Free Press is getting the heat. It’s been exposed through FOIA that the far left front group was secretly coordinating media strategy with people at the FCC, including Commissioner Michael Copps. So when Copps makes a statement about media regulation, Free Press’s pet issue, I have to assume they wrote it for him. Media Reform is their code for nationalization of the press, after all.
So now that they’re getting exposed, it’s almost not surprising that Free Press and their allies at the FCC are getting violent against conservatives and others exposing the truth about them.
Let me interrupt the Free Press update with some great news, though: Spain has made some arrests in connection with the Playstation Network attack I would love for every one of these antisocial online goons to get real jailtime.
And back to Free Press. Seton Motley calls out their disingenuous comments on Net Neutrality. They ask for the unreasonable, they get much of what they want, and then they pretend they lost and the right won because they didn’t get an entire nationalization of the media in America. They play the game, and we need to watch that.
Desperation mounts in the war against AT&T. The left now cannibalizes its own, as left-on-left violence targets those left-wing groups who have not come out in favor of big government intrusion into the AT&T/T-Mobile merger. Apparently NAACP, GLAAD, and the NEA have no problem with the merger, and that’s angering radicals. Not that the Sunlight Foundation is among those injecting itself into the debate, the next time someone tries to tell you I’m all wet and the group has no left-wing bias.
Note also that Politico carries water for the angry lefties by publishing this story, while failing to mention all the money spent by Sprint, wealthy foundations and others against this deal, and on other extremist causes.
More proof of desperation: Free Press is faking a scientific poll to gin up propaganda against the deal. This sort of tactic borders on astroturf.
You may have heard that AT&T lost at the FCC this week. It had nothing to do with wireless Internet. This is about voice calling and local telephone service. No worries.
Bad news down in Texas. Even as ATR has put out a letter urging Texas to strip the Amazon Tax, singling out Internet firms for special taxation, from SB 1 in the special session of the legislature, the House holds firm. Governor Perry already vetoed this garbage once. There’s something inappropriate about tacking it on as a rider to another bill immediately after that.
It’s sad when Texas is like California, the state whose Democrats refuse to cut fraud and waste and instead are pushing more taxes on us, including our own Amazon Tax.
I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again the criminalization of copyright goes too far. If a teenage boy on YouTube threatens you, your business model has more serious issues than that, folks.
Apple’s war on patent troll Lodsys has just escalated, intervening in Lodsys’s trolling and filing a counterclaim. Will Google do the same? for Android developers?
What we do seem to know though is that Google has apparently made peace with non-Neutral ISPs, since Google CEO Larry Page may be “open minded” about making special deals with France Telecom to get priority access to the ISP’s customers, if I read this Reuters report correctly.
Surface Encounters rock tops [url=http://detroit.ebayclassifieds.com/other/macomb/surface-encounters-now-has-two-locations-in-michigan/?ad=1024602]Surface Encounters reviews[/url] http://detroit.ebayclassifieds.com/other/macomb/surface-encounters-now-has-two-locations-in-michigan/?ad=1024602 - marble
Surface Encounters rock tops [url=http://community2.myfoxmemphis.com/service/searchEverything.kickAction?keywords=%22surface+encounters%22&as=80520]Surface Encounters rock tops[/url] http://community2.myfoxmemphis.com/service/searchEverything.kickAction?keywords=%22surface+encounters%22&as=80520 - Surface Encounters
http://www.macombdaily.com/articles/2011/02/14/lifestyles/srv0000010907604.txt?viewmode=2 [url=http://www.ideamarketers.com/?Surface_Encounters_Ohio,_LLC_Celebrates_100_Years_of_Experience_with_Columbus_S&articleid=880865]http://www.macombdaily.com/articles/2011/02/14/lifestyles/srv0000010907604.txt?viewmode=2[/url] http://www.ideamarketers.com/?Surface_Encounters_Ohio,_LLC_Celebrates_100_Years_of_Experience_with_Columbus_S&articleid=880865 - Surface Encounters chuck russo
Surface Encounters [url=http://surfaceencounters.tumblr.com/]Surface Encounters[/url] http://surfaceencounters.tumblr.com/ - Surface Encounters
marble [url=http://community.myfox8.com/_Surface-Encounters-Macomb-MI/blog/1698404/96365.html]Surface Encounters chuck russo[/url] http://community.myfox8.com/_Surface-Encounters-Macomb-MI/blog/1698404/96365.html - Surface Encounters rock tops
Knight <b>News</b> Challenge 2011: Sixteen winners, from mapping to data <b>...</b>
On Sept. 28, 2006, when the Knight Foundation launched the Knight News Challenge — its five-year attempt to harness the best ideas in journalism innovation through an annual contest — the global economy had not yet ...
