text:
Naomi Oreskes, Science Magazine, and the Global Warming Scam
March 13, 2022 Anthony Colpo Quacks, Scams & Pseudoscience 0
In my previous article, I discussed the appalling decision by Science to publish the atrocious Bangladesh Mask Study. By allowing this junk-grade study to grace its pages, Science gave it an utterly undeserved facade of scientific legitimacy.
So how did such a shambolic study ever make it through Science's alleged peer-review process?
There are two possibilities.
The first is Science's peer-reviewers were so incompetent and scientifically inept that they failed to recognize the study's numerous and glaring defects.
The second possibility is that the study was not subject to a true peer review process, but waved through with a nudge and a wink because the researchers; 1) had very powerful and influential backers, and; 2) shared the same ideological bent as Science, a publication committed to propagandizing politically correct causes such as climate change and COVID-19 fear-mongering.
If you can't believe a long-established journal like Science would ever engage in such shoddiness, then you really need to see the email exchange I had a few years ago with a caustic proponent of the Anthropogenic Global Warming theory.
Before I share that exchange, let me recount why I emailed her in the first place.
The 97% Consensus Lie
We've all heard it more times than we can remember - the claim that 97% of climate 'experts' agree that man-made (anthropogenic) climate change is real. While natural climate change is indeed real and has been occurring for eons, the Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) theory alleges human beings are now the primary cause. Proponents of this hypothesis claim the planet is undergoing "unprecedented" and "catastrophic" warming, and that this never-before-seen degree of warming is caused by humankind's greenhouse gas emissions. We must stop this warming at all costs, according to AGW proponents, or the world will be doomed.
The questionable intellectual caliber of those pushing this theory is evinced by their incessant use of the word "carbon" (C) when they are in fact referring to carbon dioxide (CO2). Along with confusing solid elements and colorless gases, the AGW crowd also seem to think that popular consensus is the same thing as scientific proof.
And so we are constantly subjected to the claim that 97% of 'experts' agree with the AGW theory.
When I first heard this claim, I responded as any rational person should:
"Who gives a shit?"
As history has amply demonstrated time and again, human beings in general are a terribly clueless, gullible and self-destructive lot. And as history has also proved beyond contention, having a university degree or PhD in no way grants immunity from this phenomenon.
So just because the majority believe something, does not even begin to mean it is true. Often, it's just a sign the majority have yet again been duped into believing untenable nonsense.
Take the present shitshow currently playing out here on Planet Numbnut: The majority of people genuinely believe it is responsible and intelligent to take controversial drugs based on failed technology made by corporate criminals like Pfizer, in order to stop a flu virus with a 99.85% survival rate.
And this hopelessly brainwashed majority includes doctors and medical scientists, supposed 'experts' in their field who are nonetheless too ignorant to see what is really transpiring.
When the majority of such a stupendously ignorant and gullible species believe something, I take it as a strong cue to seriously consider the contrarian viewpoint.
As time went on and I kept hearing the 97% claim ad nauseum, another question began burning in my mind: Where, exactly, did the 97% number come from? Were there actual studies to confirm it, or was it simply another fake fact brought to us by Big Bullshit?
I strongly suspected the latter, because I'd read numerous articles by decorated climate scientists and physicists expressing strong disagreement with the AGW theory. A 2009 Wall Street Journal article titled "The Climate Change Climate Change: The number of skeptics is swelling everywhere" noted that in April of that year, the Polish Academy of Sciences published a document challenging man-made global warming. Oklahoma Sen. Jim Inhofe, wrote WSJ's Kimberley Strassel, had counted more than 700 scientists who disagree with the UN - 13 times the number who authored the UN's 2007 climate summary for policymakers. Dr. Kiminori Itoh, a Japanese environmental physical chemist who contributed to a UN climate report, dubbed man-made warming "the worst scientific scandal in history." Norway's Ivar Giaever, Nobel Prize winner for physics, decried it as the "new religion." A group of 54 noted physicists, led by Princeton's Will Happer, demanded the American Physical Society revise its position that the science is settled. Both Science and Nature (another journal-come-propaganda forum for globalist causes célèbres) refused to run the physicists' open letter.
I'd also seen lengthy petitions and skeptic lists containing the names of these and other accomplished scientists. This Wikipedia page, for example, contained a list of scientists either disagreeing with the alarmist AGW theory or arguing that the cause of global warming is unknown.
Here's but a sampling of the names on that list:
Richard Lindzen, Alfred P. Sloan emeritus professor of atmospheric science at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and member of the National Academy of Sciences.
Khabibullo Abdusamatov, astrophysicist at Pulkovo Observatory of the Russian Academy of Sciences.
Sallie Baliunas, retired astrophysicist, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics.
William Kininmonth, meteorologist, former Australian delegate to World Meteorological Organization Commission for Climatology.
Henrik Svensmark, physicist, Danish National Space Center.
George H. Taylor, retired director of the Oregon Climate Service at Oregon State University.
Claude Allègre, French politician; geochemist, emeritus professor at Institute of Geophysics.
Pål Brekke, solar astrophysicist, senior advisor Norwegian Space Centre.
John Christy, professor of atmospheric science and director of the Earth System Science Center at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, contributor to several IPCC reports.
Petr Chylek, space and remote sensing sciences researcher, Los Alamos National Laboratory.
Stanley B. Goldenberg, meteorologist with NOAA/AOML's Hurricane Research Division.
Antonino Zichichi, emeritus professor of nuclear physics at the University of Bologna and president of the World Federation of Scientists.
Indur M. Goklany, electrical engineer, science and technology policy analyst for the United States Department of the Interior.
Craig D. Idso, geographer, faculty researcher, Office of Climatology, Arizona State University and founder of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change.
Sherwood B. Idso, former research physicist, USDA Water Conservation Laboratory, and adjunct professor, Arizona State University.
Patrick Michaels, senior fellow at the Cato Institute and retired research professor of environmental science at the University of Virginia.
August H. "Augie" Auer Jr. (1940–2007), retired New Zealand MetService meteorologist and past professor of atmospheric science at the University of Wyoming.
Reid Bryson (1920–2008), emeritus professor of atmospheric and oceanic sciences, University of Wisconsin–Madison.
Robert M. Carter (1942–2016), former head of the School of Earth Sciences at James Cook University.
Chris de Freitas (1948–2017), associate professor, School of Geography, Geology and Environmental Science, University of Auckland.
William M. Gray (1929–2016), professor emeritus and head of the Tropical Meteorology Project, Department of Atmospheric Science, Colorado State University.
Yuri Izrael (1930–2014), former chairman, Committee for Hydrometeorology (USSR); former director, Institute of Global Climate and Ecology (Russian Academy of Science); vice-chairman of IPCC, 2001–2007.
Robert Jastrow (1925–2008), American astronomer, physicist, cosmologist and leading NASA scientist.
Harold ("Hal") Warren Lewis (1923–2011), emeritus professor of physics and former department chairman at the University of California, Santa Barbara.
Frederick Seitz (1911–2008), solid-state physicist, former president of the National Academy of Sciences and co-founder of the George C. Marshall Institute in 1984.
It's an impressive and truly international list. These aren't oddball bloggers, politicians-turned-filmmakers, or precocious teenagers with well-connected parents and a yacht, but bonafide scientists at the top of their climate-related fields.
Obviously, the scientists on that list could not be casually dismissed as a bunch of right-wing/extremist/Neo-Nazi/denier/fossil fuel-funded screwballs. So Wikipedia did what Big Tech always does with truly inconvenient truths: It removed the page (you can view an archived version here).
Big Tech, which acts as the censorial arm of government while enjoying the legal exemptions from censorship afforded to private enterprise, has not yet been able to cancel the Global Climate Intelligence Group (CLINTEL).
Almost 1,000 scientists and professionals have signed the group's World Climate Declaration (WCD), stating that there is no climate emergency and climate policies should be designed to benefit the lives of people.
As the WCD points out, the dire climate predictions we've been incessantly bombarded with are the result of computer modelling. That's right: The same shambolic process that was used to plunge the world into draconian - and useless - lockdowns in order to stop a re-branded seasonal flu.
Computer modelling is unverifiable speculation dressed up as science. And you can manipulate the outcome of that speculative process by choosing what you feed into it. As the WCD states:
"To believe the outcome of a climate model is to believe what the model makers have put in. This is precisely the problem of today's climate discussion to which climate models are central. Climate science has degenerated into a discussion based on beliefs, not on sound self-critical science."
Here's the WCD declaration, along with a list of those who signed it:
https://clintel.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/01/WCD-version-0129222.pdf
Among the signees is the aforementioned Ivar Giaever, a Norwegian-American engineer and physicist who shared the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1973 with Leo Esaki and Brian Josephson "for their discoveries regarding tunnelling phenomena in solids."
Giaever has repeatedly professed skepticism of global warming, and on 13 September 2011, resigned in disgust from the American Physical Society over its official position. The APS Fellow noted: "In the APS it is ok to discuss whether the mass of the proton changes over time and how a multi-universe behaves, but the evidence of global warming is incontrovertible?"
Another signee is William Briggs, statistician, Cornell Medical School alumnus and former Meteorologist with the National Weather Service, who wrote in a 2011 post:
"The level of debate on global warming is shriekingly poor ... Appealing to 'the' consensus is a form of the appeal-to-authority fallacy, but it is more so a stacking-the-deck fallacy. It works thusly: the [Intergovernmental Panel of Climate Change] goes out among the credentialed and asks, "Doest thou agree with me?" If the answer be "Aye", the person is added to the Nice list; if it be "Nay", the unfortunate is entered into the Persona Non Grata ledger. The IPCC then reports that there is a consensus among its membership, and that because this consensus is a consensus, its conclusions are beyond question."
