Test from Google Wave..

Test from Google Wave.. Can you see me? I wavin I'm wavin!

via google-wave-robot

Posted via web from Musings, Ramblings and Other Assorted Rubbish

Not A Good Climate To Be a Climatologist

I have read a few of these emails that have been posted and found the one below to be interesting.. I am told this is from file 0848679780.txt Too may games..I have removed the ending of the email addresses but that is all.

From: gjjenkins@meto.
To: p.jones@uea.ac.uk, deparker@meadow
Subject: 1996 global temperatures
Date: Fri, 22 Nov 1996 11:23 +0000 (GMT)
Cc: llivingston@meadow., djcarson@meadow., ckfolland@meadow.

     Phil
    
     Remember all the fun we had last year over 1995 global temperatures,
     with early release of information (via Oz), "inventing" the December
     monthly value, letters to Nature etc etc?
    
       I think we should have a cunning plan about what to do this year,
     simply to avoid a lot of wasted time.
    
     I have been discussing with David P and suggest the following:
    
     1. By 20 Dec we will have land and sea data up to Nov
    
     2. David (?) computes the December land anomaly based on 500hPa
     heights up to 20 Dec.
    
     3. We assume that Dec SST anomaly is the same as Nov
    
     4. We can therefore give a good estimate of 1996 global temps by 20
     Dec
    
     5. We feed this selectively to Nick Nuttall (who has had this in the
     past and seems now to expect special treatment) so that he can write
     an article for the silly season. We could also give this to Neville
     Nicholls??
    
     6. We explain that data is provisional and how the data has been
     created so early (ie the estimate for Dec) and also
    
     7. We explain why the globe is 0.23k (or whatever the final figure is)
     cooler than 95 (NAO reversal, slight La Nina). Also that global annual
     avg is only accuirate to a few hundredths of a degree (we said this
     last year - can we be more exact, eg PS/MS 0.05K or is this to big??)
    
     8. FROM NOW ON WE ANSWER NO MORE ENQUIRIES ABOUT 1996 GLOBAL TEMPS BUT
     EXPLAIN THAT IT WILL BE RELEASED IN JANUARY.
    
     9. We relesae the final estimate on 20 Jan, with a joint UEA/MetO
     press release. It may not evoke any interest by then. 
    
     10. For questions after the release to Nuttall, (I late Dec, early
     Jan) we give the same answer as we gave him. 
    
      Are you happy with this, or can you suggest something better (ie
     simpler)? I know it sound a bit cloak-and-dagger but its just meant to
     save time in the long run.
    
     Im copying this to DEP and CKF also for comments.
    
     Cheers
    
     Geoff

Posted via email from Musings, Ramblings and Other Assorted Rubbish

You MUST own a gun - it's the law!

Sensible Gun Registration Plan

Finally .... A Sensible Gun Registration Plan That Will Work...and make a bit of money too.....Clif
Vermont State Rep. Fred Maslack has read the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, as well as Vermont 's own Constitution very carefully, and his strict interpretation of these documents is popping some eyeballs in New England and elsewhere.
Maslack recently proposed a bill to register "non-gun-owners" and require them to pay a $500 fee to the state. Thus Vermont would become the first state to require a permit for the luxury of going about unarmed and assess a fee of $500 for the privilege of not owning a gun.
Maslack read the "militia" phrase of the Second Amendment as not only affirming the right of the individual citizen to bear arms, but as a clear mandate to do so. He believes that universal gun ownership was advocated by the Framers of the Constitution as an antidote to a "monopoly of force" by the government as well as criminals.
Vermont 's constitution states explicitly that "the people have a right to bear arms for the defense of themselves and the State" and those persons who are "conscientiously scrupulous of bearing arms" shall be required to "pay such equivalent." Clearly, says Maslack, Vermonters have a constitutional obligation to arm themselves, so that they are capable of responding to "any situation that may arise."
Under the bill, adults who choose not to own a firearm would be required to register their name, address, Social Security Number, and driver's license number with the state. "There is a legitimate government interest in knowing who is not prepared to defend the state should they be asked to do so," Maslack says.
Vermont already boasts a high rate of gun ownership along with the least restrictive laws of any state .. it's currently the only state that allows a citizen to carry a concealed firearm without a permit. This combination of plenty of guns and few laws regulating them has resulted in a crime rate that is the third lowest in the nation.
"America is at that awkward stage. It's too late to work within the system, but too early to shoot the bastards."
This makes sense! There is no reason why gun owners should have to pay taxes to support police protection for people not wanting to own guns. Let them contribute their fair share and pay their own way.

via usacarry.com

This is a post I found on www.usaopencarry.com I gotta tell ya I like the idea. Thank you TnRebel for sharing this information.

Posted via web from Musings, Ramblings and Other Assorted Rubbish