text:
Public Adjuster in Royal Palm Beach, FL 33411
Tips On Finding Best Licensed Public Adjuster In Royal Palm Beach, FL For Your Claims
The licensed Public Adjusters are in charge of determining the level of damages to the home following an incident such as a fire or a hurricane. They assess property losses on behalf of policyholders and can save you a lot of cash by making sure your insurance company ends up paying the total amount as per your policy.
Home Damage Adjusters is the favoured licensed public adjuster for both domestic and commercial clients of Royal Palm Beach, FL. Hiring a public adjuster in Palm Beach County will assist you in ensuring that you are paid fairly by the insurance company.
Our licensed public adjuster firm in Royal Palm Beach will strike a deal with your insurance company and assist you in ensuring that you obtain all additional benefits under the insurance policy. We convert a time-consuming claim to easier ones to make our clients happy.
What Our Public Adjuster Can Do For You
Our licensed public adjusters in Palm Beach County are professionals in insurance policy specifics, language, and paperwork for making adjustments on claims. Being the best licensed public adjuster, we file an insurance claim and understand how and where to log and submit claims on behalf of a policyholder.
Since homeowner insurance policy language can be complicated, our experienced and licensed public adjuster in Royal Palm Beach can assist you in understanding your rights and obligations. Home Damage Adjusters can also be valuable in more severe and complex property insurance claims.
Parameters To Look For In A Licensed Public Adjuster In VarLocationName, VarStateShort
Analyze The Status Of Their License
Insurance company adjusters in Royal Palm Beach, FL must be licensed in their respective states. You can request proof of license or consult your state's Insurance Department to ensure their license is in good academic standing.
Request References
Contacting references is an excellent way to inquire about long-time customer experiences and whether they would use a public adjuster once more.
There are National Association of Public Adjusters in FL that are confident and competent like Home Damage Adjusters and will provide you with sources of information to call. If one refuses to give references of settled claims, consider this a warning sign and proceed to another licensed public adjuster on your list.
Evaluate Customer Reviews
With online sites like Google and Yelp, it is difficult for businesses to prevent the genuine views of previous customers. Assess the reviews for recurrent traits in complaints or compliments. If the review raises doubts, inquire about it with the claims adjuster to see whether they react professionally.
Examine Website
Review the website of a licensed public adjuster to know about their experience, accomplishments, and other critical details, such as the regions they serve. If they don't have a webpage or if it doesn't would seem professional, they could be a new firm.
Inquire About Their Fees
A reputed and reliable public adjuster in FL only charges a portion of the final settlement as payment for their services. There are no out-of-pocket expenses.
Ask For Their Claim Procedure
Inquire with the public adjuster Royal Palm Beach about the procedure for collaborating. What measures do they consider when dealing with the insurance company and determining the claim's value? Do they go over your insurance policy with you? How frequently do they talk to you? You should be at ease with the public adjuster you've hired. By conducting an interview, you can effectively understand and communicate requirements.
Get Your Claim Paid With Our Public Adjusters In Royal Palm Beach, FL
We are public insurance claim adjusters with years of fruitful experience managing complicated property and casualty insurance claims in the Royal Palm Beach, FL. We specialize in business and residential claims and are ready to handle even the most complex issues.
Licensed public adjuster of Home Damage Adjusters in Palm Beach County is compassionate and responsive, reliable and persistent, and has vast experience with all forms of loss.
Our independent insurance adjusters assist by actively identifying the type of claim work to retrieve the property you have lost in the disaster. Our role at Home Damage Adjusters is to work for all client's insurance needs.
We handle the claim for the client, resolve the complexities of each loss, and restore stability. This plan enables the claims process to work in the property owner's favor. To schedule an appointment now, call on 888-443-9023 or complete our contact form. Our independent adjusters proudly serve clients in Royal Palm Beach, FL.
Some information about Royal Palm Beach, FL
Royal Palm Beach is a village in southeast Florida, located within Palm Beach County. The population was measured at 34,140 in the 2010 census. Despite its name, the village is located approximately fifteen miles inland from the Atlantic Ocean.
Incorporated on June 18, 1959, Royal Palm Beach has grown from a primarily uninhabited swamp and natural preserve and former Seminole hunting ground into a thriving village of an estimated 40,000 residents.
It was not until the 1950s, when Philadelphia supermarket magnates Sam and Hattie Friedland purchased 65,000 acres (260 km2) for approximately $1.25 million in what is now the Royal Palm Beach village and Acreage areas, that the natural wilderness landed on national fastest growing community lists (in its size category) in the 1980s. The Friedlands subsequently sold their land to Miami developer Arthur Desser, founder of Lefcourt Realty Group. About 4,200 acres (17 km2) were earmarked for Desser's Royal Palm Beach development.
It was Desser's vision that spurred the initial development of the Village of Royal Palm Beach. A massive drainage project ensued and in 1959, the state legislature granted a charter which named the development Royal Palm Beach.
Learn more about Royal Palm Beach.
Useful links for Royal Palm Beach, FL
Open a Royal Palm Beach, FL map
Find the Royal Palm Beach, FL United States Post Office
Locate nearby Royal Palm Beach, FL pharmacies
View the current Royal Palm Beach, FL weather report
Browse a list of Royal Palm Beach, FL public and private schools
Royal Palm Beach, FL is located in Palm Beach county in Florida State
Directions from Royal Palm Beach, FL to Home Damage Adjusters


Get Up to 10% discount off professional Australian hair straighteners and up to 50% discount on hairdressing scissors. Next day delivery Australia wide. 3 Years Warranty and 14 day full money back guarantee.


text:
Q: Tkinter login page that takes user to a new page after they have logged in? So far I'm only trying to get the program to work for one user to login, I've just got stuck on getting it to open the next frame after they have logged on. This is the first time I'm using tkinter with python so I'm not very familiar with it. The error that comes up is 'File "", line 65, in
NameError: name 'master' is not defined', but I'm not sure how to fix this? Thanks in advance.
from tkinter import *
import tkinter.messagebox as tm
import tkinter as tk

class SampleApp(tk.Tk):
    def __init__(self):
        tk.Tk.__init__(self)
        self._frame = None
        self.switch_frame(StartPage)

    def switch_frame(self, frame_class):
        new_frame = frame_class(self)
        if self._frame is not None:
            self._frame.destroy()
        self._frame = new_frame
        self._frame.pack()

class LoginFrame(tk.Frame):
    def __init__(self, master):
        tk.Frame.__init__(self, master)
        #super().__init__(master)

        self.label_username = Label(self, text="Username")
        self.label_password = Label(self, text="Password")

        self.entry_username = Entry(self)
        self.entry_password = Entry(self, show="*")

        self.label_username.grid(row=0, sticky=E)
        self.label_password.grid(row=1, sticky=E)
        self.entry_username.grid(row=0, column=1)
        self.entry_password.grid(row=1, column=1)

        self.checkbox = Checkbutton(self, text="Keep me logged in")
        self.checkbox.grid(columnspan=2)

        self.logbtn = Button(self, text="Login", command=self._login_btn_clicked)
        self.logbtn.grid(columnspan=2)

        self.pack()

    def _login_btn_clicked(self):
        username = self.entry_username.get()
        password = self.entry_password.get()

        if username == "user" and password == "password":
            tm.showinfo("Login info", "Welcome")
            tk.Button(self, text="Go to main page",
                  command=lambda: master.switch_frame(PageOne)).grid(row=0, sticky=E)
        else:
            tm.showerror("Login error", "Incorrect username")

class PageOne(tk.Frame):
    def __init__(self, master):
        tk.Frame.__init__(self, master)
        tk.Label(self, text="This is page one").pack(side="top", fill="x", pady=10)
        tk.Button(self, text="Return to start page",
                  command=lambda: master.switch_frame(StartPage)).pack()

root = Tk()
lf = LoginFrame(root)
root.mainloop()