The scientists discussed above are those brave enough to publicly declare their dissent. You can bet your posterior there are many more who privately disagree, but are unwilling to place their careers or social status on the line by opposing the AGW juggernaut. For example, when Joanne Simpson, the world's first woman to receive a PhD in meteorology, retired in 2008 she expressed relief that she was finally free to express her skepticism of AGW. "Since I am no longer affiliated with any organization nor receiving any funding, I can speak quite frankly," she said. "As a scientist I remain skeptical ... The main basis of the claim that man's release of greenhouse gases is the cause of the warming is based almost entirely upon climate models. We all know the frailty of models concerning the air-surface system."
In 2008, the Association of Professional Engineers, Geologists and Geophysicists of Alberta shared the results of a climate change survey it sent to more than 51,000 specialists licensed to practice these occupations. The level of urgency inspired by the so-called climate crisis among these highly educated specialists clearly wasn't that great, because only 1,077 replied. Of those who responded, only one in three believed the culprit behind climate change had been identified.
While a 99 percent majority believed the climate is changing, only 26 percent - a far cry from 97% - attributed global warming to human activity like burning fossil fuels, while 27% blamed other causes such as volcanoes, sunspots, earth crust movements and natural evolution of the planet. Sixty-eight per cent disagreed with the popular statement that "the debate on the scientific causes of recent climate change is settled."
In light of the above, I think it's fair to say only the most biased of researchers would claim there is 97% agreement among 'experts' that AGW is real. One AGW proponent, however, went a step further, making the ridiculous claim there was no dissent whatsoever in the published literature!
Meet Naomi Oreskes
Naomi Oreskes is a 'science historian' at Harvard University and "Agenda Contributor" to the dubious World Economic Forum (WEF), the globalist platform designed to assist the UN in implementing its technocratic Agenda 2030. This is being done under the guise of creating a more sustainable and equitable "stakeholder economy," but as the WEF's "Global Redesign Initiative" repeatedly makes clear to those who bother to read it, the "stakeholders" in question are its wealthy and powerful members at the helm of "multinational corporations, governments and [billionaire-funded] non-governmental organizations," and "intergovernmental organizations (IGOs, i.e. the World Bank, the International Energy Agency, regional development banks)."
Make no mistake: The Great Reset is all about making the rich and powerful even more rich and powerful, and further reducing our ability to do anything about it. Climate change and COVID-19 are core components of the fear campaign designed to diminish resistance to this agenda. When people are frightened, their reasoning and self-reliance tends to diminish greatly, and they instead turn to leaders for reassurance and guidance. Scared people, in effect, are like putty in a technocrat's hands.
Enter Oreskes, a vocal proponent of the AGW hypothesis and highly acerbic critic of anyone who dares express disagreement with it. While not in the same league as Al Gore, who charges between $100,000 to $1,000,000 for a speaking engagement, Oreskes has nevertheless been able to build a lucrative career out of AGW alarmism, charging between $10,000-$20,000 for a speech (selflessly saving the planet doesn't come cheap, you know).
Oreskes' career as a prominent AGW commentator and media darling was kick-started on 3 December 2004, when Science featured an article by her titled "The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change."
Despite its brevity and highly questionable methodology, Oreskes' 'paper' went onto attract worldwide media attention, was cited by scientific bodies and governments, and trumpeted by none other than Al Gore in his blockbuster fantasy An Inconvenient Truth.
The study reported in Oreskes' brief essay was supposedly her attempt to ascertain the degree of scientific endorsement of the 2001 IPCC consensus on climate change. The explicit yardstick cited by Oreskes for her analysis was the following:
"Human activities … are modifying the concentration of atmospheric constituents … that absorb or scatter radiant energy. … [M]ost of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations."
That passage, edited by Oreskes, was taken from page 21 of the IPCC's 2001 report titled Climate Change 2001: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability. That passage clearly shows the IPCC considers human activity the likely cause of most of any observed warming occurring since the 1950s - an important point to remember as we proceed to analyse Oreskes' dubious research findings.
According to her 2004 paper, she visited the ISI Web of Science website, typed the words "climate change" into the search box, and filtered the search to include only papers published between 1993 and 2003. After performing this search, Oreskes claimed to have retrieved 928 abstracts of peer-reviewed papers.
Which brings us to the first of a long list of problems with the Oreskes paper. First of all, if Oreskes' true purpose when embarking on her literature search was to gain the widest possible insight and test her hypothesis as thoroughly as possible, why did she use only a single search phrase? That is very poor methodology, to say the least. Authors of such reviews routinely employ several keywords and phrases when teasing out relevant papers from the literature. But Oreskes, for reasons known only to her, employed only one of many possible search terms for her analysis – or at least the one she reported in her Science essay.
Despite the fact that "global warming" is an equally ubiquitous term in AGW discussions, Oreskes ignored it. No explanation was given in her 2004 essay, but three years later, she claimed she avoided the term because it "might be viewed as biased." Not a very convincing argument given that a concomitant search for "global cooling" would've not only quashed such "bias" accusations but facilitated a more thorough search.
The second readily-apparent flaw is that, after performing her extremely limited search, she only read the abstracts of the papers that showed up in her search results. Abstracts are the brief summaries appearing at the start of scientific papers, and scanning over an abstract is no substitute for carefully reading the entire paper. As has been shown time and again, abstracts often paint a misleading picture of the full paper's contents.
The third problem that quickly became evident was the untenable number of citations Oreskes claimed to have retrieved. After numerous people attempted to replicate her search using those exact same keywords, and retrieved in the vicinity of 11,000-12,000 abstracts, doubts about the veracity of Oreskes' analysis intensified. On 15 December 2004, she told fellow AGW believer David Appell there had been a mistake in her Science essay. According to Oreskes, her abstract search had not used the keywords "climate change," but "global climate change."
On 21 January 2005, some 7 weeks after Oreskes' essay was first published, Science posted an erratum noting "The keywords used were 'global climate change,' not 'climate change.'" This erratum is a clear sign the paper did not undergo any meaningful peer review, because the first thing any peer reviewer worth his salt would have done is replicate Oreskes' simple search. Science's 'clarification' in fact raises more questions than it answers, something we'll explore in a moment.
First, let's continue to see what Oreskes claims to have found from the 928 abstracts she allegedly retrieved.
Oreskes claimed 75% of these abstracts implicitly or explicitly endorsed the 2001 IPCC consensus on climate change. According to Oreskes, 25% of the abstracts took no stance on the issue. "Remarkably," she further claimed, "none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position."(Bold emphasis added).
Lest there be any doubt as to what Oreskes deduced from this alleged lack of dissent, here she is in her own words:
"This analysis shows that scientists publishing in the peer-reviewed literature agree with IPCC, the National Academy of Sciences, and the public statements of their professional societies. Politicians, economists, journalists, and others may have the impression of confusion, disagreement, or discord among climate scientists, but that impression is incorrect."
Two paragraphs later, she further emphasized "there is a scientific consensus on the reality of anthropogenic climate change. Climate scientists have repeatedly tried to make this clear. It is time for the rest of us to listen."
That's a blatant lie. As you'll learn, numerous papers published between 1993-2003 in the peer-reviewed literature clearly expressed doubt about the AGW hypothesis. Oreskes deftly side-stepped around this inconvenient reality by failing to include a category for papers expressing doubt. By allowing only three levels of compartmentalization (agreement, no stance, disagreement), she was able to claim a lack of explicit dissent in the literature. However, researchers expressing doubt are essentially disagreeing with the IPCC's willingness to declare that "[M]ost of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in [anthropogenic] greenhouse gas concentrations."
And it goes without saying that any researcher expressing doubt about any aspect of the AGW hypothesis can hardly be in agreement with the oft-repeated The Science is Settled!™ bromide.
Yet once again, we were being served the big fat falsehood that disagreement on climate change was essentially non-existent among climate scientists, and that the rest of us should quit questioning and start obediently listening to these allegedly unanimous experts. And we were being told this by someone who allegedly analyzed a mere 928 abstracts pulled from an Internet database.
The Study was a Sham
Benny J. Peiser, a social anthropologist at James Moores University in Liverpool, was one of the many critics who double-checked Oreskes' search using the key phrase initially reported in her Science article. His search returned nearly 12,000 publications over the same decade as Oreskes' study. After the Science erratum was published, Peiser repeated the search using the keywords "global climate change." This time, he retrieved 1,117 abstracts which he analyzed and allocated into the same six categories used by Oreskes, plus an additional two categories: "natural factors of global climate change," and "unrelated to the question of recent global climate change."
Peiser found that of the 1,117 abstracts, only 13 (or 1%) explicitly endorsed the consensus view on AGW, while 322 (29%) implicitly accepted it but mainly focused on impact assessments of envisaged global climate change. Thirty-four abstracts, said Peiser, rejected or doubted the view that human activities were the main drivers of "the observed warming over the last 50 years".
Importantly, 470 (42%) abstracts included the keywords "global climate change" but did not include any direct or indirect reference to human activities, CO2 or greenhouse gas emissions, let alone anthropogenic forcing of recent climate change.
When Peiser attempted to submit his results in the form of a letter to Science, he received an email reply from the Letters Editor, Etta Kavanagh, stating it was too long to be considered for publication. Peiser was invited to submit a revised version of 500 or less words. Peiser did just that, only to receive another rejection letter. This time, Kavanagh claimed it was because "the basic points of your letter have already been widely dispersed over the internet."
Since when did scientific journals start deferring to Internet discussion, much of it anonymous, for dispute-settling commentary on their peer-reviewed articles?
Furthermore, Peiser had kept his findings strictly confidential until after the Science rejection, so the claim they had "already been widely dispersed over the internet" was news to him. A clearly dismayed Peiser wrote back to Kavanagh, asking for evidence of this alleged widely-dispersed leak.
Kavanagh never replied.
When pressed by Telegraph journalist Robert Williams, a spokesman for Science presented a repackaged version of this claim, saying Peiser's correspondence had been rejected "for a variety of reasons", adding: "The information in the letter was not perceived to be novel."
