011.
#2
Just once, enable javascript and popups for the o-club. When the window pops up, click on it and then bookmark it ( ctrl d ), if you don't want to keep popups enabled.
(CBS News) The UN climate change negotiations have received very little attention in the media since the disappointing conclusion of the Copenhagen negotiations in 2009, when countries failed to agree on a new treaty to limit greenhouse gas emissions.
Yet the critical importance of the next major round of negotiations, beginning November 28th in Durban, South Africa, belies the scant media coverage. The Durban talks could play a critical role in determining our global climate future if two concrete outcomes are achieved.
First, the international community must agree on a new global framework for reducing greenhouse gas emissions. The first commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol, which does not limit the emissions of rapidly industrializing economies like China and India, and which the United States never ratified, expires at the end of 2012. In Durban, countries must lay the groundwork for a new treaty, one that is legally binding, and that includes all major emitters in a framework that respects the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities.
Despite the fact that this item has topped the agenda since the Bali talks in 2007, the United States has stuck firmly to its position that a new agreement should enshrine voluntary instead of mandatory emissions reduction commitments. This is not a serious solution. The United States should take a strong leadership position at the negotiations in Durban, and push the global community towards an ambitious agreement that is commensurate with the climate crisis.
Posted by: Fred ||
11/25/2011 14:02 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[3 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
The climateGate v2 emails are devastating for Climate lysenkoists and their fellow MSM.
#2
See also NEWS KERALA > TWO-DEGREE CELSIUS GLOBAL WARMING TARGET CAN ONLY BE REACHED IFF CARBON EMISSIONS EVENTUALLY BECOME NIL [zero]: STUDY.
ARTIC = M-U-S-T decline 3.0% every year for 20 years up until yarn 2030.
IMO Artic also read, LITTLE TO NO INDUSTRIAL ACTIVITIES ANYMORE - you know, how we Humans will be able to dev the Space Techs to explore + colonize deep space.
Lest we fergit > 2030 = GUAM/EARTH-VISIBLE MOON EXPLOSIONS, vee Comet Apophis + reliable OWG Space Defense [or lack thereof]???
D *** NG IT, WE SAVED THE CLIMATE TO BE WIPED OUT BY APOPHIS, THE MOON, + ESPEC OWG-NWO WAFFLING???
Climate scientists funded by the US government have announced new research in which they have established that the various doomsday global warming scenarios are in fact extremely unlikely to occur, and that the scenarios considered likeliest - and used for planning by the world's governments - are overly pessimistic. But the science is settled...
The new study improves upon previous results by including data from the remote past, rather than only examining records from recent times.
"Many previous climate sensitivity studies have looked at the past only from 1850 through today, and not fully integrated paleoclimate date, especially on a global scale," says Andreas Schmittner, professor at the College of Earth, Ocean, and Atmospheric Sciences at Oregon State uni.
"When you reconstruct sea and land surface temperatures from the peak of the last Ice Age 21,000 years ago -- which is referred to as the Last Glacial Maximum -- and compare it with climate model simulations of that period, you get a much different picture.
"If these paleoclimatic constraints apply to the future, as predicted by our model, the results imply less probability of extreme climatic change than previously thought," Schmittner adds.
The baseline assumption of climate science at the moment is that given a doubling of atmospheric CO2 compared to pre-industrial levels the most probable result is that the Earth would see a surface temperature rise average of 3°C - and that there would be a significant chance of much bigger, perhaps fatal rises.
Schmittner and his colleagues' analysis says that the planet's climate simply can't be this sensitive to CO2 changes, however, or much more extreme events should have occurred at certain points in the past - and they did not. For instance, if the climate were sensitive enough that doubled CO2 could mean catastrophic warming, the low carbon levels seen 21,000 years ago should have resulted in an equally lifeless iceball planet.
"Clearly, that didn't happen," Schmittner says. "Though the Earth then was covered by much more ice and snow than it is today, the ice sheets didn't extend beyond latitudes of about 40 degrees, and the tropics and subtropics were largely ice-free -- except at high altitudes. These high-sensitivity models overestimate cooling."
According to the new improved analysis, the most probable result as and when double CO2 occurs is actually a rise of just 2.3°C - only just above the 2°C limit which international climate efforts are seeking to stay within. Plainly there's no great need to fear a rise above 450 parts per million (ppm) CO2, as people currently do - in fact there's no likely prospect of getting near a 2°C temperature rise for a century or more at present rates of CO2 increase (rising about about 2 ppm/year at the moment from a level of 390-odd). And Schmittner and his colleagues' results show a much tighter grouping of possible futures, too, so the scope for way-out doomsday scenarios is hugely reduced.
The Australian quotes Schmittner as saying: "Now these very large changes (predicted for the coming decades) can be ruled out, and we have some room to breathe and time to figure out solutions to the problem."
The new study is published in top-ranking boffinry journal Science. The research was funded by the US National Science Foundation.
#1
And the idiots still don't get it that the whold modeling paradigm is fatally flawed for this kind of work regardless of what the precious models show.
The data collection from proxy tree rings to current parking lots, to the various forcings and "calibrations" for solar activity, urban heat islands etc. are at best guesses and at worst deliberate attempts to insure the desired results.
#2
it's not science - it's religion and grant-whoring
Posted by: Frank G ||
11/25/2011 10:04 Comments ||
Top||
#3
A story appeared this a.m. in the local newspaper that cited a $4.5 grant being awarded to a professor at the local university to study the effect of climate change on ants.