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaStackExchange


text:
Home » Singer » Rapper Juice Wrld has died at 21 after a seizure in Chicago
Rapper Juice Wrld has died at 21 after a seizure in Chicago
Posted on December 19, 2019 January 6, 2020 by vietngan94
The up-and-coming rapper was taken ill at the city's Midway airport on Sunday morning local time.
On December 8, Juice WRLD shocked the rap artists and fans because of the sudden death in his hometown of Chicago, USA.
TMZ reported that he died after suffering a seizure at Chicago's Midway airport on Sunday morning. He was pronounced dead at a hospital around 3:15 a.m. The cause of death is not yet known.
This information is a shock to the world music scene in general and the hip-hop community in particular because he is a very talented young artist.
Juice Wrld is known professionally as Juice, was an American rapper, singer, and songwriter. Juice Wrld, real name Jarad Anthony Higgins, turned 21 on December 2.
Juice Wrld rose the fame for his hit singles "All Girls Are the Same" and "Lucid Dreams" which helped him gain a recording contract with Lil Bibby's Grade A Productions and Interscope Records. Besides, his song "Lucid Dreams" reached No. 2 on the Billboard Hot 100 chart, and this year, his second album — Death Race for Love — reached the top spot on the Billboard albums chart.
At the Billboard Music Awards 2019, Juice WRLD was honored with the award for Best New Artist. Earlier, his song "Lucid Dreams" was also nominated for the Summer Song category at the MTV Video Music Awards 2018.
Ryan Reynolds Then and Now: His Acting Style Over 15 Years
Movies of Chris Evans Prove that He Has Been a Talented Actor Before Captain America
Scarlett Johansson has just received 2 nominated for Oscar 2020
Who Is Rihanna Dating After Breaking Up With The Billionaire Boyfriend?
How is Andrew Garfield changing after the series of Spider Man
Nicki Minaj Net Worth: A Bad Childhood To The Biggest Female Rapper
Britney Spears Boyfriend In 2020: How Many Guys Has She Dated?
Billie Eilish Parents And Things You Haven't Known
Britney Spears Young Beauty And The Big Difference Now
Billie Eilish Outfits Are… Weird?
Kristen Stewart "Addicts" to Show her Bras
Selena Gomez Shares about Gaining Weights when Suffering Incurable Disease