Knight <b>News</b> Challenge 2011: Sixteen winners, from mapping to data <b>...</b><b>News</b> Desk: To-Do List: Legislation, Lockouts, and Lawsuits : The <b>...</b>
News Desk. Notes on Washington and the world by the staff of The New Yorker. « Obama and Gay Marriage · Main. June 23, 2011. To-Do List: Legislation, Lockouts, and Lawsuits. Posted by Arik Gabbai ... POSTED IN. News Desk; | To-Do List ...
<b>News</b> Desk: To-Do List: Legislation, Lockouts, and Lawsuits : The <b>...</b>Fox <b>News</b>, MSNBC Mock FBI Ad Campaign to Find 'Whitey' Bulger, Days <b>...</b>
Fox News, MSNBC Mock FBI Ad Campaign to Find 'Whitey' Bulger, Days Before It Leads to His Arrest.
Fox <b>News</b>, MSNBC Mock FBI Ad Campaign to Find 'Whitey' Bulger, Days <b>...</b>
Peter Risdon Says:
May 16, 2011 at 2:40 pm | Reply
The paragraph you quoted from ends with this sentence:
“According to the best-sited stations, the diurnal temperature range in the lower 48 states has no century-scale trend.”
That was a surprise given the tenor of this post: “… maybe this is the end to questions as to whether surface temperature increases actually exist.”
Did you mean that we can now say the answer to that is that surface temperature increases do not exist? Or that, pace Keenan in the WSJ, the data do not contain statistically significant trends?
andyrussell Says:
May 16, 2011 at 2:58 pm | Reply
I don’t think diurnal temperature range is very important. Do you?
What’s more, the “century-scale” bit covers some interesting detail. Before Fall et al., it seems that the only work on diurnal temperature range showed a negative trend from the mid-century to 1980s-ish. What Fall et al. found was that this has increased again since the 1980s. So there’s no “century-scale trend”.
But that tells you very little about mean surface temperature trends.
Mark Says:
May 17, 2011 at 10:45 pm
I have heard it claimed that the reduction in diurnal temperature range over the past few decades provides evidence that GHG increases are responsible for the warming. In that sense, some people think diurnal temperature range is important.
Incidentally, I don’t think Fall et al. were the first to find that DTR has increased since the 1980s. I read a paper that said much the same thing a few years ago.
Sorry for the lack of references to back up these statements. I’m a little too busy at the moment to chase them up.
Ben Says:
May 16, 2011 at 4:49 pm | Reply
So Peter… If the diurnal high and the diurnal low both rise by 1°C, you think this means there has been no warming? After-all, the diurnal range hasn’t changed! Others might draw a different conclusion.
Peter Risdon Says:
May 17, 2011 at 8:26 am | Reply
I understand diurnal range has significance, and the relationship between day and night time temperature ranges is important, especially with regard to the period 1950 to 1980 when the effect of man-made global warming, it has been argued, was masked by a cooling but revealed by the changes in the relationship between these ranges.
I further understand that this argument is based on the idea that human pollution caused this daytime cooling, that it affected the range of day time temperatures as well as the difference between night time temperatures which continued to show warming, and daytime ones that didn’t. This makes day time temperature range significant: if this is right it would be expected to show a variation that correlates with human activity.
But this isn’t my field; I’m just reading what I can in an attempt to understand as much as possible about an important issue and, for me at least, that means reading Watts and reading this blog. Just searching out stuff you’re already disposed to accept isn’t good enough. My comment was prompted by what struck me as a somewhat partial quotation and exasperation: I’m with Feynman when he said you should point out the problems with a theory, not just the things that support it.
[It's not really a "partial quotation" is it? That sentence you are interested in is stuck on the end of the abstract as a new paragraph and isn't really related to the 2 sentences I quote and which are related to the subject of this post. I'm not really interested in DTR and I doubt Watts was either. - AR]
At least Watts invites people with different views to post on his blog and has been at the forefront of attempts to cross the ideological divide, not least with Judith Curry.
Ben, of course you’re right. Andy, a century is an arbitrary scale, of course.
I’d still be interested in your take on statistical significance.
JMurphy Says:
May 17, 2011 at 12:05 pm | Reply
In what way has Watts atempted to cross “the ideological divide” ?
Ben Says:
May 17, 2011 at 3:16 pm | Reply
Peter, I encourage a critical (i.e. thoughtful) reading of Anthony’s blog but my god do you really think he’s “at the forefront of attempts to cross the ideological divide”? Anthony has done more to harden denialist thought than anyone, with the possible exception Marc Morano.
The “different views” he solicits are unthreatening fig-leaves.
andyrussell Says:
May 17, 2011 at 3:24 pm | Reply
I’ve got no problem with most of what Keenan says, although he’s not the first/only person to be saying these things. There’s a JoC paper from 2010 and it was one of the useful points to come out of the UEA email enquiries (i.e. working more with stats people). Not sure where the funding was supposed to come from for these new people though!
I suppose the bigger problem comes down to climate science covering so much stuff – you can’t just look at problems from a stats/dynamics/modelling/chemistry/radiation/whatever perspective for too long before a) not getting very far or b) needing to doing something you’ve not done before.