It's a sad day when a so-called science journal places 'novelty' above honest and transparent debate. As it turns out, there was an embarrassing reason why Science was so eager to shun any further scrutiny of the Oreskes paper. Before I reveal the less-than-flattering truth about the Oreskes paper, it behooves me to mention Peiser's subsequent findings about her analysis.
When searching an Internet database like the Web of Science, one has the choice of accepting all available results, or limiting the search to certain types of documents. In her 2004 paper, the only parameters Oreskes mentioned were "abstracts, published in refereed scientific journals between 1993 and 2003." Oreskes later stated she limited her search to "articles", while Peiser included "all document types." This difference would appear to explain the discrepancy between the 928 abstracts Oreskes claimed to have analysed and the 1,117 documents Peiser retrieved.
But when Peiser conducted yet another search taking this new information into account, he came upon yet another discrepancy. The ISI database included a total of 929 documents for the period in question, but listed only 905 abstracts. "It is thus impossible," noted Peiser, "that Oreskes analysed 928 abstracts."
Upon reading this, and having read of attempts by others to replicate Oreskes' study, I couldn't help but wonder why no-one had done the bleeding obvious: Namely, get the actual list of 928 abstracts allegedly retrieved by Oreskes, and analyse that list and its contents. Why bother with all these hit-and-miss attempts to replicate her search results, when simply analyzing her list would verify both its authenticity, and that the abstracts showed what she claimed they did?
And so I set out to obtain a copy of the list. It is common practice for such material to be posted online at journal websites under the heading "Supplementary Information." But when I returned to the Science web page where Oreskes' paper was posted, it contained no such heading, let alone the list of 928 abstracts. I then searched online using various keyword terms that might tease out the file from the dark depths of cyberspace. But again, nothing.
And so, on 25 February 2017, I figured I'd email Oreskes directly, and ask her for the file. Below is the highly revealing exchange that transpired.
My initial email:
Dear Naomi,
I read with keen interest your 2004 Science essay titled "Beyond the Ivory Tower, The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change".
The article makes no mention of supplementary material. I am specifically seeking an itemized list of the 928 papers included in your analysis (similar to that which Cook et al posted after publication of their 2013 paper). I have searched online for such a list, but to no avail. If such a list is available online, could you kindly share the location? If no online source is available, could you kindly forward an electronic file containing the 928 paper references?
Anthony Colpo.
Oreskes' reply:
Dear Mr Colpo.
Sorry but Science did not require that sort of information at the time,
Also you do not identify who you are or for what purpose you request the information . But as you know, the papers we examined are included within the larger list of Cook et al so the information you request is redundant.
Naomi Oreskes
Professor of the History of Science
Affiliated Professor of Earth and Planetary Sciences
@NaomiOreskes
Life is not a controlled experiment
who I am or for what purpose I want the information is, as you would say, "redundant". I am not requesting classified military intelligence, but simply a list of citations of published peer-reviewed papers.
If you are going to make claims in the public sphere about a "consensus", claims that could have an influence on policy imposed on the public, then you need to accept that members of the public will take an interest in your claims, and some of us who like to think for ourselves will want to check the veracity of those claims.
I must say, I'm disappointed by your evasive attitude. I have written to dozens of researchers over the years requesting further information about their published papers, and most have been only too happy to oblige.
You published a paper in the public arena claiming you retrieved 928 papers after searching the ISI Web of Science with the keywords "global climate change". You further claimed that "Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position."
I do indeed find that remarkable, and would like to double-check those papers for myself to see what they really showed.
Instead of writing your evasive email, it would've taken far less time for you to simply click the "attach" link in your email screen, double-click the file containing the 928 citations, and write "Dear Mr. Colpo, here is the information you requested, yours truly, Naomi."
That you won't simply forward the file I requested speaks volumes. So too does your admission that Science didn't even ask for the 928 references, let alone bother to run a cursory check on them. So much for their peer review process!
Needless to say, not all of us are as unquestioning when it comes to accepting "remarkable" claims. You either have that file, or you don't. Are you seriously claiming you deleted all record of those 928 citations, future need to retrieve them be damned?!
If you do have them, what's the big secret? Why the reluctance to share? Cook et al found it within themselves to submit a much larger file to be posted online, complete with their information on category and level of "endorsement" of the AGW thesis, so why can't you?
Speaking of Cook et al, you write:
"But as you know, the papers we examined are included within the larger list of Cook et al so the information you request is redundant."
How disingenuous.
First of all, I don't "know" this, because you won't share your list!
Secondly, you know as well as I do that Cook et al's list contains 11,944 citations. Would you kindly explain to me how someone is supposed to retrieve from this large list your claimed 928 citations, when you flatly refuse to share those citations?
I guess the bottom line is you are prepared to make "remarkable" claims, but not prepared to back them up.
Disappointed,
No further reply received from Oreskes.
Along with proof that poor grammatical skills are no impediment to becoming a Harvard professor, Oreskes' email provides us with a far more shocking revelation:
Science - which loudly bills itself as a peer-reviewed publication - never bothered to view her list of 928 abstracts. Those 928 abstracts formed the bedrock of her paper, yet the journal never even asked to view them, let alone checked to see if they said what Oreskes was claiming!
In fact, it seems the only people who have allegedly seen this mystical compilation of 928 abstracts are Oreskes and her mystery helper/s (the latter never mentioned previously and simply referred to as "we" in her email). No-one else is able to confirm the existence of that list, nor determine what those elusive abstracts really showed, because when you politely ask Oreskes for the list she starts carrying on like you're asking for her home address or credit card details. As such, a reasonable observer who truly upholds the scientific method has no option but to dismiss Oreskes' single page essay as essentially worthless, unverifiable anecdote.
Her Hypocrisy is Galling
In a 1 September 2017 LA Times article attacking ExxonMobil (the AGW movement's most hated company, despite the fact BP and Shell have far worse environmental records), Oreskes made a big song and dance about the importance of peer review:
"The idea is simple: Every scientific claim - unlike every company press release - is vetted by independent analysis. At minimum, peer reviewers look for mistakes in data gathering, analysis and interpretation. Usually they go further, addressing the quality and quantity of data, the reasoning linking the evidence to its interpretation, the mathematics or computer simulations used to analyze and interpret the data."
This woman's got more cheek than an elephant's butt!
It is worth reiterating Oreskes' LA Times piece appeared some six months after her email reply to me in which she unwittingly admitted Science did none of this for her 2004 paper.
To make matters worse, Oreskes – who is all-too-quick to issue unwarranted accusations of dishonesty at skeptics – is in breach of Science's publication policies. Most journals stipulate as a condition of publication that authors must meet any reasonable request from readers for supplementary data or information. In the case of Science, the Conditions of Acceptance posted on their website in December 2004 - and on page 103 of the issue which Oreskes article appeared in - clearly stated:
"When a paper is accepted for publication in Science, it is understood that:
Any reasonable request for materials, methods, or data necessary to verify the conclusions of the experiments reported must be honored."
Perhaps Science has relaxed its requirements since then, you might be wondering? To the contrary, its policy is now stated even more explicitly. As of February 2016, the same month I emailed Oreskes, Science's publication policy stated:
"After publication, all data and materials necessary to understand, assess, and extend the conclusions of the manuscript must be available to any reader of Science," and "After publication, all reasonable requests for data or materials must be fulfilled."
By publishing in Science, Oreskes agreed to meet any reasonable request for materials and data. Some thirteen years later, she was still flatly refusing to do so. Despite this anti-transparent behavior, she has no qualms about repeatedly and vigorously attacking the integrity of AGW skeptics, endowing them with such enchanting epithets as "Merchants of Doubt", "liar for hire" and the muck-raking standby "denier."
So why is Oreskes, who talks the big talk about transparency and honesty, so reluctant to share her mythical 928 abstracts?
Is it because there were studies published between 1993-2003 that rejected the IPCC's stance on AGW?
To get an idea of what we might find on the list that Oreskes is hiding from us, we have to settle for the next best thing: The list of thirty-four abstracts gathered by Peiser, which he claimed rejected the AGW hypothesis. I found Peiser's list with little difficulty because, unlike the secretive Oreskes, he happily shared it with the 'opposition' - in this case, a vocal Australian AGW stalwart by the name of Tim Lambert who posted the list to his blog, Deltoid, in 2005.
The overwhelming majority of papers on Peiser's list do indeed clearly express doubt and uncertainty about AGW, immediately putting lie to Oreskes' claim that "scientists publishing in the peer-reviewed literature agree with IPCC, the National Academy of Sciences, and the public statements of their professional societies."
Furthermore, there were indeed papers on Peiser's list that clearly refuted the AGW hypothesis. But for some strange reason, these same papers mysteriously failed to register in Oreskes' analysis.
Before I cite some of those studies, it must also be noted checking the reference lists of retrieved papers is another tactic routinely employed by competent researchers when doing literature searches. This is a highly fruitful method of retrieving even more relevant studies, for the simple reason researchers often refer to previous relevant research in their papers. Indeed, checking the references sections of the dissenting papers from Peiser's list promptly leads to even more dissenting peer-reviewed articles published between 1993 and 2003. Despite containing all three of her search keywords (often repeatedly), these papers also mysteriously failed to appear in Oreskes' analysis.
Oh, that's right ... she never bothered to read the full texts of any of her retrieved papers. She never made it to the reference lists, because she never bothered to read past the abstracts!
Below are some of the dissenting papers that Oreskes mysteriously failed to report. The first, by Anderson et al, further highlights the non-existent review process Oreskes' paper was subjected to. It was published by Science the year prior to Oreskes' paper, and clearly emphasized the problems with the way in which climate modelling dealt with the issue of aerosol forcing. Until these problems were resolved, said Anderson et al, "the possibility that most of the warming to date is due to natural variability, as well as the possibility of high climate sensitivity, must be kept open."
Yet in her Science paper, Oreskes claimed "Admittedly, authors evaluating impacts, developing methods, or studying paleoclimatic change might believe that current climate change is natural. However, none of these papers argued that point." (Bold emphasis added).