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


As everyone has now realised, the second-order draft of the new IPCC report has become very widely available and many of the contributors to this site, commenters and readers will have seen copies. Part of the strength of the IPCC process are the multiple stages of review – the report is already significantly improved (in clarity and scientific basis) from the first round of reviews, and one can anticipate further improvements from the ongoing round as well. Thus no statements from this draft report can be considered 'official'. While most of the contents of the report will come as no surprise to frequent visitors here, we have decided that we are not going to discuss the report until it is finalised and released (sometime in February 2007). At that time, we'll go chapter by chapter hopefully pulling out the interesting bits, but until then, we feel it's more appropriate to respect the 'Do not cite or quote' injunctions that can be found on every page. We trust that our commenters will likewise respect the process. Patience, people, patience!
Excellent and I am very glad to see that you are taking this approach. It maintains the moral high ground and it would be a shame to see the IPCC process being subverted if you were to start discussing the AR4 before it has been finalized. Thank you.
Yes, you are right; clearly very true: "most of the contents of the report (IPCC Draft) will come as no surprise to frequent visitors". And moreover, I'd say there is benefit to be found in releasing the report.
The relative ease of getting a reading copy is not my source of concern–rather, the business as usual in the hydrocarbon world would seem to be the deeper concern. Hype is a launch for matters of no protracted consequence; waiting for energy policy change and legislated economic incentives is the poison thorn.
For the awakened and concerned citizen, preliminary substantial fact has import–especially for such a high stakes issue such as climate change. Anyway, I would rather share and pass along Elizabeth Kolbert's book–ideal for those who hanker for a swifter and easier to digest dose of reality initiation.
Seems that the fears of the UK Royal Society and a number of other bodies and individuals on the issue of sabotage are already being realised.
I applaud the purity of the Group's stance but wonder how pure it is possible to remain when it is as clear as day that many people will use information in the draft as reliable information. I mentioned in another post that The Economist was planning to do a September survey on global warming and my guess is that none of its readers would want to read the survey unless the journal had properly researched the 4th draft and taken a view. The Economist will not be the only one.
In any event the world has changed and rapidly so over the last ten years and since the Dr Santer affair. It is almost wholly to do with the new media, a supplement on which was published by The Economist (again) two weeks ago : it is worth reading.
There is no escaping openness today and equally there is no escaping its consequences.
I hope you can stay pure over the next year but if you cannot then it is to be expected and understandable because the rules of the game have really changed.
On people being led to believe the wrong thing by propaganda : my guess is that there are many people like me who can take their own view and people are not stupid – see the poll posted on this site by Mr Iles and also a recent poll in the UK showing 65% of people in favour of green taxes.
This is a little off topic but how is the IPCC related to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC)? Does the UNFCCC have any input on IPCC reports? The reason I ask this question is that Rona Ambrose, Canada's new Minister of the Environment, is now the President of the UNFCCC, until a new country is chosen to hold the presidency in November. She and the new Canadian government are very hostile to climate science. (Let's just say Exxon likes this government) Would they have any ability to impact the new IPCC report?
I sure as heck hope not! I don't want my country to go from hero to zero in the eyes of the international community!
In your opinion, is the wide IPCC consensus by nature resistant to overstatement of the current science, or perhaps more to the point, naturally prone to understate policy implications based on our current climatological understanding? I hear talk of the Greenland icecap melting at twice the rate calculated by models, and it makes me wonder whether policymakers should assume the range of reality they will face could exceed the range given by the IPCC? Is postpositivist science by nature conservative when it estimates climate change feedbacks and effects?
The release of this draft is what, on the internet, is called "trolling"–an effort to drown the work in conflict, so that nothing useful can be accomplished. It opens the contributors to the report, and their respondents, to various forms of harassment. It's a breach of any number of confidences, and seriously harms the credibility of the US agency that has released it; I wonder how many careers of agency personnel Rove and Bush will add to their trophy rack, while they just go marching on.
I don't think amount of junk mail this will probably unleash will be that harmful, though the time spent on it is going to be considerable; it will probably be possible to quickly file and discard most of it (a lot of it will probably be near-spam). If it makes anyone here feel any better, this act is a sign that, in fact, the fanatics who now lead the USA are starting to regard public awareness of global climate change as a real threat.
Re #4 The suggestion that the new Canadian government is "hostile to climate science" does not match my experience, and I deal with the federal government on a regular basis. The new federal government does not believe that Canada's Kyoto target can be met, but they have also decided to work within the Kyoto Protocol for now. I was at a UNFCCC Workshop on the new Adaptation Fund in Edmonton, Canada yesterday (May 5th), wherein Minister Ambrose gave an address. Her focus was on how Canada would be developing a made-in-Canada climate plan and she gave other comments on what Canada's approach going into the upcoming UNFCCC Bonn SB24 meetings might be. I never heard her question climate science at this workshop or in any other public fora or press release from the new government. Notwithstanding the above, the new Canadian federal government has been slow in addressing climate change policy writ large.
Feel free to moderate this, but the report is being discussed in the media already: here's The Australian coverage. The story's credited to The Times and AP, so it will be doing the rounds of the global media.
Point 7 I agree with Randolph Fritz about the positive aspect of this. I would add that dealing with the issue now even though it takes up time in the short term saves time in the long run.
Point 9 Gareth, there is the option of making a dignified noise.
I have had a few cracks at that but the name of RealClimate was invoked anyway. Any takers?
Note that Castles in his list of possibilities omitted the one that said Partridge was dreaming.
It appears that there will be lots more pretty charts and graphs. I am happy about this. Only around 1/2 of the population prefers (or is able) to be informed by reading words. We need lots more pretty charts and graphs.
I have not read the draft, but have read the "headline" 2-4.5K temperature range with most probable being 3K for climate sensitivity. Few will dispute the 2K lower limit or the 3K most probable (although a case could be made for slightly higher values of each), but there is considerable debate about the high end climate sensitivity. Lots of papers recently have indicated a 5% confidence high end of 6.5K or more, the scientific debate as far as I know has not come down definitively in favour of a much more constrained 4.5K. My understanding is that models constrained by climate measurements and those by LGM conditions give bounds to the Feedback parameter (proportional to 1/S) and so naturally lead to a long tail at the high end of climate sensitivities.
Secondly, there is a small chance that CO2 or methane emission or sequestration rates may change significantly and that this probability grows much higher at temperature rises above 3K. There are lots of potential mechanisms, e.g. reduction in vegetation and soil uptakes due to temperature and precipitation changes, most of which are hard to quantify. I will be interested to see how they handle such risks. They change the emission scenarios as CO2 could go on rising even with drastic reductions in anthropogenic emissions.
Finally, I will be interested in seeing how they handle changes in precipitation, these are much more significant that temperature for much of the world's agriculture. Here the question is not just will there be more or less rain, but will it be predictable. I've read that precipitation events are likely to be heavier but occur less often, so that both the total rainfall and the number of dry days will increase. I've seen several studies on the effect on agriculture of climate change, both with and without adaption, but they seem to look at average conditions, it is much harder to grow adapted crops when you don't know if the season is going to be much wetter or drier than the average.
By its nature most forms of uncertainty will be on the downside, so false certainty is likely to give a rosier picture. With hindsight this can be seen in the TAR, the mechanisms of ice sheet breakup were not known (and as far as I can tell are still not settled) which gave a false confidence in the rapidity of future sea level rises. The problems with constraining high levels of climate sensitivity should have been evident, but were obviously ignored (I can understand why, who really wants to go out on a limb and say there is a 1% chance of a 10K climate sensitivity as there is a 99% chance you will be proved wrong!).
Isn't the truth that given the global climate and all the factors that are involved in it that we simply do not understand, there is always going to be to much uncertainty to figure out what is going to happen? The history of science is one of being surprised by results, is it not? Given this shouldn't we always go to the safest possible course of action? Which as I see it would be drastically putting the brakes on green house gasses going into the environment. Isn't it obvious – whatever this, to my mind, strangely delayed report says – that we need to retool our society get out of the warfare business (that is our current major export and one of the largest contributors to environmental damage) and into a massive research and rapid development of technologies that move us in a safer direction? We have so many good threads to pick up and work with, Solar Biomass, Methanol, offshore wind farms, nuclear fusion, conservation, all of which have been researched and developed on pretty small budgets relative to the pentagons.
If we started massively exporting these technologies wouldn't that turn around our predatory image in the world and go a long way towards ending the need for, cluster bombs, depleted uranium, a new generation of nukes, space weapons, and all the other anti-life-soon-to-be-obsolete-junk the pentagon is putting out.
I understand that those that have been sitting in the catbirds seat in the fossil fuel economy might have to accept a cut in pay, and that the congressional ear follows money like a radar, but how long to we let all of this just keep plodding us towards a drastic reduction in quality of life while reducing our children's chances for survival before we all stand up with our individual strengths and knowledge and demand to pursue an agenda that is actually pro-life beyond the womb?
given the global climate and all the factors that are involved in it that we simply do not understand, there is always going to be to much uncertainty to figure out what is going to happen?
This is why the IPCC uses scenario analysis. Now, as to your 'safest possible course of action', there is an entire (large) subset of our society that chooses to read information that disagrees with this view; indeed, the information that subset reads says that their belief – the opposite of your view – is far better and you and your view are to be marginalized to lessen the threat to their belief system. Knowing this reality allows us to tune future policy.
Gallup Poll. March 13-16, 2006. N=1,000 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3 (for all adults).
And from The Harris Poll. Aug. 9-16, 2005. N=1,217 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3 (for all adults).
The idea of publishing feedback factors is not a bad one – it would at least be informative. However, it's ridiculous to suggest that a list of feedback factors combined with intuition would somehow be an improvement over the models themselves.
The observation that small changes in feedback can produce large changes in outcomes is technically correct, but a red herring here. If modelers were merely adding + feedbacks willy nilly, reported sensitivities would be going up (they're not) and models would fail to reproduce spatial and seasonal patterns and meet basic constraints of data (see Climate sensitivity: Plus ca change…. Any time you hear someone claim that it's easy to get a large, slow to execute, nonlinear, dynamic model to generate a particular PC outcome you can be sure that they have never actually attempted to do so.
Paltridge goes further off the deep end when he criticizes the IPCC for neglecting top level cost-benefit calculations. It's not in the IPCC mandate. He then ignores the whole field of integrated assessment modeling in favor of an entirely trivial account of costs, benefits, and discounting. Perhaps it should be in the IPCC mandate (this would require some kind of overarching working group), but I doubt Paltridge would like the result, as even environmentally conservative economists have concluded that benefits of mitigation exceed costs.
The lack of citations in this rag confirms that Paltridge has failed to do his homework. But then, what would you expect from TCS?
In #14 Mike makes an interesting statement: "who really wants to go out on a limb and say there is a 1% chance of a 10K climate sensitivity as there is a 99% chance you will be proved wrong!" I think that this type of thinking lies behind some of the discussion of climate change science. But while it influences what people are prepared to say in public about climate change, the statement is actually incorrect. Mike might have been trying to say: "there is a 99% chance that you will be perceived as being proved wrong," and this may be correct. However, just because an event predicted to occur only one percent of the time does not occur, does not say anything about whether or not the prediction about its probability was accurate. There is a one in six chance when I throw a dice that I will get a six. If I don't get a six it does not change the fact that there was a one in six chance of my getting a six and there will also be the same chance the next time I throw the dice.