Forbes had an article posted on 11/23 which summed it up: Three themes are emerging from the newly released emails: (1) prominent scientists central to the global warming debate are taking measures to conceal rather than disseminate underlying data and discussions; (2) these scientists view global warming as a political cause rather than a balanced scientific inquiry and (3) many of these scientists frankly admit to each other that much of the science is weak and dependent on deliberate manipulation of facts and data.
Some university professors/researchers and universities buy into the global warming meme (despite it being bad science) because it funnels research money into the university; promotions and rewards are based on this grant money more than anything else (such as community service or teaching). There is considerable pressure to obtain these monies. These federal monies also count more than private sector research dollars in the evaluation of the research capability of the university. Why? I dont know but that is the scheme of things. All the mandates and requirements of the federal government follow this research money such as OSHA, EPA, diversity hiring and requirements, etc. It is not surprising that tuition rates have increased something like four times or more the rate of inflation. Tuition increased 107% at the local university over the past decade. This or greater numbers is most likely the trend across the country. The university becomes a microcosm or mirror image of the federal government.
#4
Someone released another batch of emails between climate change "scientists". Lots of cover-ups, strategy, excommunications of those scientists not willing to support "the cause", etc..
Oh, and don't forget about placing temperature monitoring stations right next to airport runways.
I suspect now what we'll see is a lot of sudden "realizations" that these kind of things are skewing the results, suddenly finding lost historical data, realizations that there are missing effects in the models, etc..
Until the rats have managed to back their sorry a$$es off the stage and scampered back to the sewer where they will try to figure out how to salvage their careers.
#5
...why worry about salvaging careers in the university? Come on. The universities support and defend the Marxist that push their bankrupt trash long after the Wall fell. It's like keeping people on who rationalized the 'benefits' of slavery well after the turn of the 20th Century. There is no intellectual integrity. They sold out a long time ago.
#7
That is the theme that stands out in those emails. Again and again it is, "the cause" this and "the cause" that.
A conspiracy of true believers in "the cause" should be of concern, because whatever "the cause" is, is so offensive or repulsive that they cannot be honest in advocating it.
In such cases, "the cause" invariably means hurting, stealing, and killing to the point of genocide. "The cause" is things like the Wannsee Conference.
#9
> It's like keeping people on who rationalized the 'benefits' of slavery well after the turn of the 20th Century.
Look at the timing of Marx's ideas for leeching off peoples work and the end of slavery. Marxism is just a disguised continuation of slavery, as shown by the communist's "work camps"...
[Daily Nation (Kenya)] Zim-bob-we's politicians have congratulated Prime Minister Morgan Tsvangirai over his reported remarriage amid claims by his aides the stories about the union were exaggerated.
On Tuesday, the family of a wealthy Harare businesswoman Ms Locadia Tembo said the PM whose first wife died in a car accident in 2009, had paid $36,000 (Sh3.2m) and 10 head of cattle to seek their daughter's hand in marriage.
Ms Tembo's relatives were widely quoted by daily papers saying Mr Tsvangirai, 59, had asked for a white wedding as early as next month. But on Wednesday the script had changed dramatically.
Mr Tsvangirai's aides said he had only sent emissaries to pay "damages" to Ms Tembo's family because she was pregnant with his child.
Damages refer to a traditional practice where compensation is paid to the family of a woman pregnant with a first child out of wedlock.
Ms Tembo, 39, is a divorcee with a 16 year-old son, making the PM's explanation curious. Sources have speculated that the PM's lover is expecting twins.
The premier's camp is also disputing the amount of money paid to the Tembos saying they only parted with $10,000 (Sh900,000) in cash.
Posted by: Fred ||
11/25/2011 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#7
g(r)omgoru
Mercantilism never works. The answer is that you will be poorer if the people you trade with become poorer. Just like a businessman prefers rich customers over poor customers.
#8
BP that is an eternal issue in business. Low profit high volume or high profit low volume.
Work like a dog for a few pennies or work less for the same finanical results. I prefer a blend myself.
* INDIAN DEFENCE FORUM > US DEBT [USD$15.0+ Trilyuhn]IS NOW MORE THAN THE GDP OF UK, CHINA, + INDIA.
Plus add AUS, Canada, Greenland, Mexico + 7 other large or important Countries.
* BHARAT RAKSHAK > THE WORLD [is]IN A "BALANCE SHEET RECESSION".
ARTIC = As per US averages, large US Companies are not in debt as much as NOT getting any $$$ from US Banks [loans or credit = easy] like they used to due to the Federal Reserve keeping interest rates at zero or near-zero, SMALL TO MEDIUM SIZED US COMPANIES, I.E. THE PRIMARY GENERATORS OF US NATIONAL EMPLOYMENT, ARE THE HARDEST HIT.
IIUC, IOW Large US Companies are NOT getting any new bank loans or credit because the latter Orgs per se are not making any or enough revenue or profits to survive due to ultra-low interest rates, as banks make their $$$ on the interest rates charged???
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
(CBS News) The UN climate change negotiations have received very little attention in the media since the disappointing conclusion of the Copenhagen negotiations in 2009, when countries failed to agree on a new treaty to limit greenhouse gas emissions.
Climate scientists funded by the US government have announced new research in which they have established that the various doomsday global warming scenarios are in fact extremely unlikely to occur, and that the scenarios considered likeliest - and used for planning by the world's governments - are overly pessimistic.