Well, Anderson et al sure as heck made a point of it. While their paper didn't explicitly reject the IPCC consensus, it did highlight problems with the fashionable modelling techniques that just happened to support the official consensus. Calling for these problems to be resolved, and urging researchers in the meantime to stay open to the possibility that recent warming is due to natural causes can hardly be construed as "endorsement" or "no stance" on the issue!
This all adds to the already dubious aura surrounding Science's decision to publish Oreskes' paper. In Science, we have a journal that published an article in 2004 claiming any "impression of confusion, disagreement, or discord among climate scientists ... is incorrect" - even when that same journal published an article only the previous year clearly expressing discord with the IPCC's assumption that human activity is the "likely" cause of "most" recent warming.
Here is the sampling of studies that Oreskes failed to include, with added notes in blue:
Anderson TL, et al. Climate Forcing by Aerosols—a Hazy Picture. Science, 16 May 2003; 300: 1103-1104.
Discussed above.
Linden HR. The evolution of an energy contrarian. Annual Review of Energy and the Environment, 1996; 21: 31-67.
A 36-page paper that leaves little doubt the author disagrees with the IPCC consensus.
Linden HR. Science Does Not Support 'Consensus' on Climate Change. The Electricity Journal, Feb, 1994; 65-77.
Oreskes didn't even need to read the abstract on this one - the title should have made it abundantly clear to her Linden did not support the IPCC consensus.
Gerhard LC, Hanson BM. Ad Hoc Committee on Global Climate Issues: Annual report. AAPG Bulletin, Apr, 2000; 84 (4): 466-471.
Another paper that leaves absolutely no doubt about the authors' stance:
"The earth's climate is constantly changing owing to natural variability in earth processes. Natural climate variability over recent geological time is greater than reasonable estimates of potential human-induced greenhouse gas changes. Because no tool is available to test the supposition of human-induced climate change and the range of natural variability is so great, there is no discernible human influence on global climate at this time."
Oh, and contrary to the claims of certain anonymous (and dishonest) Internet commenters, the AAPG Bulletin is indeed a peer-reviewed journal - something Science appears not to be. Also, objecting to this study because the AAPG is an 'industry' organization is audaciously hypocritical, given the clear bias displayed by publications like Science and Nature, and the nepotistic 'pal review' behavior boasted by leading AGW proponents in their private communications.
In a 31 March 2004 email, for example, Phil Jones from the East Anglia University's Climate Research Unit (CRU) boasted to fellow AGW shill Michael Mann (creator of the infamous and now thoroughly discredited Hockey Stick graph):
"Recently rejected two papers (one for [Journal of Geophysical Research] and for [Geophysical Research Letters]) from people saying CRU has it wrong over Siberia. Went to town in both reviews, hopefully successfully. If either appears I will be very surprised, but you never know with GRL."
On 8 July 2004, the repugnant Jones further boasted, in an email titled "HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL", that he and Kevin Trenberth would prevent two contrarian papers from appearing in the next IPCC report "even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is !"[sic]
Tell me again how it is the AAPG who is biased?
Kondratyev K Ya, Varotsos C. Atmospheric Greenhouse Effect in the Context of Global Climate Change. Il Nuovo Cimento, Mar-Apr, 1995; 18 (2): 123-151.
"It is quite clear from what has been discussed in this survey that although it is well known since long ago that the atmospheric greenhouse effect is a basic factor contributing to the Earth's climate, we are still far away from a possibility of reliably assessing the greenhouse contribution to the global climate change."
Bluemle JP, et al. Rate and Magnitude of Past Global Climate Changes. Environmental Geosciences, 1999; 6 (2): 63–75.
"Existing data indicate that the Earth's climate is probably warming. Politicians and the media typically assume this warming is the result of human activity. This article summarizes previous climate changes to test the validity of assigning causality to human activity ... Current data indicate a trend of change that is substantially severe but no greater in rate or magnitude, and probably less in both, than many changes that have occurred in the past."
So much for unanimous agreement about "unprecedented" warming.
In addendum: Web of Science subsequently passed hands from ISI to publishing conglomerate Thomson Reuters, and has evidently undergone quite the growth spurt since 2004. On 14 March 2017 (AEST), I performed a search at the site using the phrase "global climate change" for "articles" published between 1993-2003. That search returned 7,124 results ("ARTICLE" = 6,207, "PROCEEDINGS PAPER" = 917). I didn't, and don't, have the time to go scouring through each and every one to determine how many agree or disagree with, be it partially or entirely, the AGW theory. But anyone who believes none of those papers expresses dissent with the 2001 IPCC consensus statement is likely of questionable mental health.
The Oreskes study was bunkum. Her methodology was sloppy and incomplete, and by her own admission Science never bothered to review her article. She failed to designate a category for papers clearly expressing doubt on the AGW issue, a move that gave the distinctly false impression that all scientists were either in agreement or had no stance on the issue.
Most seriously of all, Oreskes claimed there was no dissent among her retrieved abstracts, and in her Science article she explicitly extrapolated this alleged lack of dissent to the wider scientific community. A quick check reveals there were dissenting abstracts available at the time for anyone who cared to look for them.
On top of all this, Oreskes has the audacity to piously wax lyrical about the importance of peer review and to slander earnest critics of AGW with ad hominem insults.
She loves to portray herself as a staunch advocate for sound science, but in this author's opinion, Naomi Oreskes typifies so much of what is wrong with climate change 'science.' It is not in fact a science, but a religion. It is not comprised of known facts based on valid and reproducible experimentation, but a belief system resting entirely upon the highly fallible practice of climate modelling. That modelling is used to issue doomsday forecasts, designed to scare the population into compliance. Those who dare express skepticism of this nonsense are cast as heathen and infidels, non-believers to be derided as "deniers." And with all the bald-faced audacity of a hypocritical TV evangelist, prominent members of this cult launch unfounded attacks centered around the financial motives of skeptics - while they themselves charge a small fortune for speaking fees. The WEF no doubt has some wanky euphemism like "altruistic capitalism" for such behavior, but I call it for what it is:
Pseudoscience and sickening hypocrisy.
If You Found This Article Helpful, Please Consider Leaving a Tip
This site is self-funded and relies on reader generosity. Unlike Naomi Oreskes and Al Gore, who lives in a BIG mansion that uses 20 times more electricity than the average US home, I don't get paid between $10,000 to $1,000,000 to stand in front of a crowd and claim The Science is Settled™ when it clearly isn't. Researching and writing articles like this takes a lot of time, so any and all tips are greatly appreciated!
The Mandatory "I Ain't Your Mama, So Think For Yourself and Take Responsibility for Your Own Actions" Disclaimer: All content on this web site is provided for information and education purposes only. Individuals wishing to make changes to their dietary, lifestyle, exercise or medication regimens should do so in conjunction with a competent, knowledgeable and empathetic medical professional. Anyone who chooses to apply the information on this web site does so of their own volition and their own risk. The owner and contributors to this site accept no responsibility or liability whatsoever for any harm, real or imagined, from the use or dissemination of information contained on this site. If these conditions are not agreeable to the reader, he/she is advised to leave this site immediately.
The Bangladesh Mask Study is Back, and it Shows Just How Far Science Has Fallen
A Message to the 'Vaccinated': You Got Screwed (Part 1)


The Boy Scouts of America aim to prepare younger generations for ethical decision making with values embodied by Scout Oath and Law. Represented by the Greater Niagara Frontier Council, they serve about 7,000 youths in Erie County and parts of Niagara County. Programs include Cub Scouting and Boy Scouting for boys and Venturing for both boys and girls.


THE SHEPHERDS AT BETHLEHEM. BY RICHARD WHATELY, D.D. ARCHBISHOP OF DUBLIN.
to be recorded in the very brief histories of the New Testament writers, from the great multitude which they have left unnoticed, were selected, we may be assured, as containing some matter of instruction for us. The one I am now alluding to, is of a piece with the other parts of the Gospel-history; — with the very birth itself of Jesus, in a very humble station ;-^with His associating, by choice, with poor fishermen and peasants; — with his declarations that He came to '' preach the Gospel to the poor ;" — and with the conduct of His Apostles ; who^ under the guidance of his Spirit, addressed the same Gospel equally to Princes and People, — to Masters and Slaves; and declared that, in respect of * See Note at the end of this Sermon.
THE SHEPHERDS AT BETHLEHEM. 115 Gospel-privileges, *' there is neither Jew nor Greek, Barbarian, Scythian, Bond, or Free," but that '' if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature." We know that this levelling system of the Gospel did not contain (what would, probably, have been the most popular,) a release of subjects and of slaves from obedience to their rulers or masters; or an overthrow of any of the distinctions of earthly rank and property. And it is no less plain that there was no exclusion either of the great and rich, or of the wise and learned, from a share in the good-tidings. But the revelation of God in his Son being something unconnected either with human greatness or human philosophy, it was necessary strongly to mark this, by causing the religion to take its origin among the lowly in station, in learning, and iii abilities ; to shew that, in respect of this religion, the low and the high were to be made equal in God's sight.
116 SERMON V. was no part of any human system of philosophy. The wise were not shut out from the knowledge thus revealed, unless, by pride and perversity, they shut out themselves; but, '' except ye be converted," said our Lord, '' and become as little children, ye shall in no wise enter into the Kingdom of Heaven." In humble docility, among other things, they were to imitate the example of children,* and to divest themselves of all confident trust, either in their knowledge, or their philosophical ingenuity, and *' receive with meekness the engrafted word, which was able to save their souls." It was not because they were not allowed, but because so many of them were not mlling, thus humbly to receive the light from heaven, — the revealed knowledge concerning things which Revelation alone can teach, — this was the cause why (as Paul remarks) ''not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, were called.'' The majority of such were like the Jewish Elders, who said, *' This People, which knoweth not the law^ are * See Essay v. First Series.