Gavin if you have a moment could you please spell out your comment (in #19) in more detail – particularly the difference between "a reflection of our imperfect knowledge" and "a random process". Thanks.
Can anyone tell me how serious a matter is the leak of the IPCC draft by the US government?
1) Is it true that the draft is (was) available for download at a US government site (I forget which, perhaps NOAA) by anyone who registers, and that registration is open to all and automatic?
3) Is this apparently what has happened in this case?
Richard K raises an interesting point. Politically I am not sure how this will play out because the report is due to be released after the November elections in the US. The sponsors of this little farce may be hoping to inundate the IPCC in answers and delay the process even beyond the anticipated 2/07 publication date.
However, many of the conclusions are leaking out, and will continue to do so over the summer. If the report's conclusions are much stronger than the TAR wrt AGW, then it could well effect the US elections. Attempts by opponents of the IPCC such as Roger Pielke to falsely frame the argument ( http://tinyurl.com/hmuxl ) will be self defeating, because those who accept the findings of the AR4 will counter. This may all ripen just in time for the congressional elections.
Is Mauna Loa recording positive feedback?
RealClimate hosts must take a close look at the April 2006 monthly mean carbon dioxide measured at Mauna Loa Observatory.
See the 2.10 ppm increase April (topmost mark) over March total. Compare it to the 2004 April over March which is also 2.11 ppm.
I have calculated the April/March differential of the Mauna Loa recordings taken since 1958 and 2006 and 2004 are the largest increases ever recorded.
The Mauna Loa team have recorded annual average increases the past several years that exceed 2.5 ppm and their publicly expressed alarm has been followed by their concern that while the increases might be temporary, continued increases such as these could signal evidence of feedback to the atmosphere.
to view the crimson oceans straddling the equator. Link to the previous images spanning the past 15 days also.
March and April CO2 measurements increase for obvious reasons but a 2.11 ppm increase in one month span cannot be explained by global oil and coal consumption increases. The measurements of February to March would have also reflected a similar CO2 increase.
How to explain the sudden March to April jump in these non-El Nino years of 2004 and 2006?
Start by considering that massive expanse of warm water bubbling surface CO2 into the atmosphere.
Or, someone smarter than me should be able to assure us all it is just one of those unexplainable CO2 bubbles of yet to be studied origin.
Please, give a moment to link to the above and offer some explanation.
Looks like Mauns Loa is simply recording a biological photosynthesis/resparation cycle; CO2 drops in the northern hemisphere growing season (summer) and rises in the winter when resparation exceeds photosynthesis. This is superimposed on the (anthropogenic) ~0.16ppm per month; it's not as if the whole 2.1 ppm rise is man made CO2.
You would expect the monthly pattern to be strongly influenced by regional weather – for instance, a drought that slowed photosynthesis would lead to a higher then expected jump in monthly CO2 levels; good gowing conditions the opposite. Unless you can demonstrate that the water is oversaturated with respect to CO2 in this region, I can't see 'CO2 bubbling' as a reason.
End of april sees the maximum of the CO2 cycle at Mauna Loa, there seems to be a sensor hiccup, so don't be amazed if you see some alarmist messages early May.
A very reasonable position to take and a commendable decision.
1) I've often wondered whether I've seen evidence of some unexpected feedbacks in data, only to be corrected by those with more knowledge.
2) It's tricky to say anything on month to month or year to year changes. I prefer to rely upon longer term trends. In that respect the rate of increase of CO2 atmos. concentration is increasing on the overall dataset. But even with a 5 year running average significant variation up and down is still apparent overlaying that long term trend.
On the discussion goups I post on I don't get embroilled in the month to month / year to year, Central England Temperature or even Global Average Temperature discussions. It's simply a waste of time to obsess on short timescale variance in a system as complex as climate or the carbon cycle.
That said, I still keep my eyes open for the sort of responses you outline. But I get the impression that the long-term trend is more related to output than changes in uptake by the environment. And the year to year changes remain hard (impossible?) to explain.
Re 26 and the response. Although last month's jump was unusually high, the previous two months were unusually low. You can see the kink in the graph quite clearly. The peak of the graph this year fits well with the trend of peaks in previous years.
The concentration of the ice for this time of year is lower than at any corresponding time in the past, which is the result of considerable thinning. It had thinned by 40% ten years ago. This means that the ice will retreat faster and the albedo of the Arctic will be reduced during this summer. That will have a much greater effect on the climate than a change in the concentration of CO2 by 0.0002%.
Yes, golly, so there we are. Someone said it so it must be true.
I agree with asking for evidence, esp. from poor Hans. As one can go to the CMDL site and see the trends, one can judge for oneself; that is: just because a non-professional someone says it is so doesn't make it…er…fact.
1) Not true. While registration is automatic, it is only open to US citizens and permanent residents.
Re: 26: Hans, once a sensor hickup…twice a what….? Look again at the 2004 March-April. And, I have the March/April delta going back to 1958 showing a very high post 1999 increase compared to the 1970s and 1980s when anthropogenic contributions were certainly less than present 0.16 ppm/mo.
Re 28: Yes, Alastair, the Arctic ice meltback will have a greater short-term and longer term impact than the very small increase the CO2 trends graph indicates. Unless there is a creeping trend we do not yet recognize. Reduced albedo is a real concern but not yet in March and April. Arctic permafrost and tundra were in a non-melt condition in March and April so I cannot imagine feedback from there contributing to the April spike. Maybe that is the next factor to be added to the CO2 concentration analysis.
And, you said: the previous two months were unusually low. I can look again at my archived SST images and perhaps someone can help there.
Finally, my hair is not on fire regarding the April jump. I simply want to turn some attention to observed trends in monthly increased CO2 concentrations in two years when annual concentrations increased by amounts that were newsworthy.
So, I ask the question: would we really recognize positive feedback if it was staring us in the face?
Re 30: Note the deadline for responses is today, so I don't know if they will keep offering the draft. Curious to see. I wonder if comments will also be made publicly available.
Re allowing it to US citizens only, is that specified somewhere? how do you know? How do _they_ know?
1. An overall linear trend from 1958-2006, at 1.39 +/- 0.03 ppm/yr.
2. A quadratic increase at 0.012 +/- 0.002 ppm/yr/yr.
Because of the quadratic term, the increase rate is higher now than over the whole time span; the rate from 2000 to 2006 is ~ 1.86 +/- 0.18 ppm/yr.
The most recent monthly change, from Mar. to Apr. 2006, is large for the most part because the Mar. 2006 value is anomalously low, while the Apr. 2006 value is pretty much "on the money" given the existing trends.
> So, I ask the question: would we really recognize positive feedback if it was staring us in the face?
Yes we would, but not until we had accumulated enough data to establish statistical significance.
Grant, I appreciate your time and effort to offer that comprehensive reply.
The graph is updated, note how CO2 carefully follows the lower troposphere temperature.
I did get the access codes without any problem, although my e-mail adress ends with .nl (The Netherlands).
I found this great work on polar bears while researching for my book and discovered the trend for dens on the ice pack to dens on the land is increasing in the last 20 years. This would indicate to me the ice is less stable, and thus the migration documented by Dr. Amstrup.
Maybe all industry needs is a "lawsuit shield provision" before they admit there's a problem and start working with the government?
It's not unusual for industry to write themselves a release from any liability and denial of jury trials for anyone injured by industry actions.
On bird flu, the pharmaceutical industry wrote themselves exactly that. Their chief lobbyist who wrote that language into the law is now the FDA's Assistant Commissioner for Legislation.
It's how the world works (at least the USA). Watch for similarities as we start dealing with climate issues, if we do.
Grant seems to be defining "recognizing positive feedback" as occurring when we have "established statistical significance".
Say it turns out that feedback has kicked in as John posits (I have no opinion either way on this). Imagine a time X years into the future when enough observations have been taken to allow for statistical significance to actually be established. It would be at that stage that Grant would "recognize positive feedback" is occurring. When would it be that John had recognized that positive feedback was occurring? Presumably it would be at the time when he posted comment 31. Or to put it more precisely, John would in comment 31 have recognized that the trend in the data was consistent with positive feedback occurring (if this trend can in fact be discerned in the data) but the trend was not yet statistically significant.
Grant's decision rule for recognizing positive feedback is perfectly fine for situations where no one needs to make time-critical decisions based on the data you are examining. You can wait till statistical significance is established and then act appropriately. However, if you find yourself in a situation where you need to act prior to taking enough observations to establish statistical significance then the situation is different. If you use Grant's rule you doom yourself to finding out, but only when it is too late to act.
In areas of science other than climate change there is considerable discussion of the statistical "power" of an experiment or study to detect a difference that you are interested in. For instance, in designing surveys, social scientists will work out how large the sample size has to be in order to detect a particular difference (if it happens to exist between sub-groups of the population in the survey) at a given level of statistical significance.
You included an estimate for May 2006 which you cannot, at this time, and is larger than typical April/May increases.
http://www.cmdl.noaa.gov/ccgg/trends/ would appear to indicate.
I'd appreciate a clarification on your May, 2006 estimate.
May isn't over yet. I fail to see how you have shown that your claim has any merit (not the 'alarmist' claim, the 'sensor' claim), nor have you explained/shown/demonstrated how your claim has merit.
I photoshopped the data of 2004 2005 and 2006 on top of each other with reference to January. March 2006 was anomalously low, which yielded an April catch up. So no sensor hickup.
Hans, you said the March low yielded an April catch up. What is catchup without the chips?
Your link gave me only half a graph. Please upload it again. Thank you.
And, The April data was gathered on an hourly basis so I do not understand why an anomalously low March 2006 would yield an April catch up. Seems to me April data would stand alone and not be subject to or related to March data.
And, please stay with me on this. I would like to make some sense of the April 2006 spike or get on to something else.
Hans, your graph did nothing to clarify the interpretation of the Mauna Loa Trends graph depicting the Jan-Apr 2006 data points.
So, I requested the Mauna Loa (MLO) 2005 to May 11, 2006 hourly CO2 data from the NOAA Carbon Cycle Greenhouse Gases Group.
After filtering the data, I tabulated the monthly increase year-to-year. Please note the 2005-2006 data are preliminary and subject to change after thorough quality control by the NOAA group.
……….AV INC………. AV INC………..PRELIM AV.
Granted, the 2005 and Jan-Apr 2006 have not been officially published by NOAA, but the data I present matches the Trends graph at #24.
We can debate the April "spike" following a "March dip". And we can interpret the data however we like as to cause for the huge recent monthly CO2 concentration growth rate (post-2002) above the 42 year monthly averages. But, the trend line remains the primary focus of my concern.
I simply want to turn some attention to observed trends in monthly increased CO2 concentrations in two non-El Nino years.
RC is a marvelous host for brilliant discussions about the high science of global atmospherics but its contributors seem to have difficulty grappling the here-and-now issues like steadily deteriorating Arctic ice sheet (low new ice formation) and its consequences for climatic change in the Central and West NA…the source of our ethanol feedstock (I've yet to read any discussion in RC of simialr concerns as others plow ahead with the positive attributes of alternate fuels.
So, again I ask the question: would we recognize positive feedback if it was staring us in the face?
I am not as interested in models projecting climate sensitivity to 2x CO2 by 2050, or sea level rise in 2100. I am very concerned about US, Indian and China ag production of corn, rice and wheat in 2025 when global CO2 emissions are projected to increase from present 25 billion to 37 billion tons.
My post-it calculations show nearly 450 ppmv CO2 by 2025.
The ongoing Bonn discussions are an opportunity for developing countries to demand more focus on adaptation measures. To island and impoverished nations adaptation measures are as important (yes, vital) as are mitigation measures for future generations.
The developed world is approaching a similar crisis of time to develop means to cope with what we are already experiencing. But, we (and I include the capitalist sector) cannot grasp the fact it is going to get much worse, soon.
Excellent comment sir. My primary work is in green infrastructure, which dovetails with ag and food production. I have your same concerns wrt food and esp distribution. No one talks about whether the soils we are expected to adapt to are suitable for ag., nor whether the infrastructure is in place for the shift (we have lots of infrastructure in place, now, where we are).


