It's officially known as a report on the "Measurement of the Duration of a Trendless Subsample in a Global Climate Time Series." In lay-speak, it's a study of just how long the current pause in global warming has lasted. And the results are profound:

According to Canadian Ross McKitrick, a professor of environmental economics who wrote the paper for the Open Journal of Statistics, "I make the duration out to be 19 years at the surface and 16 to 26 years in the lower troposphere depending on the data set used."

In still plainer English, McKitrick has crunched the numbers from all the major weather organizations in the world and has found that there has been no overall warming at the Earth's surface since 1995 - that's 19 years in all.

During the past two decades, there have been hotter years and colder years, but on the whole the world's temperatures have not been rising. Despite a 13 per cent rise in carbon dioxide levels over the period, the average global temperature is the same today as it was almost 20 years ago.

In the lower atmosphere, there has been no warming for somewhere between 16 and 26 years, depending on which weather organization's records are used.

Not a single one of the world's major meteorological organizations - including the ones the United Nations relies on for its hysterical, the-skies-are-on-fire predictions of environmental apocalypse - shows atmospheric warming for at least the last 16 years. And some show no warming for the past quarter century.

This might be less significant if some of the major temperature records showed warming and some did not. But they all show no warming.

Even the records maintained by devoted eco-alarmists, such as the United Kingdom's Hadley Centre, show no appreciable warming since the mid-1990s.

Despite continued cymbal-crashing propaganda from environmentalists and politicians who insist humankind is approaching a critical climate-change tipping point, there is no real evidence this is true.

There are no more hurricanes than usual, no more typhoons or tornadoes, floods or droughts. What there is, is more media coverage more often.

Forty years ago when a tropical storm wiped out villages on a South Pacific Island there might have been pictures in the newspaper days or weeks later, then nothing more. Now there is live television coverage hours after the fact and for weeks afterwards.

That creates the impression storms are worse than they used to be, even though statistically they are not.

While the UN's official climate-scare mouthpiece, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), has acknowledged the lack of warming over the past two decades, it has done so very quietly. What's more, it has not permitted the facts to get in the way of its continued insistence that the world is going to hell in a hand basket soon unless modern economies are crippled and more decision-making power is turned over to the UN and to national bureaucrats and environmental activists.

Later this month in New York, the UN will hold a climate summit including many of the world's leaders. So frantic are UN bureaucrats to keep the climate scare alive they have begun a worldwide search for what they themselves call a climate-change "Malala."

That's a reference to Malala Yousafzai, the Pakistani schoolgirl who was shot in the head by the Taliban after demanding an education. Her wounding sparked a renewed, worldwide concern for women's rights.

The new climate spokeswoman must be a female under 30, come from a poor country and have been the victim of a natural disaster.

If the facts surrounding climate-disaster predictions weren't falling apart, the UN wouldn't such need a sympathetic new face of fear.

One of the companies I worked for, their whole advertising gimmick was basically Native Advertising. The ads were formatted to look like that publication's news stories. There was a small banner at the top that said "Paid advertisement" but if you missed that, the rest of the ad read like a newspaper or magazine entry. Complete with interviews with people in the company or former government officials and the like. There would be of course a special offer for the readers of this paper at the end, making it seem far more personalized than it was. One felt a bit dirty sending things to the people who were duped into paying $20 for a State $2 bill that had a static sticker over it to make it look like it was some sort of official thing, and of course that was a subscription, so they'd get taken to the cleaner many more times...

Thanks Wrapping it in newspaper for burial as we speak!

I'll send you a few pp's when I have them.

I think both advices are terrible simply because they are very generalized and too unspecific. Sure, they're simple messages that sound uplifting and make sense at first glance but the same could be said about my horoscope in the daily newspaper.
Somebody surely told Rebecca Black to follow her dreams and the same must been told to all the casting show rejects that sucked hard enough to be put on the gag reel that makes up most of the ridiculing-others-part at the beginning of each season.
On the other hand I'm sure Bill Gates could've been a wonderful elderly care nurse but I prefer him super rich and very charitable. The same goes for topathletes and moviestars that spend bazillion dollars and their PR forces on charity.

Without sufficient data any advice except the really obvious ones (Don't eat spoiled food!) are nothing but a coin toss. You don't know if you need heads or tails until that coin has landed for good.
Jim's dad didn't follow his dreams and now we may have missed out on a great comedian. Hitler did and now we wish he hadn't. Who's got the last laugh now?
Godwin, that's who.

This is remarkably similar to the shit the NFL is pulling here in Minneapolis where we were "awarded" the Super Bowl in 2018. From the local newspaper:

"Free police escorts for team owners, and 35,000 free parking spaces. Presidential suites at no cost in high-end hotels. Free billboards across the Twin Cities. Guarantees to receive all revenue from the game’s ticket sales — even a requirement for NFL-preferred ATMs at the stadium."

The NFL's secret (secret!) list of specifications runs to 153 pages.

Fuck pro sports and everyone involved.

The crucial difference is that the WBC doesn't issue death threats toward novelists/cartoonists, unless they've evolved their God Hates Fags campaign, that is.

Plus the international media is more than happy to paint the WBC with true colors: the same can't be said about the media's response to the muslim reaction toward Salmon Rushdie/Dutch Newspaper/Matt Stone/Trey Parker/et al.

But I take your point.