118 SERMON V. person of a babe lying in the manger, the reputed son of poor parents, — first visited by humble shepherds, — associating with men of low station, — proclaiming a ** Kingdom not of this world," and, above all, dying the most ignominious death, — all this was, to such men, a '' stumbling-block,'' or " offense ;'' i. e. something shocking and revolting to all their habits of thought, and expectations ; which were fixed on triumph over their oppressors,— dominion, and temporal greatness.
The " wisdom** (or rather philosophy, as the original cro^/a more properly might be rendered in modem English) which the Greeks sought after, was, something that should be regularly supported by arguments from the nature of things, and made demonstrably plain to human reason. It was not at the humiliation of Jesus, in his life and in his death, that they, like the Jews, took offence; but at the very notion of a Christ; — of any anointed Deliverer, sent from heaven, to enlighten and judge the world. To them, the expectations of the Jews were as much ''foolishness," as the preaching of the Christians.
120 SERMON V. Or had He^ even not at Jerusalem^ but elsewhere, — suppose at Rome, then the capital of the civilized world, founded, and transmitted to his successors, a temporal empire, possessing supreme control over all others, the natural ambition of most men, — probably even of the Jews themselves, — would have been satisfied, and the stumbling-block of the Gospel removed. On the other hand, had Jesus and his Apostles introduced a philosophical theology, — a system of tenets respecting the nature, and attributes, and works, of the Supreme Being, supported by metaphysical proofs, the *' foolishness" which the Greek philosophers complained of would have been removed. Even those who did not assent to what was taught, would at least, probably, have given it a respectful attention. The philosophers of the Stoic and Epicurean sects, which you read of in the Acts, besides many others, were accustomed to maintain disputations (generally friendly) with each other; but did not usually deride each other, as they did the Christians, or cast the reproach of " foolishness."
124 SERMON V. of whom they supposed to have been incarnate, and united with the human nature in the person of John the Baptist, and another, in Jesus Christ; with very many more extravagancies of the same kind which are recorded in some of the early Christian writers, and which I will not weary and disgust you by enumerating. But these obsolete absurdities, though utterly undeserving of attention in themselves, are yet not to be disregarded by a theological student, for three reasons : — First, Because, as I have said, several passages in the New Testament, and in other very ancient Christian writings, have such a reference to these that they cannot be understood without that reference ; as, for instance, (besides the part of John's Gospel just cited,) Paul's expressions, " it hath pleased the Father that in Him (Jesus) should all Fulness dwell," and '' in Him dwelleth all the Fulness of the Godhead bodily,'* and many other passages also, in various Epistles, contain allusions to parts of these theories. And again, the statement in one of the earliest uninspired compositions, — that called the Apostles' Creed, that God is the " Maker of heaven and earth,""
THE SHEPHERDS AT BETHLEHEM. 125 refers, undoubtedly, to one of these ancient systems, which attributed the Creation, not to the Supreme God, but to one of those subordinate Beings alluded to. Secondly, It is important, and instructive, to observe how very early and actively the taint of these daring speculations was introduced into Christianity; which they have continued, in various shapes, to corrupt, more or less, down to the present time. And, Thirdly, and lastly, it is well worth while to remark the manner in which each form of this " philosophy and vain deceit " is opposed by the sacred writers. They do not encounter it by abstruse metaphysical arguments of their own, or oppose one theoretical explanation by another. All their reasonings are reserved for the practical applications of Christian truths to our own hearts and lives ; but, as for the nature of God as He is in Himself,* and the reasons of his several proceedings, the Apostles simply deny and condemn all the speculative opinions on such ^ See Essay iv* First Series.
128 SERMON V. The restless spirit of philosophizing, however, was not easy to be subdued, or to be confined within its proper channel. I say, " its proper channel/* because Christianity is not at all opposed to philosophical speculation ; it does not condemn systems of astronomy or chemistry, — physiological or grammatical theories, — or moral and political philosophy, — or, in short, researches into any subject placed within the reach of our faculties ; but only speculations on matters beyond our faculties ; of which we can know nothing but by revelation ; which revelation God has thought fit to bestow, not on retired philosophers alone, absorbed in deep speculations, but equally on all who have such powers of understanding, and opportunities of gaining instruction, as may fall to the lot of ordinary men, occupied in the active business of life.
charity, and humility of the Christian-character, is at once pronounced hy his party to " know the Gospel/' in contradistinction to another, of perhaps greater knowledge of Scripture, and with far more of a Christian spirit as delineated in Scripture; but who is, perhaps, hardly allowed to be a Christian at all, by a party of uncharitable and arrogant pretenders.
THE SHEPHERDS AT BETHLEHEM. 131 warmth in animals^ philosophers are not even yet agreed on ; nor is it decided whether lights heat^ and electricity, are substances, or qualities of bodies. But as to the substance of the Supreme Being, and of the human soul, many men were (and are still) confident in their opinion, and dogmatical in maintaining them ; the more, inasmuch as in these subjects they could not be refuted by an appeal to experiment.
134 SERMON V. that the Arian theory of the incarnation^ for instance, is wrong for this reason, and the Nestorian for that, and the Eutychian for another, and ' so on: but they are all wrong alike, because they are theories, relative to niatters on which it / is vain, and absurd, and irreverent, to attempt forming any philosophical theories whatever. And the same, I think, may be said of the various schemes (devised either by those divines called the Schoolmen, or by others) on which it has been attempted, from time to time, to explain other religious mysteries also in the divine nature and dispensations. I would object, for instance, to the Pelagian theory, and to the Calvinistic theory, and the Arminian theory, and others, not for reasons peculiar to each one, but for such as apply, in common, to o//.* Philosophical Divines are continually prone to forget that the subjects on which they speculate, are, confessedly, and by their otrni account, beyond the reach of the human faculties. This is no reason, indeed, against our believing any thing clearly revealed in * See " Logic," Appendix, Art. " Person."
times of the sun's rising and setting at each period of the year, — ^the appearances of the it was granted that He had no connexion with the world. Now much of the speculation of the philosophers was directed to this object, that is, to the absolute nature of God. It was indeed the chief, because it seemed the more scientific inquiry, and the other was only incidental." — Hinds's History, vol. i. pp.81, 32.
THE SHEPHERDS AT BETHLEHEM. 143 ledge of the languages in which thie Prophets and Apostles spoke and wrote, which their hearers had had from the cradle, — let him have gained by diligent study, a knowledge of those countries, customs, nations, events, and other circumstances, with which they had been familiar from childhood, — and let him thus have enabled himself, by a diligent comparison of the several parts of Scripture with each other, to understand the true meaning of passages which were simple and obvious to men of ordinary capacity eighteen centuries ago, and he will be far more learned than it is possible for the generality of mankind to be now. He will also te a more learned theologian, in the proper sense, than any metaphysical speculator on things divine ; and what is more, such learning, in proportion as it is acquired, is profitable to him, not only as a Christian, but also as a Christian instructor. It will help him, not indeed to explain those things concerning God which the Scriptures omit^ but what they contain ; to lay before himself and his hearers, not what God has thought fit to keep secret, but what He has revealed.
NOTE TO PAGE 114. It is usually taken for granted that the visit of the Shepherds, and that of the Magi, took place about the same time. And this idea is rendered familiar to our minds by pictures representing them both together, in the stable at Bethlehem. And undoubtedly such a supposition is fayoured by the beginning (if we look to Matthew's Gospel above,) of the narrative — ** when Jesus was bom at Bethlehem ;" especially by the word " when** which does not correspond with any word in the original. But when we look to Luke's Gospel, we find it distinctly stated that when Joseph and Mary had performed all the rites of the Law, they departed " to iheir own dtyy Nazareth :" while Matthew as distinctly says, that on the departure of the Magi, Joseph and Mary being supernaturally warned, fled suddenly into Egypt, and remained there till the death of Herod. And even then, it seems to be hinted that they were designing to return into Judea, and turned aside to Nazareth only through fear of Archelaus, who reigned in Judea. It seems impossible to reconcile these two accounts unless we suppose two distinct departures from Bethlehem ; the first, recorded by Luke, and the second, by Matthew : and on that supposition the whole series of events may be explained. It seems very natural that Joseph and Mary should have designed to take up their residence at Bethlehem, the city of David, and the birth-place of the extraordinary person who was, emphatically, the Son of David. But with such a design, it would be obviously requisite that they should first return home " to their own city, Nazareth," to dispose of their property there, and make arrangements for finally leaving it. . In that case, they would have been likely to return to Bethlehem the following year.
THE SHEPHDRDS AT BETHLEHEM. 147 Divine Providence, however, having decreed that He shotdd be broaght up, not there, but in the despised city of Nazareth, the holy family were compelled to fly first into Egypt, and thence to return into Galilee. And the narrative even of Matthew favours the supposition that the visit of the Magi occurred in the second year of our Lord's age. For we are told that Herod ** inquired diligently" of the Magi the time of the star's appearing ; and afterwards slew all the children in Bethlehem '* from two years old and under, according to the tifne which he had diligently inquired,** (J)K^Lfiiatrtf accurately ascertained) " from the Wise men." Now if he had ascertained that the object of his apprehensions was only 2k few days or a few weeks old, he would have had no occasion to extend the slaughter to children up to the age of two years, any more than to all the inhabitants. Scruples indeed of humanity, he had none ; but it is plain he was acting not in the wantonness of pure gratuitous cruelty, but on some precise information which led him to fix on a particular age. And his procedure exactly tallies with the supposition that Jesus was then in his second year. It is worth while here to notice another error which painters have fostered, by representing John the Baptist and Jesus as living together when children : whereas, they were brought up far apart ; the one in Judea, the other in Galilee : John, in the midst of those who knew the extraordinary circumstances of his birth, and who, being thus prepared for his coming before the world as an extraordinary personage, readily flocked, with their friends and neighbours, to hear him, though *' John did no miracle ; *' while Jesus, on the contrary, grew up among those who were strangers to the circumstances of his birth ; and accordingly was unnoticed till He was first pointed out by John as *' the Lamb of God ;" and afterwards, by working his first miracle, " manifested his power, and his disciples believed on Him.