text:
Trees and Power Lines
WAPA's Merchant Functions
Facts about WAPACurrently selected
WAPA » Newsroom » Fact sheets » Facts about WAPA
Facts about WAPA
Western Area Power Administration is a federal organization under the Department of Energy that markets and delivers clean, renewable, reliable, cost-based federal hydroelectric power and related services across 15 central and western states.
WAPA's employees work around the clock to sell power and operate and maintain an integrated 17,000-plus circuit mile, high-voltage transmission system that provides wholesale energy to not-for-profit utilities who then provide electricity to more than 40 million people in the West.
WAPA also runs the Transmission Infrastructure Program, which develops and upgrades new and existing electrical infrastructure to facilitate the delivery of renewable generation.
WAPA's mission and vision
OUR MISSION: Safely provide reliable, cost-based hydropower and transmission to our customers and the communities we serve
OUR VISION: Empowering communities, securing a resilient energy future
Functional Responsibilities
Construction – Engineers throughout WAPA are responsible for the construction of new and upgraded transmission lines and related facilities.
Design – WAPA's Design staff provides transmission system engineering services and expertise with an emphasis on substation, transmission line and building designs.
Maintenance – WAPA's Maintenance staff, which makes up more than one-half of WAPA's workforce, focuses on reliability and providing superior customer service in keeping the system in good operating condition.
Natural Resources – The Natural Resources Office is made up of Environment and Lands teams. The Environment team focuses on environmental planning and compliance, National Environmental Policy Act compliance, cultural resources and endangered species issues, and hazardous material transportation. The Lands team assists in the development, acquisition and management of land and land rights required for Western's transmission system.
Planning – WAPA's Planning staff conducts short-and long-term planning studies to assess the impacts to power flows on the transmission system in response to upgraded or new facilities that intend to interconnect to WAPA's grid. They also actively participate in regional planning groups to ensure WAPA's support and involvement in collaborative future planning.
Power Marketing – WAPA primarily markets wholesale federal power.
Power System Operations – WAPA's Power System Operations staff is responsible for the reliable operation of WAPA's transmission system and multiple balancing authorities.
Transmission Infrastructure Program – This WAPA program is responsible for developing transmission and related technology projects to deliver, or facilitate the delivery of, renewable energy. To accomplish this, Congress granted WAPA $3.25 billion in borrowing authority through the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009.
Transmission Marketing – WAPA is also in the business of transmission marketing. After WAPA meets its capacity needs to deliver federal hydropower to its firm power customers, any additional available transmission capacity is sold on WAPA's Open-Access, Same-Time Information System.
WAPA At a Glance - FY 2020