Then I point you to somewhere which requires reading:

http://motherboard.vice.com/blog/now-just-001-percent-of-climate-scientists-reject-global-warming

http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/the-curious-wavefunction/2014/01/10/about-that-consensus-on-global-warming-9136-agree-one-disagrees/

http://www.independentaustralia.net/environment/environment-display/only-1-of-9136-recent-peer-reviewed-authors-rejects-global-warming,6094

I could go all day. But, of course, this study isn't without it's detractors, who honestly do have a claim, if substantiated. (I've read the math on it, and the 97% is indeed an accurate sum, however, it is misleading in the sense that it only accounts for papers that state a stance and don't outright deny climate change is solely anthropogenic.)

Perhaps you found your info on Forbes.com, a decidedly unbiased site whose solely interested in getting to the bottom of the facts, regardless of political ideology. (sarcasm)

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2013/05/22/after-oklahoma-city-tragedy-shameless-politicians-unsheath-global-warming-card/

Or we could try a different route and try a group dedicated to statistics:

http://stats.org/stories/2008/global_warming_survey_apr23_08.html

"Eighty-four percent say they personally believe human-induced warming is occurring, and 74% agree that “currently available scientific evidence” substantiates its occurrence. Only 5% believe that that human activity does not contribute to greenhouse warming; the rest are unsure."

Now, we should work on your use of the word "some".

"some
səm/Submit
determiner
1.
an unspecified amount or number of.
"I made some money running errands"
2.
used to refer to someone or something that is unknown or unspecified.
"she married some newspaper magnate twice her age"
pronoun
1.
an unspecified number or amount of people or things.
"here are some of our suggestions"
2.
at least a small amount or number of people or things.
"surely some have noticed"
adverbNORTH AMERICANinformal
1.
to some extent; somewhat.
"when you get to the majors, the rules change some""

Don't worry, none of those came from a .gov link.

I'm actually torn on Citizens United these days. The issue is with carefully defining terms. For example, how do we define campaign contributions? If the New York Times runs an op-ed endorsing a candidate, is that a contribution? If Michael Moore makes a film favorable to one candidate or another, is that a contribution? (hint... hint) Nobody likes the Kochs, but how do you sort out one from the other? What if the rich guys just decide to go buy newspapers instead? http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/09/business/media/the-return-of-the-newspaper-barons.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

So he met the love of his life because he stopped to ask directions? How about where he got to wherever he was going without getting lost and met the love of his life there?

And we should stop using our phones on public transport, wind the clocks back to a time when everyone.... read books or the newspaper and continued to ignore other people on a commuter train.

I think that he is trying to show that little mistakes of the cat can lead someone to kill the cat and afterwards stay calm, like a cat, after a mistake. He reads a newspaper, near the window, while the "remains" of the cat are nicely put on a fruitbowl.

so why did larson draw the newspaper as paper instead of a tablet which would be period accurate. and the home should look like a cave, and not with finished windows.

It was 10pm, in Canberra, and there was one other senator present as well as the speaker. I've put a link to a newspaper report on the speech back in the video comments.

I didn't know there was an American Green Party... do they hold many seats? I've only ever heard the U.S. described as a two party system.

*promote

Chokes me up a bit.

I remember first hearing about it by seeing it on the front page of a newspaper in front of a neighbor's door as I walked past heading out to work. I couldn't believe it at first.

Glad he straightened out the bit about the stingray's barb. I still to this day hear people retelling how he caused his own demise by pulling it out.

Don't worry about it, i don't know much about american politics. In fact, i don't know a great deal about politics, i've just been around long enough to see that all politicians want the same thing - to be more powerful/richer politicians. I just don't think they represent people any more. If i knew how to make people care or how to fix it, i would.

I have this horrible feeling especially in my country that there's some sort of status quo whereby generation after generation has been raised with this silent but certain belief that politicians are above reproach - they can't possibly be keeping us placid with lies about what their true aims are whilst furthering their own interests. But why should this era be any different to past eras where that sort of thing was commonplace? Because we have "society" and "civilisation" now?

Check that picture i linked. It's perverse, it's obvious, it's absolutely terrifying to think that they are the people in charge and what they care about most is what they get paid. I can't think of anyone i'd want less to be in charge of my future than that. Most of the people in the bottom picture were born into the right circles to get where they got.

Democracy was a great idea, but not in the form we have it. It isn't democratic anymore, and it needs a radical overhaul or i think we're going to be milked like cows for as long as the illusion holds. We're being milked now - the balance of wealth continues to fall out of balance, the big money organisations and corporations buy the guy in charge and as long as it's done in a certain way it's considered "legal" despite we know it's immoral, the masses get their news from TV and newspapers which are often owned by or have identical interests to the same people who own the politicians. Everyone seems to see it happening but no one seems to connect the dots.

The only people who benefit from instigating democratic change like we need are the people, and the people don't seem interested. I don't mean to sound like a tinfoil hatter, but i can only call things as i see them. And sorry for walloftext, i was pretty much pontificating there.

I'm not afraid of homosexuals unless I'm in a prison where I can't defend myself from being raped by one.

I'm more irritated by homosexuals who apparently can't function unless they are featured on the front page of every newspaper.

They seem to be attention whores, always the first ones to get married if the state/city makes it legal.

Whenever it becomes thoroughly accepted, they'll have to think of something else to draw everyone's attention.