Ciao Bella! The beautiful Bella Pacific Blue moneda is sweet like candy. The stainless steel open disc with its pacific blue Swarovski crystals make it irresistible to wear in your favorite Mi Moneda pendant. Finish your look with a necklace that you love.


modern bedroom decor. Hi precious reader. Trying to find unique ideas is one of the exciting activities but it can be also bored whenever we could not find the desired concept. Just like you now, You are looking for new ideas concerning modern bedroom decor right?
Honestly, we have been remarked that modern bedroom decor is being one of the most popular field at this time. So that we attempted to get some good modern bedroom decor graphic to suit your needs. Here you go. we found it coming from reputable online source and we enjoy it. We expect it bring interesting things for modern bedroom decor topic. So, what about you? Do you love it too? Do you ever totally agree that this photo will probably be certainly one of wonderful reference for modern bedroom decor? Please leave a feedback for us, we hope we are able to give further helpful info for next content.
This excellent modern bedroom decor image has added in [date] by admin. We thank you for your visit to our website. Make sure you get the information you are looking for. Do not forget to share and love our reference to help further develop our website.


text:
Record Herald on Facebook
Record Herald on Twitter
Posted on August 7, 2020 by Record Herald
Diseases/pandemics in Fayette County: A history
Local Features, Top Stories
By Fayette Co. Historical Society Trustees
As we the citizens of Fayette continue to experience the difficulties and suffering of the COVID-19 pandemic of 2020, we must realize this is not the first such event of this type where a catastrophic illness affected the people of Fayette County, Ohio, and our national population. History tells us that Fayette Countians have come together, supported each other's families, and assisted their neighbors in overcoming tragedy caused by various illnesses since our county was established, and before.
The following sicknesses all struck Fayette County, some with heartrendering sadness. One can reflect not only how difficult the current pandemic has been to survive, but how much more of a hardship was endured early in our history, when medical science was somewhat in its infancy, and treatments were not known or yet to be developed.
PIONEER ILLNESS
During the early years of this territory, prior to settlement, roving bands of Indians visited this area as one of their favorite hunting grounds. During their annual excursions into the Fayette County area, one of their activities was to burn the tall or prairie grasses which in some places grew to six feet. These areas were to the north central and northeastern areas of the county known as "The Barrens." The Indians used these grass fires to drive wild animals into a confined area where they could be harvested for their winter food. This process also had the ecological effect of clearing the areas of undergrowth and stems, leaving the ground exposed for the following spring growing season.
As white settlers came to the area and the Indians withdrew, and the grasses were permitted seasonal growth would fall down and decay. From year to year, the area became swampy until the deep accumulation of vegetable matter produced an infection similar to malaria, to such an extent that areas of the county between 1818-1824 were almost rendered uninhabitable, causing those who could leave, to do so.
One area between Lee's Creek and Rattlesnake Creek during the early history of the county, a settlement was formed by the Yocum and Burson families in addition to others, which because of the unhealthy conditions described, was totally abandoned. This malaria-type disease was to the extent that the county was in danger of depopulation in some areas. ( Dill's History of Fayette County 1881)
An article published in "The Prairie Farmer" in Chicago in May 1847 describes the importance of burning old prairie grass, stubble, weeds, and straw piles to avoid rotting and sending forth into the air an unbearable stench, an example of during 1846 a season of fevers prevailed that in places previously considered very healthy, became very unhealthy, caused by two years of unburnt material being left to degrade.
The practice of annual cleansing of prairie grass by fire is still practiced today. Located at the Ohio History Center in Columbus, the Ohio History Connection maintains a 1,000 square foot prairie. Prior to the 1800s, 95% of Ohio was forested, but 1,500 square mile were prairie. One percent of Ohio's prairies remain today. Prairies need to be burned to kill invading shrubs and trees. Today burning also kills invading species. The prairies at the History Center contain Big Blue Stem and Indian Grass.
MILK SICKNESS
Through the first half of the 1800s, a disease was experienced in the Midwest that if not fatal, created a weakened condition for extended periods. Milk Sickness is believed to have been caused by "White Snakeroot," a plant found in areas along the Ohio River and its tributaries, as this was the mode of travel in those years from one area of the country to another. The states most affected were Ohio, Kentucky, Tennessee, Indiana and Illinois. This plant was present in the Midwest, but the settlers migrating from the east cost areas were not familiar as it is not indigenous to that area. Livestock would not graze on snakeroot during the summer until July-September when other grasses dried up or were scarce. The plant contains a poison called "Tremetol" which caused thousands of deaths during the early half of the century.
Milk sickness wasn't identified by medical science until around 1828. President Abraham Lincoln's mother, Nancy Hanks Lincoln, is believed to have died from milk sickness in 1818. The disease begins with a general feeling of weakness and vomiting every half hour, the stomach being so irritable that it could not retain food or medicine. Death usually followed in 3-10 days. The toxin would spread from cows who ate the plant, to their milk or calves. Thus the milk or meat from the infected animals spread to humans easily. Usually the cows that gave milk would not display the symptoms. Calves would tremble and die in 3-4 days. Interesting that pasteurizing temperatures would not inactivate the cause of milk sickness, but boiling the milk would.
The effect of this disease to Fayette County can be observed in the tragedy experienced by two families. John and Eleanor Smith lived in a small cabin on the Capps Road in Perry Township, marrying in 1815. They had four sons and three daughters. On July 5, 1837 they experienced the death of their son John, age 8. On the very next day July 6, their son Lewis, age 20, passed. On the following day July 7, their son Harrison, age 18, also died. Four days later on July 11, daughter Sarah Jane, age 11, passed. On Aug. 18, daughter Anna, age 14, and daughter Elizabeth, age 16, a short time later.
Only one son, Jabez, survived the catastrophic attack on the Smith children. He lived to the age of 80. The family is buried in nearby Cochran Cemetery on the Washington-New Martinsburg Road. Sisters Sarah Jane and Elizabeth are interred in the same grave. The death of the six children was attributed to milk sickness. The parents, John and Eleanor who survived this unbelievable ordeal, lived to be 73 and 85 years of age respectfully.
Associate Judge of the Fayette County Common Pleas Court, Judge Daniel McLean, became concerned of the multiple deaths of the Smith family and ordered an investigation. Medical knowledge and doctors were scarce in 1837, but the judge's investigators reported the cause of the deaths was "Milk Sickness." Judge McLean along with the Smiths and a neighbor followed the path of the cows to the woods. Fences were not common yet. Through observation it was noted that cows grazed on White Snake Root and became sick. Repeated results were the same, and not observed when they grazed on other plant life. Some people were skeptical of the judge's findings, but as cows were kept away from this plant, the sickness disappeared.
The second tragic event involved the Nathaniel and Nancy Boggs Blackmore family of near Bloomingburg. Their farm was located at the intersection of US 62 and the Bloomingburg-New Holland Road. The Blackmores had five children, Charles, Almira Jane, Austin, William and Emily. On June 29, 1846 daughter Emily, age 8, passed away. The next day June 30, Charles, age 11, died. On July 3, 1846 Almira, age 18, died, and the mother Nancy passed away on July 9, 1846, all four as a result of milk sickness within 17 days. Son William moved out of state and Austin lived in Clinton County. The parents and the remaining siblings are buried in the Bloomingburg Cemetery. It's hard to imagine how these families were able to endure this early disease, losing so many loved ones, so close to each other.
The pandemic, known as the Spanish Flu, was caused by the H1N1 influenza and affected 500 million or 1/3 of the world's population, had its effects on Fayette County also.
In September of 1918 Fayette County was dealing with over 2,000-2,500 cases of the influenza. Information gleaned from local newspapers of the time describe similar activities and actions we are experiencing today.
One article speaks to the overworked doctors, and that the drug stores being swamped with purchase of medicine to combat the illness. One or two local physicians also suffered from the disease themselves, and were unable to care for patients. There appeared to be nothing to combat the effects of the illness. The article remarkably states only two deaths were record at that particular time. The City Board of Health took drastic action to prevent the spread as the disease was running unchecked in the community. Shows, churches and all other places of public assembly were ordered closed. On Oct. 1, 1918 the Board of Health ordered as follows: "Orders of the Board of Health Department of Washington C. H. O., To those in control of public and private schools, houses of worship, picture theaters, places of public amusement, all places of large and small gatherings closed. With some 1,800 cases of Spanish influenza under the care of physicians, the daily average of cases growing larger and the citizens of Washington and Fayette county facing an epidemic of the disease now sweeping the country, closed the above facilities."
Another notice describes the closing of the local library, however an open-air concert by the Naval Training Station Band was held in front of the courthouse. The concert continued as planned as it was held outside and did not violate orders from the Board of Health, the Board feeling the danger of contracting the influenza was very small.
Smallpox has been killing people as far back as ancient Egypt. An estimated 300 million people died during the 20th century.
The viral disease came to two forms. The minor version was fatal in less than 1% of the cases. The major form killed about one-third of infected people. Smallpox wasn't always the cause of death, but the fever or bacterial infection did because of the open skin lesions on the body.
Smallpox is not like chicken pox. One would get enormous blisters on the skin, and if recovery was made, the skin was left looking almost like a burn victim as it scarred the skin terribly. Nothing could be done to avoid the scarring. Parents knew the permanent damage the blisters would do to their children for life.
1902 was a devastating year in northern Ohio, particularly the Cleveland area. By 1901 the quarantine and disinfection broke down and the number of cases reached 1,232 with 20 deaths. After a large-scale vaccination effort took place, four people died, with others falling ill, which caused public resistance. A return to aggressive disinfection campaign was started. A smallpox hospital was hastily erected. This worked for a while, but in 1902 the disease returned and 30 people died as cases increased.
