http://www.planetary.org/blogs/emily-lakdawalla/2010/2471.html

this explanation makes the most sense to me

like this - http://cisn.metu.edu.tr/2001-1/health.php

And in the 80's it was the balans chair
Not sure if they were used much in offices, but when I was a kid, it seemed like everyone that could afford a computer at home just had to have one

That's great, as long as your company isn't in the business of designing offices

Now.. how to increase password girth?

Fucking cats are illegal in most states
Not true

Wouldn't that just tell you the temperature of the thermometer itself? If the thermometer isn't there to receive heat by radiation, does the vacuum have a temp?

Cowtan and Way 2013 compensated for missing HadCRUT4 surface temperature measurements in places like the Arctic and Africa by using the spatial pattern of satellite data to produce a hybrid satellite/surface dataset. Jane and Lonny ponder the differences between Cowtan and Way's hybrid dataset and HadCRUT4:

I keep asking: what's wrong with my basic premise: that if your measurements are shown to be off by 100%, there's something wrong with your science? That was my point. [Jane Q. Public]

... They are saying that it is not the 0.05 degrees C per decade that the AR5 report gives for the last 15 years, but that it is, instead, 0.12 degrees C. Which is actually a difference of not 100% but 140%, for the most recent 15 years. [Jane Q. Public]

@ScienceChannel @jimmygle PLEASE tell the Anthropogenic Global Warmists! Yet another report surfaced saying their "science" was off by 140% [Lonny Eachus]

Jane and Lonny's basic premise wrongly ignores the large error bars on these noisy, short-term trends. The SkS trend calculator can calculate the trends and error bars from 1997 through (including) 2012 for both HadCrut4 and Cowtan and Way's hybrid dataset:

1997-2013 HadCRUT4 Trend: 0.049 0.126 C/decade
1997-2013 HadCRUT4 hybrid Trend: 0.119 0.150 C/decade

The hybrid dataset's central estimate is inside the error bars of the original HadCRUT4 estimate.

... they haven't been right yet... They admit that they have no explanation why their models, which projected continued if not increased warming, do not explain why it has dropped by more than half (0.12 to 0.05 deg. C / decade) over the last 15 years. Or, for that matter, why their margin of error (-0.05 to +0.15 deg. C) for the last decade and a half is 4 times the size of their actual estimated warming. Nope... it's pretty damned clear. Something is wrong with their science. [Jane Q. Public]

I calculated error bars on UAH trends. The black line on the second page shows the UAH trend ending in 2012, for different starting years. The error bars are shown in red; they're 95% confidence uncertainty bounds. Note that error bars on longer trends are smaller than the large error bars on shorter trends.

Anyone can reproduce my results by downloading the free "R" programming language used by professional statisticians. Then save this code as "significance.r":

# run using R CMD BATCH significance.r
# outputs to Rplots.pdf and significance.r.Rout
# load custom functions

# for generalised least squares
library(nlme)

# options
xunits="year"
textsize=1.4
titlesize=1.8
colfit="red"
pch1=20#points

# read basin data
indata = read.table("greenland2013/GIS_climate.nasa.txt",header=T)
title="Greenland mass"
yunits="gigatons"
tlims=c(-350,-190)
alims=c(-60,0)
#indata = indata[which(indata$x>2002.0),]

# remove mean
indata$y = indata$y - mean(indata$y)

n = length(indata$x)
n

midpoint=(indata$x[n]-indata$x[1])/2.0+indata$x[1]

# fit model
fit=gls(y~x,data=indata,corr=corARMA(p=1,q=1))
#fit=gls(y~x+sin(2*pi*x)+cos(2*pi*x),data=indata,corr=corARMA(p=1,q=1))
#fit=gls(y~x+I(x^2)+sin(2*pi*x)+cos(2*pi*x),data=indata,corr=corARMA(p=1,q=1))
fitsummmary=summary(fit)
slope = fitsummmary$tTable[2,1]
slopeerror = 2*fitsummmary$tTable[2,2]#2 sigma
plot(indata$x,indata$y,type="o",pch=pch1,lwd=2,cex.main=titlesize,cex.axis=textsize,cex.lab=textsize,xlab=xunits,ylab=yunits,main=title)
points(indata$x,fit$fit,type="l",lwd=2,lty=2,col=colfit)
lowerbound=fit$fit-slopeerror*indata$x
lowerbound=lowerbound - mean(lowerbound) + mean(fit$fit)
points(indata$x,lowerbound,type="l",lwd=3,lty=1,col=colfit)
upperbound=fit$fit+slopeerror*indata$x
upperbound=upperbound - mean(upperbound) + mean(fit$fit)
points(indata$x,upperbound,type="l",lwd=3,lty=1,col=colfit)
confint(fit,digits=6)
midpoint=(indata$x[n]-indata$x[1])/2.0+indata$x[1]
top=(indata$y[which.max(indata$y)]-indata$y[which.min(indata$y)])*0.99+indata$y[which.min(indata$y)]
text(midpoint,top,sprintf("%+.3f+-%.3f %s/%s",slope,slopeerror,yunits,xunits),cex=2,col=colfit)

Just download temperature data (from WoodForTrees, Skeptical Science, Cowtan and Way, or any other climate data source). Then redirect the read.table command to that file, and save the data in this format:

x y
2003.04 1184.10
2003.12 1006.97

Then run it using the command "R CMD BATCH significance.r"

Notes: My code comments (using "#") a command to select different starting years using the "#" prefix. The second page of my results were calculated using similar code in a for-loop to cycle through different starting years. Here's another R script that automatically downloads the latest HadCRUT4 annual data.

Funny but Kevin Cowtan and Robert Way were just able to employ satellites in a "study" that ends up with even better, more positive warming trends than those from the airports themselves! ;-) Never underestimate the alarmists' creativity in fabricating evidence. [Lubos Motl]

Lesser scientists would feel obliged to point out some of the "creativity" in Cowtan and Way's open source code and data before implying that they fabricated evidence. Motl has apparently transcended that obligation, but others should at least ponder the validations Cowtan and Way explain in this 4 minute video.

I find it interesting that they're already blocked by the proxy server where I work... but, nice.

http://www.comedycentral.com/video-clips/1myllo/stand-up-louis-ck--the-miracle-of-flight

His father may be at the point where he can no longer take advantage of those laws as they require multiple requests from the patient, verbal and written, multiple doctors providing diagnosis. If he's suffering dementia and is not lucid most of the time, it could be very difficult to meet the requirements. Also it's possible that the current providers may not release him if they know that the intent is to move the patient somewhere the patient can end their own life. Not sure about the legality around that.

http://public.health.oregon.gov/ProviderPartnerResources/EvaluationResearch/DeathwithDignityAct/Pages/index.aspx

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington_Death_with_Dignity_Act

It's not about comas. It's about terminal illnesses where there is no chance of recovery and the only thing for the patient and family to look forward to are pain, loss of dignity, loss of autonomy, and significant emotional, personal and financial burdens. Assisted, end of life suicide already legal in Washington and Oregon and some parts of Europe.