This article also reported as by applying an FPKM >0.1 threshold, we have identified a total of 20,371 genes and 82,996 transcripts expressed in our monocyte datasets.
The part I confused is how to applying an FPKM >0.1 threshold and which file should I applied to (cuffnorm output file: gene.fpkm_table or transcript.gtf file)? And how they identified the amount of protein-coding, non-coding and pseudogene from these 20,371 genes?
There have many article reported their result as how much of total genes and transcripts in their datasets, but I really confused how they obtain it.
This workflow is quiet old. FPKM normalization has repetitively been shown to be non-reliable for differential analysis as it fails to properly account for differences in library composition (see the StatQuest videos on Youtube for a nice and esay-access illustration on FPKM or search PubMed or the web for more scientific literature). Spend quality time reading this guide and this example workflow. As for FPKM thresholds please use google and the search function, this has been asked many times before. Short answer: There is no strict/reliable cutoff. It is also not necessary to prefilter your genes for differential expression as low-count genes will most commonly not be statistically significant. They typically lack the necessary power (= not enough counts). To get information on the type of gene you have to look up the genes in the respective annotation databases, such as GENCODE, RefSeq etc see How to sort genes into coding and non-coding mRNA?
If they are saying they used 0.1 as the cutoff then they probably used that cutoff on the counts table and not the gtf file. There are several arguments about FPKM cutoff and you can look them up on biostars to understand it.
If you want to have an overview of what is in your RNAseq data, I would recommend using Rseqc/Picard. These tools will take your bam files and then give you stats about the number of exons, introns and you can also check if you have any contaminations in your data(like rRNA). If you run multiQC on the folder containing the results from these tools, it compiles the stats from all samples and you can visualize it in a great way. Another way of visualizing your data is to align your bam to a genome browser (something I learnt from a senior and it has been very useful to me in validating DE genes).
You could also do something like require genes to have a certain FPKM threshold for a threshold of samples, which is more like I have here (although that is way messier to look at, and one of the main points is that I think you kind of need to make your own templates to make sure you understand everything that you are doing).
How Do You Justify Your Rna-Seq Expression Threshold (Fpkm/Rpkm) ?
how to make an input file for DAVID Bioinformatics Tool for wheat's RNA seq data?
Bioinformatics analyses & errors: need for better post-publication tools?