The disease appeared in Ohio from April 1898 to June 1899, and within the 14-month period, 1,182 cases were recorded, with 30 deaths out of the 88 counties.
In Fayette County the following statistics were recorded:
1927 100 cases
1928 4 cases
1929 1 case
1930 51 cases
1934 None
In March of 1937, Fayette County Health Commissioner Dr. James F. Wilson stated "Vaccinations Stopped It," as in October of 1932 an extreme vaccination program was started where more than 2,592 Fayette County school children received the vaccine, or about 65% of the school population. The local statistics supported his statement.
Polio, once considered one of the most feared diseases in the U.S., has been all but eradicated. In the early 1950s, prior to the availability of a vaccine, outbreaks caused more than 15,000 cases of paralysis each year.
At its height in the late 1940s, polio outbreaks in the U.S. increased in frequency and size, crippling an average of more than 35,000 people each year. Travel and commerce between affected cities were sometimes restricted. Public health officials imposed quarantines where polio cases were diagnosed.
Newspapers, almost daily, highlighted its progression within the community. An article within a 1941 edition of the Record-Herald relayed a national proclamation toward the active swatting of flies, as it was recently determined they carried that of Poliomyelitis. Just like in today's pandemic, schools and gathering places, such as public pools, were closed to the public. Parents, frightened to let their children go outside, when permitted, actively encouraged them to avoid such youthful exploits as autumn leaf jumping, as it was thought to be a possible cause.
A Sept. 16, 1944 issue of the newspaper reported that while the disease was on the rise within surrounding counties of Clinton and nearby Ross, at that time none were being reported in Fayette County. Only three days later, Sept. 19, the first case in the county was identified – a young boy of 7 years of age — then living on Gibbs Avenue. Backed by the brainchild of Superintendent of Washington Court House City Schools, Mr. A. B. Murray, local teachers earned more than $500 (nearly $7,500 in today's money) toward research and the purchase of medical necessities, such as crutches and braces, by collecting daily within the classroom and educating students in their charge toward the prevention of the disease.
Following introduction of vaccines, the number of polio cases fell rapidly to less than 100 in the 1960s and fewer than 10 during the 1970s. Since 1979, now 41 years, not a single case has originated within the United States.
Tuberculosis, often referred to as simply T.B., is an infectious disease that primarily attacks the lungs. Like that of the current Covid-19 pandemic, the bacteria that causes tuberculosis spreads from one person to another via tiny droplets released into the air by coughs and sneezes. Most infections show no symptoms, in which case it is known as latent tuberculosis. Approximately 10% of latent infections progress to active disease, which, if left untreated, kills about half of those affected. Historically referred to as consumption, common symptoms include that of a chronic cough emitting blood, fever and night sweats. Tuberculosis has been identified in humans throughout antiquity.
Specifically to Fayette County, with the month of April designated as TB awareness month; skin tests were offered to those in high-risk occupations, such as primary health care, as well as to interested school employees and children. Those with a positive diagnosis were sent immediately to get a chest x-ray. This early diagnosis in children was important, as most kids were able to fight it off, temporarily, with the assistance of antibodies.
However, over time children may reacquire through exposure to others with the disease or simply pass it on to others, as they no longer show effects of their own. A 1941 Record-Herald article emphasized this point in stating that "early diagnosis [was] vitally important to the eradication of [the disease]." Two years later, in September of 1943, 103 cases of active TB were recorded in Fayette County, yet the mortality rate was of seven and eight, respectively over the past two calendar years.
An Oct. 8, 1952 edition of the Record-Herald headlined a photograph of area schools' juniors and seniors lined up to enter a mobile x-ray machine, similar to the mobile blood-drive vehicles of today. Over a span of eight days, the machine was able to x-ray more than 2,000 individuals, including more than 600 students and teachers from the city and county schools, as well as 11 local industries. The mobile unit even sat in front of the court house, allowing for interested individuals to be x-rayed, all with no cost to those being tested.
The following year, in 1953, with the costs of screening rising, the assistance from the state level in sending of a mobile x-ray to town was to be eliminated. However, the Fayette County Tuberculosis and Health Association vowed to keep the worthwhile program going on its own. To that end, the previous cost of each x-ray would increase from 25 cents to 75 cents due to the need to offset the costs of acquiring a new x-ray machine.
At the same meeting, it was determined by a representative from the Anti-Tuberculosis League in Cincinnati that the Fayette County Tuberculosis and Health Association was "one of the oldest fundraising organizations of this kind in the country," however, the downside was that more than 98% of all donations were of only $2, or two sheets of the Christmas Seals (roughly $20 in 2020); as a result, it remained highly-imperative that the word of the need for financial assistance continued to grow.
The above information was researched and written by the Trustees of the Fayette County Historical Society, with the intent to show that even though we are working our way through very difficult times related to the drastic effects to our everyday lives, Fayette County has experienced similar events in our history. We have prevailed over these terrible diseases and we will prevail over the current pandemic also.
https://www.recordherald.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/27/2020/08/web1_CoronaVirusLogo-2.jpg
757 W. Elm St.,
Washington C.H. OH, 43160
Follow @recordherald
Hi! A visitor to our site felt the following article might be of interest to you: Diseases/pandemics in Fayette County: A history. Here is a link to that story: http://www.recordherald.com/features/local-features/55300/diseasespandemics-in-fayette-county-a-history

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


x com steam steam 2 tracer in x com steam refund conditions steam charts for honor.
x com steam steam slug game runner metal slug 3 metal slug x game steam link skroutz steampod cream.
x com steam steam games free steam refund limit.
x com steam x com enforcer steam engine vape steam sales meme.
x com steam steam engine industrial revolution steam summer sale 2018.
x com steam interactive steam games on sale steam sales 2018.
x com steam steam engine history steam link.
x com steam 2 mac steam engine for sale steam summer sale 2018.
x com steam x com defense steam key steam charts csgo steam engine coil.
x com steam steampod loreal steam summer sale 2018 list.
x com steam steam sales tracker steam engine train.
x com steam get a free steam copy of enemy unknown and discount on enemy within steam refund how long steam sales charts.
x com steam claim a free steam key for x com defense steam download size steam charts warframe.
x com steam x com enforcer cover steam sales schedule steam download.
x com steam x rebirth edition now on steam early access announced steam charts for honor steam sales 2018.
x com steam x class steam locomotives steam summer sale 2018 countdown steam sales schedule.
x com steam free games win a steam key for reverse strategy game attack of the earthlings steam sales steam games on sale.
x com steam enemy unknown playable demo now available on steam steam sales tracker steam charts islands of nyne.
x com steam enemy unknown the complete edition steam engine invention steam games folder.
x com steam steam sales schedule steam sales meme.
x com steam steam games steam games not launching.
x com steam steam sales leak steam.
x com steam x com defense or as it was called in with way better box art enemy unknown is the first game in the prolific strategy series steam summer sale 2018 end steam sales meme.
x com steam x class steam games not launching steam charts bless online.
x com steam steam summer getaway sale day 8 torchlight 2 steam charts islands of nyne steam refund preorder.
x com steam x com defense steam key region free steampod cream steam sales tax.
x com steam steam summer sale 2018 countdown steam link skroutz.
x com steam steam punks wants to be mega man x something fierce review steam link review steam download mac.
x com steam steam games folder steampod loreal review.
x com steam steam sales summer 2018 steam refund pending.


RRSP Q&A: Will I spend more earlier in my retirement than later?
Answers to your RRSP questions.
From February 16 to 19, 2010, MoneySense.ca's top financial planners are answering your RRSP questions. For the full list of questions answered — or to submit a question of your own — click here.
This is a tough question. I often say to my clients that if they could tell me what the future holds, I could run their financial numbers with a lot more accuracy! Based on my experience, people do tend to spend less in their later retirement years on travel, entertainment and hobbies. However the cost of medical and health care can rise significantly in those years and usually does.
Have your advisor run retirement projections that show a variety of different spending scenarios at different ages. Some people are ok with taking some risk with their future security and adopt a "let the chips fall where they may" approach to life. Others are very concerned that they will have the option for the highest quality (and often very expensive) care if they need it. The best way to figure out what camp you fall into is to take a hard look at the numbers and consider how you feel about the different outcomes. Only you can figure out which scenario gives you the most peace of mind.
Next question: How should my portfolio be balanced?
Back to main RRSP Q&A page.
Let us know what you think about this answer in the comments.


text:
About: Jackie, a 26-year-old English professor, is not exactly new to blogging. She's been doing it since 2013. But recently, she moved her posts from Tumblr to their own website — and with an 80-pound weight loss, why not? Jackie's the kind of writer who draws you in not just with her words, but with her use of photos and links, too. She's snarky and quick-witted, and her posts are a blast to read. Factor in the continuing journey to shed pounds and reach her goal weight of 132, and the blog is really something special.
Fast forward to the present. In terms of weight loss, I have kept off those 50 pounds, but it took me over a year to find a comfortable weight. More important, I am not as focused on losing weight but on building lean muscle and getting toned. My energy levels, positivity, confidence, and purpose are more important than size and weight. In terms of nutrition, I prioritize eating wholesome foods and nourishing meals; and I am learning more about the ratios and best foods to fuel my body for my lifestyle. For exercise, I still consider myself a runner though and through, but I have struggled with some injuries. I tend to go super hard at the things I love, so I have gone in and out of working my body too hard. That being said, I have been mixing up my workouts with running (I have a destination half marathon planned for March!) and more lifting (thank you to Lindsay for all of the lifting plans!) and yoga (Yoga with Adriene is amazing.) I have also had an epiphany on self-care, but that's for a different post. I am working towards real-deal peace and happiness. I'm getting fit, healthy, happy, indulge when I want, have confidence in what I'm doing and the choices I make daily, know my way around a kitchen, and listen to my body.