text:
Google Books Ruling On Fair Use PDF
jeff_roberts881
100%(1)100% нашли этот документ полезным (1 голос)
137K просмотров
Google Books ruling on fair use.pdf
100%100% нашли этот документ полезным, Отметить этот документ как полезный
СохранитьСохранить «Google Books ruling on fair use.pdf» для последующего чтения
137K просмотров30 страниц
Case 1:05-cv-08136-DC Document 1088
Filed 11/14/13 Page 1 of 30
usnc SDN.l'
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
DOC#:_____
DATE FltEJ):
II 11'1113
THE AUTHORS GUILD, INC., and BETTY MILES, JOSEPH GOULDEN, and JIM BOUTON, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, - against GOOGLE INC., Defendant.
- -x APPEARANCES:
05 Civ. 8136 (DC)
(See last page)
CHIN, Circuit Judge
Since 2004, when it announced agreements with several major research libraries to digitally copy books in their collections, defendant Google Inc. than twenty million books. ("Google") has scanned more
It has delivered digital copies to
participating libraries, created an electronic database of books, and made text available for online searching through the use of "snippets." Many of the books scanned by Google, however, were
under copyright, and Google did not obtain permission from the copyright holders for these usages of their copyrighted works.
As a consequence, in 2005, plaintiffs brought this class action
charging Google with copyright infringement.
Before the Court are the parties' cross-motions for summary judgment with respect to Google's defense of fair use under 107 of the Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. 107. For the
reasons set forth below, Goggle's motion for summary judgment is granted and plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment is denied. Accordingly, judgment will be entered in favor of Google
dismissing the case. BACKGROUND A. The Facts For purposes of this motion, the facts are not in dispute. (See 9/23/13 Tr. 10-11, 15, 25-28 (Doc. No. 1086)).1
They are summarized as follows: 1. The Parties Plaintiff Jim Bouton, the former pitcher for the New York Yankees, is the legal or beneficial owner of the U.S. copyright in the book Ball Four. Plaintiff Betty Miles is the
legal or beneficial owner of the U.S. copyright in the book The Trouble with Thirteen. Plaintiff Joseph Goulden is the legal or
beneficial owner of the U.S. copyright in the book The
When pressed at oral argument to identify any factual issues that would preclude the award of summary judgment, plaintiffs' counsel was unable to do so. (Id. at 25-26).
Superlawyers:
The Small and Powerful World of the Great (Google Resp. 1-3).2 All three books
Washington Law Firms.
have been scanned by Google and are available for search on Google's website, without plaintiffs' permission. 4). (Google Resp.
Plaintiff The Authors Guild, Inc., is the nation's largest
organization of published authors and it advocates for and supports the copyright and contractual interests of published writers. (Google Resp. 7-8). Google owns and operates the largest Internet search engine in the world. (Google Resp. 9). Each day, millions of
people use Google's search engine free of charge; commercial and other entities pay to display ads on Google's websites and on other websites that contain Google ads. (Google Resp. 10).
Google is a for-profit entity, and for the year ended December 31, 2011, it reported over $36.5 billion in advertising revenues. (Google Resp. 11).
"Google Resp." refers to Google's Responses and Objections to plaintiffs' Statement of Undisputed Facts in Support of Their Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (Doc. No. 1077). "Pl. Resp." refers to plaintiffs' Response to Google's Local Rule 56.1 Statement (Doc. No. 1071). I have relied on the parties' responses to the statements of undisputed facts only to the extent that factual statements were not controverted.
The Google Books Project In 2004, Google announced two digital books programs.
The first, initially called "Google Print" and later renamed the "Partner Program," involved the "hosting" and display of material provided by book publishers or other rights holders. Resp. 13, 14). (Google
The second became known as the "Library
Project," and over time it involved the digital scanning of books in the collections of the New York Public Library, the Library of Congress, and a number of university libraries. (Clancy Decl.
5 (Doc. No. 1035); Google Resp. 25, 26, 27; Pl. Resp. 14). The Partner Program and the Library Project together comprise the Google Books program ("Google Books"). Resp. 15). (Google
All types of books are encompassed, including
novels, biographies, children's books, reference works, textbooks, instruction manuals, treatises, dictionaries, cookbooks, poetry books, and memoirs. Decl. 4 (Doc. No. 1041)). (Pl. Resp. 6; Jaskiewicz
Some 93% of the books are Both in-print
non-fiction while approximately 7% are fiction.3
These estimates are based on studies of the contents of the libraries involved. (Def. Mem. at 7 (Doc. No. 1032) (citing Brian Lavoie and Lorcan Dempsey, Beyond 1923: Characteristics of Potentially In-Copyright Print Books in Library Collections, 15D-Lib 11/12 (2009), available at http://www.dlib.org/dlib/ november09/lavoie/11lavoie.html (last visited November 12,
and out-of-print books are included, although the great majority are out-of-print. (Jaskiewicz Decl. 4).
In the Partner Program, works are displayed with permission of the rights holders. (Google Resp. 16). The
Partner Program is aimed at helping publishers sell books and helping books become discovered. (Google Resp. 18).
Initially, Google shared revenues from ads with publishers or other rights holders in certain circumstances. In 2011, however,
Google stopped displaying ads in connection with all books. (Google Resp. 17, 21; Dougall Decl. 5-8 (Doc. No. 1076)). Partners provide Google with a printed copy of their books for scanning, or a digital copy if one already exists. 19). (Google Resp.
Partners decide how much of their books -- from a few (Google Resp.
sample pages to the entire book -- are browsable. 20).
As of early 2012, the Partner Program included
approximately 2.5 million books, with the consent of some 45,000 rights holders. (Google Resp. 24).
As for the Library Project, Google has scanned more than twenty million books, in their entirety, using newlydeveloped scanning technology. 2013)). 26). (Google Resp. 28, 29). (See 9/23/2013 Tr. at
The numbers are not disputed. -5-
Pursuant to their agreement with Google, participating libraries can download a digital copy of each book scanned from their collections. (Google Resp. 30). Google has provided digital
copies of millions of these books to the libraries, in accordance with these agreements. (Google Resp. 85). Some libraries
agreed to allow Google to scan only public domain works, while others allowed Google to scan in-copyright works as well. (Google Resp. 36). Google creates more than one copy of each book it scans from the library collections, and it maintains digital copies of each book on its servers and back-up tapes. 41). (Google Resp. 40,
Participating libraries have downloaded digital copies of (Google Resp.
in-copyright books scanned from their collections. 53, 54).
They may not obtain a digital copy created from (Jaskiewicz Decl. 6, 8). The
another library's book.
libraries agree to abide by the copyright laws with respect to the copies they make. (Clancy Decl. 5).
Google did not seek or obtain permission from the copyright holders to digitally copy or display verbatim expressions from in-copyright books. (Google Resp. 53, 54).
Google has not compensated copyright holders for its copying of or displaying of verbatim expression from in-copyright books or -6-
its making available to libraries for downloading of digital copies of in-copyright books scanned from their collections. (Google Resp. 55). 3. Google Books In scanning books for its Library Project, including in-copyright books, Google uses optical character recognition technology to generate machine-readable text, compiling a digital copy of each book. (Google Resp. 62; Pl. Resp. 18; Google analyzes each scan and creates an The index links each word or
Jaskiewicz Decl. 3).
overall index of all scanned books.
phrase appearing in each book with all of the locations in all of the books in which that word or phrase is found. The index
allows a search for a particular word or phrase to return a result that includes the most relevant books in which the word or phrase is found. (Clancy Decl. 6; Pl. Resp. 22-26).
Because the full texts of books are digitized, a user can search the full text of all the books in the Google Books corpus. (Clancy Decl. 7; Google Resp. 42). Users of Google's search engine may conduct searches, using queries of their own design. (Pl. Resp. 10). In
response to inquiries, Google returns a list of books in which the search term appears. (Clancy Decl. 8). -7A user can click
on a particular result to be directed to an "About the Book" page, which will provide the user with information about the book in question. The page includes links to sellers of the books
and/or libraries that list the book as part of their collections. No advertisements have ever appeared on any About the Book page that is part of the Library Project. (Clancy Decl. 9).
For books in "snippet view" (in contrast to "full view" books), Google divides each page into eighths -- each of which is a "snippet," a verbatim excerpt. (Google Resp. 43, 44). Each
search generates three snippets, but by performing multiple searches using different search terms, a single user may view far more than three snippets, as different searches can return different snippets. (Google Resp. 45). For example, by making
a series of consecutive, slightly different searches of the book Ball Four, a single user can view many different snippets from the book. (Google Resp. 46, 47). Google takes security measures to prevent users from viewing a complete copy of a snippet-view book. For example, a
user cannot cause the system to return different sets of snippets for the same search query; the position of each snippet is fixed within the page and does not "slide" around the search term; only the first responsive snippet available on any given page will be -8-
returned in response to a query; one of the snippets on each page is "black-listed," meaning it will not be shown; and at least one out of ten entire pages in each book is black-listed. Resp. 48-50; Pl. Resp. 35, 37-40). (Google
An "attacker" who tries
to obtain an entire book by using a physical copy of the book to string together words appearing in successive passages would be able to obtain at best a patchwork of snippets that would be missing at least one snippet from every page and 10% of all pages. (Pl. Resp. 41). In addition, works with text organized
in short "chunks," such as dictionaries, cookbooks, and books of haiku, are excluded from snippet view. 4. (Pl. Resp. 42).
The Benefits of the Library Project and Google Books The benefits of the Library Project are many. First,
Google Books provides a new and efficient way for readers and researchers to find books. (See, e.g., Clancy Decl. Ex. G). It
makes tens of millions of books searchable by words and phrases. It provides a searchable index linking each word in any book to all books in which that word appears. (Clancy Decl. 7).
Google Books has become an essential research tool, as it helps librarians identify and find research sources, it makes the process of interlibrary lending more efficient, and it -9-
Filed 11/14/13 Page 10 of 30
facilitates finding and checking citations.
(Br. of Amici Curiae Indeed,
American Library Ass'n et al. at 4-7 (Doc. No. 1048)).
Google Books has become such an important tool for researchers and librarians that it has been integrated into the educational system -- it is taught as part of the information literacy curriculum to students at all levels. (Id. at 7).
Second, in addition to being an important reference tool, Google Books greatly promotes a type of research referred to as "data mining" or "text mining." (Br. of Digital Humanities Google
and Law Scholars as Amici Curiae at 1 (Doc. No. 1052)).
Books permits humanities scholars to analyze massive amounts of data -- the literary record created by a collection of tens of millions of books. Researchers can examine word frequencies,
syntactic patterns, and thematic markers to consider how literary style has changed over time. (Id. at 8-9; Clancy Decl. 15).
Using Google Books, for example, researchers can track the frequency of references to the United States as a single entity ("the United States is") versus references to the United States in the plural ("the United States are") and how that usage has changed over time. (Id. at 7). The ability to determine how
often different words or phrases appear in books at different times "can provide insights about fields as diverse as -10-
lexicography, the evolution of grammar, collective memory, the adoption of technology, the pursuit of fame, censorship, and historical epidemiology." Jean-Baptiste Michel et al.,
Quantitative Analysis of Culture Using Millions of Digitized Books, 331 Science 176, 176 (2011) (Clancy Decl. Ex. H). Third, Google Books expands access to books. In
particular, traditionally underserved populations will benefit as they gain knowledge of and access to far more books. Google
Books provides print-disabled individuals with the potential to search for books and read them in a format that is compatible with text enlargement software, text-to-speech screen access software, and Braille devices. Digitization facilitates the
conversion of books to audio and tactile formats, increasing access for individuals with disabilities. (Letter from Marc
Maurer, President of the National Federation for the Blind, to J. Michael McMahon, Office of the Clerk (Jan. 19, 2010) (Doc. No. 858)). Google Books facilitates the identification and access of
materials for remote and underfunded libraries that need to make efficient decisions as to which resources to procure for their own collections or through interlibrary loans. Curiae American Library Ass'n at 5-6). (Br. of Amici
Fourth, Google Books helps to preserve books and give them new life. Older books, many of which are out-of-print books
that are falling apart buried in library stacks, are being scanned and saved. See Authors Guild v. Google Inc., 770 F. These books will now be
Supp. 2d 666, 670 (S.D.N.Y. 2011).
available, at least for search, and potential readers will be alerted to their existence. Finally, by helping readers and researchers identify books, Google Books benefits authors and publishers. When a user
clicks on a search result and is directed to an "About the Book" page, the page will offer links to sellers of the book and/or libraries listing the book as part of their collections. Decl. 9). (Clancy
The About the Book page for Ball Four, for example,
provides links to Amazon.com, Barnes&Noble.com, Books-A-Million, and IndieBound. (See Def. Mem. at 9). A user could simply click
on any of these links to be directed to a website where she could purchase the book. Hence, Google Books will generate new
audiences and create new sources of income. As amici observe: "Thanks to . . . [Google Books],
librarians can identify and efficiently sift through possible research sources, amateur historians have access to a wealth of previously obscure material, and everyday readers and researchers -12-
can find books that were once buried in research library archives." B. (Br. of Amici Curiae American Library Ass'n at 3).
Procedural History Plaintiffs commenced this action on September 20, 2005,
alleging, inter alia, that Google committed copyright infringement by scanning copyrighted books and making them available for search without permission of the copyright holders. From the outset, Google's principal defense was fair use under 107 of the Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. 107. After extensive negotiations, the parties entered into a proposed settlement resolving plaintiffs' claims on a classwide basis. On March 22, 2011, I issued an opinion rejecting the
proposed settlement on the grounds that it was not fair, adequate, and reasonable. Authors Guild v. Google Inc., 770 F.
Supp. 2d 666 (S.D.N.Y. 2011). Thereafter, the parties engaged in further settlement discussions, but they were unable to reach agreement. The
parties proposed and I accepted a schedule that called for the filing of plaintiffs' class certification motion, the completion of discovery, and then the filing of summary judgment motions. (See 9/16/11 Order (Doc. No. 982)). Plaintiffs filed a fourth
amended class action complaint (the "Complaint") on October 14, -13-
(Doc. No. 985).
While the dates in the schedule were
subsequently extended, the sequence of events was retained, with the class certification motion to precede the summary judgment motions, and adding dates for Google's filing of a motion to dismiss the Authors Guild's claims. (See, e.g., 1/17/12 Order