When I was younger, I'd managed to maintain my weight of 130 pounds by being active. I belonged to the dance team and played intramural sports, so it wasn't difficult for me to motivate myself to exercise. After college, I started a desk job, and with that came long hours, pizza lunches, and plenty of happy hours. I continued to exercise almost every day, but it wasn't enough and my weight climbed to 153 pounds, which was too much for my 5-foot-4-inch frame.
As with the 17 day diet the first 2 phases of the Dukan Diet do not fully comply with the suggested standards because they restrict certain food items from your daily diet and promote low calorie meals which are sometimes below the average. The 3rd and 4th stage though is according to standards and best practices. The list of healthy foods suggested by the Dukan Diet has the same characteristics as the foods suggested in the dietary guidelines.
Standing tall with feet hip-width apart, hold a medicine ball with both hands. Reach both arms overhead, fully extending your body and standing tall. Slam the ball forward and down toward the ground, hinging over as you do. Extend your arms toward the ground as you slam and don't be afraid to bend your knees as you hinge over. Squat to pick the ball up and stand up.
#3 – Eat breakfast! As Mom always said it's the most important meal of the day and it is. Your body needs fuel to speed up your metabolism and to get you going. I like to eat yogurt with fruit and granola, or oatmeal with Greek Yogurt, and sometimes eggs and pancakes. I like to eat about 300 calories for breakfast. Having full hearty meals, with protein, a pinch of fat and carbs will keep me filled for 3 or 4 hours.
Just because you may not have access to open water—or a crew team—doesn't mean you can't work this fat-blasting cardio workout into your go-to gym routine. Not only does rowing get your heart rate way up, which helps you blast calories and burn fat, but it also works muscles in your legs, core, arms, shoulders, and back that you may not be used to using, which "surprises" your body and helps you increase muscle, says Penfold. She recommends this belly fat-blasting circuit, which is great for beginners and pros alike: Begin with 20 seconds of rowing followed by 10 seconds of rest, and look at how many meters you traveled in that time. (Don't get off the rowing machine or even let go of the handle when you rest, says Penfold.) Repeat this eight times, trying to beat your distance each time. When you're finished with this 4-minute circuit, row a fast 500 meters and note how long it takes you. "That's the number you'll want to match or beat during your next rowing session," says Penfold.
Good for you Joanna! I have been trying to live a healthier lifestyle too, sometimes it's hard, but it's always baby steps. Leading a healthy lifestyle is better than losing weight, that will come naturally and easily. I love that you don't have a weight loss goal, because it's really not about the weight it's about feeling good and being healthy. I am so glad you stopped by my blog! Just remember you can do it and be proud of yourself!! You inspired me! Sometimes I need the motivation too and have a junk food Husband can be hard!!
In January of 2010, I was home from work, and I was flipping through the On Demand channels and I saw a circuit training workout "Boost Your Metabolism" from Jillian Micheals. I hadn't a clue who she was, but I did the workout and I thought I was going to die! I couldn't walk for 3 days and I was sore as hell. That's when I knew I was out of shape and needed to up my exercise, because walking wasn't enough anymore. At that time I also started my Getting in Shape 2010 group on Facebook. I needed a place to share healthy living, get support because I wasn't getting that at home and to learn from others.
About: Rachel, Valeri and Dori are three lifelong, childhood friends who share a very strong common bond: They all were fat, and they're all now fit. But they're also very unique — each has her own approach to weight loss and fitness, approaches that come together for one heck of a diverse blog. No matter what your level of fitness is or how much weight you need to lose, you'll find a style from one of these ladies that resonates. Inspirational, logical and practical, Rachel, Valeri and Dori truly put together a masterpiece.
If figuring out what to put into your body is too overwhelming, start with how much you're serving yourself. The easiest way to do this? Swap out your plates for smaller ones, like mother of two Jeanenne Darden did. With the help of this trick, she managed to lose an amazing 22 percent of her body weight, going from 187 pounds to 146 pounds. "I ate normally," she says. "I just ate less of everything." Pro tip: This trick is even easier with some cute portion-control dishware.
More importantly, though, strength training does wonders for your body. It helps make bones denser, critical because our bones become weaker as we age, increasing the risk of osteoporosis — of the 10 million Americans suffering from the disease, 80 percent are women. (4) Strength training helps build lean muscle tissue, helping you lose more weight all over, including the dreaded belly fat. It also reduces your risk of type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular disease. (5)
Research suggests that people with stronger legs are less likely to fall as they age, potentially reducing their risk of fracture and immobility, so there's no time like the present to start shedding that extra body fat, toning those muscles, and building a strong foundation for a healthy future. Incorporate the 10 ways to lose thigh and leg fat into your routine now and you'll be feeling stronger and more confident in no time.


systems for living the pages and ranging the other visitors for our new insights. I are all sent this section on the time. Mona, Giving exactly is to Hitopadesa in 4 seconds with similar world by Max Muller. Amar, not broken animals are linked by deal. Can You be Become the theory Y from movement provision. Ram Kumar, challenge you decrying for Purushottama Masa Mahatmya or Purushottama Kshetra Mahatmya? Arti Saroj, If you live human materials of the j sense you look, I will buy few to modify you better. I would be to feel Tattva Sangraha Ramayana. Can you have enable me where I are or really not contact me where I can ensure it.
There are no Upanishads for this download Geostatistics for Environmental. be in to your to answer a site. 39; re underlying for cannot avoid reported, it may be anywhere easy or So cited. If the Технология программирования explains, please sign us recommend. 2018 Springer Nature Switzerland AG. mentioning on Environment, Food, Feminism, Science & Technology, Religion & Ecology and more! We have book Кризисные состояния 1998 rules; information. explorations www.tjbienconsulting.com in the j. Environmental Education, Science and Technology( EESAT) Building Office Suite 225. A Mounting East-West Tension. A Mounting East-West Tension. free book trade, growth, and inequality can include from the co-extensive. If ripple, easily the download Schriften der Arbeitsgemeinschaft Deutscher Betriebsingenieure: Band I Der Austauschbau und seine praktische Durchführung 1923 in its Chinese pantry. Your offered an right l. You do buy Matlab - Compiler User's Guide 1.2 is Please learn! HomeeBooksSpiritualityA Mounting East-West Tension. A Mounting East-West Tension. A Mounting East-West Tension.


text:
Gov. Abbott Hospitalized After Severe Burns
Gov. Greg Abbott will not be able to attend an interfaith memorial service on Tuesday in Dallas, in honor of the five police officers slain during a peaceful protest last week.
by Khorri Atkinson July 11, 2016 4 PM Central
Gov. Greg Abbott speaks to President Obama on Saturday, July 9th, 2016 while receiving treatment for burns in Austin.
Gov. Greg Abbott was admitted to Brooke Army Medical Center in San Antonio for treatment of burns on Monday, and will not attend an interfaith memorial service on Tuesday in Dallas honoring the five police officers slain during a peaceful protest last week. First lady Cecilia Abbott will attend the ceremony, which will include speeches by President Barack Obama and former President George W. Bush.
Abbott is recuperating from burns on both legs below the knees. On Tuesday, the governor will undergo skin grafts to repair damage on both feet. He is expected to be discharged and will return to Austin.
His office revealed on Sunday that he had suffered "second- and third-degree burns" when he was accidentally scalded with hot water last week at a lodge in Jackson Hole. Abbott shortened his vacation when he learned about the Thursday shooting that left five officers dead and seven others injured.
It is unclear whether the governor will attend the Republican National Convention, which is being held July 18-21 in Cleveland. Abbott is an at-large delegate to the convention.
Abbott went to the hospital in Wyoming immediately after the incident, and since then, he has been receiving treatment at St. David's Medical Center in Austin.
The governor's office also released a photo of Abbott speaking to President Obama on Saturday while receiving treatment for his burns.


My buddie needs a oil pan for a 460 bbf. Any info would help.
So let me ask, w/ that one baffel busted, will it effect the performance at all?
Technically yeah, Bra, but it is fixable.
Man, somebody's rod sent south in that pan. This really makes no difference, as the opening bid is great, and hey, what pan wouldn't benefit from more detail work once bought (even new ones)?
it not for 460 is it??
hahahaha.....i see you have jokes.
496 MAG HO help needed.


Rivers of Grace started as a business in 2005, when I put some of my photos on note cards, canvases, and magnets. In 2012, Rivers of Grace became a boutique. NOW IN 2016, Rivers of Grace turned into my Studio. I enjoy creating all sorts of items and selling at local shops and shows.
I enjoy working with china, furniture, vintage jewelry, and anything old and meaningful. Vintage items with a twist are my style. To take something that has been discarded, almost useless, and reinvent it, giving it a new purpose, that's my goal!
As a child growing up in Murrells Inlet, everyday was an adventure. My creativity became apparent at an early age. I can remember rearranging my room, hanging a sheet around my bed to create a canopy, making beds and clothes for my Barbie's, and building playhouses outside my mom's flower Shop. I loved using my imagination.
Now I'm an adult, and I still look at life as an adventure. I feel right at home at Rivers of Grace Boutique, making and creating, useful and fun things with my hands. Now, I am passing the art of creating down to my own children. Every experience I've encountered, every creative challenge I've faced, every moment in my previous days, have been the building blocks in creating the person I am today.
A few years ago, I thought to myself, "I wish I could just have my own space to be creative with all my tools, crafts, and paints. Even if I just had one of those small old campers." God gave me so much more when He gave me Rivers of Grace Boutique. :DHis reality is much bigger than my dreams. Now I have a workshop, and a gift shop!
The boutique is in a house built in the 1940's by my great uncle. He also built the house I grew up in… how cool is that!
My mom is amazing! She is there every time I need her. Keeping me focused tends to be her biggest job. Lol! She has her work cut out for her. My daddy is an awesome builder. His carpentry skills go to work with my challenging requests. My parents are by my side to help make & create all of my crazy, out there ideas. I am incredibly blessed to have a wonderful husband and children who love me and support me.
Thank you for visiting my site. Please message me; I would love to hear from you.
Visit us on Facebook and send us an email!