(Doc. No. 996); 3/28/12 Order (Doc. No. 1007)). Plaintiffs filed their class certification motion and Google filed its motion to dismiss the Authors Guild's claims. On May 31, 2012, I issued an opinion denying Google's motion to dismiss and granting the individual plaintiffs' motion for class certification. (S.D.N.Y. 2012). On June 9, 2012, I issued an order re-setting the briefing schedule for the summary judgment motions. Order (Doc. No. 1028)). (6/19/12 Authors Guild v. Google Inc., 282 F.R.D. 384
The parties thereafter filed the instant Before the motions were
cross-motions for summary judgment.
fully submitted, however, the Second Circuit issued an order on September 17, 2012, staying these proceedings pending an interlocutory appeal by Google from my decision granting class certification. (9/17/12 Order (Doc. No. 1063)).
On July 1, 2013, without deciding the merits of the appeal, the Second Circuit vacated my class certification -14-
decision, concluding that "resolution of Google's fair use defense in the first instance will necessarily inform and perhaps moot our analysis of many class certification issues." Authors
Guild, Inc. v. Google Inc., 721 F.3d 132, 134 (2d Cir. 2013). The Second Circuit remanded the case "for consideration of the fair use issues." Id. at 135.
On remand, the parties completed the briefing of the summary judgment motions. 2013. I heard oral argument on September 23,
I now rule on the motions. DISCUSSION For purposes of these motions, I assume that plaintiffs
have established a prima facie case of copyright infringement against Google under 17 U.S.C. 106. See Feist Publ'ns, Inc. v. Google has
Rural Tel. Serv. Co., 499 U.S. 340, 361 (1991).
digitally reproduced millions of copyrighted books, including the individual plaintiffs' books, maintaining copies for itself on its servers and backup tapes. See 17 U.S.C. 106(1) Google has made digital
(prohibiting unauthorized reproduction).
copies available for its Library Project partners to download. See 17 U.S.C. 106(3) (prohibiting unauthorized distribution). Google has displayed snippets from the books to the public. 17 U.S.C. 106(5) (prohibiting unauthorized display). -15See
has done all of this, with respect to in-copyright books in the Library Project, without license or permission from the copyright owners. The sole issue now before the Court is whether Google's
use of the copyrighted works is "fair use" under the copyright laws. A. For the reasons set forth below, I conclude that it is.
Applicable Law Fair use is a defense to a claim of copyright
infringement.
The doctrine permits the fair use of copyrighted
works "to fulfill copyright's very purpose, '[t]o promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts.'" Campbell v. Acuff-Rose
Music, Inc., 510 U.S. 569, 575 (1994) (quoting U.S. Const., Art. I, 8, cl. 8)); accord Cariou v. Prince, 714 F.3d 694, 705 (2d Cir. 2013). Copyright law seeks to achieve that purpose by
providing sufficient protection to authors and inventors to stimulate creative activity, while at the same time permitting others to utilize protected works to advance the progress of the arts and sciences. See Eldred v. Ashcroft, 537 U.S. 186, 212
(2003); Blanch v. Koons, 467 F.3d 244, 250 (2d Cir. 2006); Hon. Pierre N. Leval, Toward a Fair Use Standard, 103 Harv. L. Rev. 1105, 1107-08 (1990). As the Supreme Court has held, "[f]rom the
infancy of copyright protection, some opportunity for fair use of copyrighted materials has been thought necessary to fulfill -16-
copyright's very purpose."
Campbell, 510 U.S. at 575; see also
Harper & Row Publishers, Inc. v. Nation Enters., 471 U.S. 539, 560 (1985) (recognizing "the latitude for scholarship and comment traditionally afforded by fair use"). The fair use doctrine is codified in 107 of the Copyright Act, which provides in relevant part as follows: [T]he fair use of a copyrighted work, . . . for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include -(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes; (2) the nature of the copyrighted work; (3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and (4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work. 17 U.S.C. 107. The determination of fair use is "an open-ended and context-sensitive inquiry," Blanch v. Koons, 467 F.3d at 251, and -17-
thus the fair use doctrine calls for "case-by-case analysis," Campbell, 510 U.S. at 577; see also Harper & Row, 471 U.S. at 553. The four factors enumerated in the statute are
non-exclusive and provide only "general guidance"; they are to be explored and weighed together, "in light of the purposes of copyright." at 560-61. Campbell, 510 U.S. at 578-79; Harper & Row, 471 U.S. As fair use is an affirmative defense to a claim of
copyright infringement, the proponent carries the burden of proof as to all issues in dispute. Am. Geophysical Union v. Texaco
Inc., 60 F.3d 913, 918 (2d Cir. 1994); see also Campbell, 510 U.S. at 590. A key consideration is whether, as part of the inquiry into the first factor, the use of the copyrighted work is "transformative," that is, whether the new work merely "supersedes" or "supplants" the original creation, or whether it: instead adds something new, with a further purpose or different character, altering the first with new expression, meaning, or message; it asks, in other words, whether and to what extent the new work is "transformative." Campbell, 510 U.S. at 579 (quoting Leval, Toward a Fair Use Standard, 103 Harv. L. Rev. at 1111); accord Bill Graham Archives v. Dorling Kindersley Ltd., 448 F.3d 605, 608 (2d Cir. 2006) -18-
("Most important to the court's analysis of the first factor is 'transformative' nature of the work."); Am. Geophysical Union, 60 F.3d at 923. Although transformative use is not "absolutely
necessary" to a finding of fair use, "the goal of copyright, to promote science and the arts, is generally furthered by the creation of transformative works." B. Application I discuss each of the four factors separately, and I then weigh them together. 1. Purpose and Character of Use The first factor is "the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes." 17 U.S.C. 107(1). Campbell, 510 U.S. at 579.
Google's use of the copyrighted works is highly transformative. Google Books digitizes books and transforms
expressive text into a comprehensive word index that helps readers, scholars, researchers, and others find books. Google
Books has become an important tool for libraries and librarians and cite-checkers as it helps to identify and find books. The
use of book text to facilitate search through the display of snippets is transformative. See Perfect 10, Inc. v. Amazon.com,
Inc., 508 F.3d 1146, 1168 (9th Cir. 2007) (holding that use of -19-
works -- "thumbnail images," including copyrighted photographs -- to facilitate search was "transformative"); Kelly
v. Arriba Soft Corp., 336 F.3d 811 (9th Cir. 2003) (same); see also Bill Graham Archives, 448 F.3d at 609-11 (holding that display of images of posters in 480-page cultural history of the Grateful Dead was transformative, explaining that "[w]hile the small size [of the images of the posters] is sufficient to permit readers to recognize the historial significance of the posters, it is inadequate to offer more than a glimpse of their expressive value"). The display of snippets of text for search is similar
to the display of thumbnail images of photographs for search or small images of concert posters for reference to past events, as the snippets help users locate books and determine whether they may be of interest. Google Books thus uses words for a different
purpose -- it uses snippets of text to act as pointers directing users to a broad selection of books. Similarly, Google Books is also transformative in the sense that it has transformed book text into data for purposes of substantive research, including data mining and text mining in new areas, thereby opening up new fields of research. Words in
books are being used in a way they have not been used before. Google Books has created something new in the use of book -20-
text -- the frequency of words and trends in their usage provide substantive information. Google Books does not supersede or supplant books because it is not a tool to be used to read books. Instead, it
"adds value to the original" and allows for "the creation of new information, new aesthetics, new insights and understandings." Leval, Toward a Fair Use Standard, 103 Harv. L. Rev. at 1111. Hence, the use is transformative. It is true, of course, as plaintiffs argue, that Google is a for-profit entity and Google Books is largely a commercial enterprise. The fact that a use is commercial "tends to weigh Harper & Row, 471 U.S. at 562; On the other hand, fair use
against a finding of fair use." accord Campbell, 510 U.S. at 585.
has been found even where a defendant benefitted commercially from the unlicensed use of copyrighted works. See, e.g., Blanch, See also
467 F.3d at 253; Bill Graham Archives, 448 F.3d at 612.
Castle Rock Entm't, Inc. v. Carol Publ'g Grp., Inc., 150 F.3d 132, 142 (2d Cir. 1998) (observing that Second Circuit does "not give much weight to the fact that the secondary use was for commercial gain"). Here, Google does not sell the scans it has
made of books for Google Books; it does not sell the snippets that it displays; and it does not run ads on the About the Book -21-
pages that contain snippets.
It does not engage in the direct See 17 U.S.C. 107(1).
commercialization of copyrighted works.
Google does, of course, benefit commercially in the sense that users are drawn to the Google websites by the ability to search Google Books. While this is a consideration to be acknowledged
in weighing all the factors, even assuming Google's principal motivation is profit, the fact is that Google Books serves several important educational purposes. Accordingly, I conclude that the first factor strongly favors a finding of fair use. 2. Nature of Copyrighted Works The second factor is "the nature of the copyrighted work." 17 U.S.C. 107(2).4 Here, the works are books -- all
types of published books, fiction and non-fiction, in-print and out-of-print. While works of fiction are entitled to greater
copyright protection, Stewart v. Abend, 495 U.S. 207, 237 (1990), here the vast majority of the books in Google Books are non-fiction. Further, the books at issue are published and
The parties agree that the second factor plays little role in the ultimate fair use determination. (Pl. Mem. at 36 n.18 (Doc. No. 1050); Def. Mem. at 25). See On Davis v. Gap, Inc., 246 F.3d 152, 175 (2d Cir. 2001) ("The second statutory factor, the nature of the copyrighted work, is rarely found to be determinative.") (internal citation omitted).
available to the public. fair use.
These considerations favor a finding of
See Arica Inst., Inc. v. Palmer, 970 F.2d 1067, 1078
(2d Cir. 1992) ("Whether or not a work is published is critical to its nature under factor two because the scope of fair use is narrower with respect to unpublished works.") (quoting New Era Publ'ns Intern., ApS v. Carol Publg Grp., 904 F.2d 152, 157 (2d Cir. 1990) (internal quotation marks ommitted)). 3. Amount and Substantiality of Portion Used The third factor is "the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole." 17 U.S.C. 107(3). Google scans the full text of books -- the On the other
entire books -- and it copies verbatim expression.
hand, courts have held that copying the entirety of a work may still be fair use. See, e.g., Sony Corp. of Am. v. Universal
City Studios, Inc., 464 U.S. 417, 449-50 (1984); Bill Graham Archives, 448 F.3d at 613 ("copying the entirety of a work is sometimes necessary to make a fair use of the image"). Here, as
one of the keys to Google Books is its offering of full-text search of books, full-work reproduction is critical to the functioning of Google Books. Significantly, Google limits the
amount of text it displays in response to a search.
On balance, I conclude that the third factor weighs slightly against a finding of fair use. 4. Effect of Use Upon Potential Market or Value The fourth factor is "the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work." U.S.C. 107(4). 17
Here, plaintiffs argue that Google Books will
negatively impact the market for books and that Google's scans will serve as a "market replacement" for books. 41). (Pl. Mem. at
It also argues that users could put in multiple searches,
varying slightly the search terms, to access an entire book. (9/23/13 Tr. at 6). Neither suggestion makes sense. Google does not sell While partner
its scans, and the scans do not replace the books.
libraries have the ability to download a scan of a book from their collections, they owned the books already -- they provided the original book to Google to scan. Nor is it likely that
someone would take the time and energy to input countless searches to try and get enough snippets to comprise an entire book. Not only is that not possible as certain pages and
snippets are blacklisted, the individual would have to have a copy of the book in his possession already to be able to piece the different snippets together in coherent fashion. -24-
To the contrary, a reasonable factfinder could only find that Google Books enhances the sales of books to the benefit of copyright holders. An important factor in the success of an
individual title is whether it is discovered -- whether potential readers learn of its existence. 1039)). (Harris Decl. 7 (Doc. No.
Google Books provides a way for authors' works to become (Id. at
noticed, much like traditional in-store book displays. 14-15).
Indeed, both librarians and their patrons use Google (Br. of Amici Curiae
Books to identify books to purchase. American Library Ass'n at 8).
Many authors have noted that
online browsing in general and Google Books in particular helps readers find their work, thus increasing their audiences. Further, Google provides convenient links to booksellers to make it easy for a reader to order a book. In this day and age of
on-line shopping, there can be no doubt but that Google Books improves books sales. Hence, I conclude that the fourth factor weighs strongly in favor of a finding of fair use. 5. Overall Assessment Finally, the various non-exclusive statutory factors are to be weighed together, along with any other relevant considerations, in light of the purposes of the copyright laws. -25-
In my view, Google Books provides significant public benefits. It advances the progress of the arts and sciences,
while maintaining respectful consideration for the rights of authors and other creative individuals, and without adversely impacting the rights of copyright holders. It has become an
invaluable research tool that permits students, teachers, librarians, and others to more efficiently identify and locate books. It has given scholars the ability, for the first time, to It
conduct full-text searches of tens of millions of books.
preserves books, in particular out-of-print and old books that have been forgotten in the bowels of libraries, and it gives them new life. It facilitates access to books for print-disabled and It generates new audiences
remote or underserved populations.
and creates new sources of income for authors and publishers. Indeed, all society benefits. Similarly, Google is entitled to summary judgment with respect to plaintiffs' claims based on the copies of scanned books made available to libraries. Even assuming plaintiffs have
demonstrated a prima facie case of copyright infringement, Google's actions constitute fair use here as well. Google
provides the libraries with the technological means to make digital copies of books that they already own. -26The purpose of
the library copies is to advance the libraries' lawful uses of the digitized books consistent with the copyright law. The
libraries then use these digital copies in transformative ways. They create their own full-text searchable indices of books, maintain copies for purposes of preservation, and make copies available to print-disabled individuals, expanding access Google's actions in providing
for them in unprecedented ways.
the libraries with the ability to engage in activities that advance the arts and sciences constitute fair use. To the extent plaintiffs are asserting a theory of secondary liability against Google, the theory fails because the libraries' actions are protected by the fair use doctrine. Indeed, in the HathiTrust case, Judge Baer held that the libraries' conduct was fair use. See Authors Guild, Inc. v.
HathiTrust, 902 F. Supp. 2d 445, 460-61, 464 (S.D.N.Y. 2012) ("I cannot imagine a definition of fair use that would not encompass the transformative uses made by Defendants' [Mass Digitization Project] and would require that I terminate this invaluable contribution to the progress of science and cultivation of the arts that at the same time effectuates the ideals espoused by the [Americans with Disabilities Act]."). The fair use analysis set
forth above with respect to Google Books applies here as well to the libraries' use of their scans, and if there is no liability for copyright infringement on the libraries' part, there can be no liability on Google's part.
For the reasons set forth above, plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment is denied and Google's motion for summary judgment is granted. Judgment will be entered in favor Google shall submit a
of Google dismissing the Complaint.
proposed judgment, on notice, within five business days hereof. SO ORDERED. Dated: November 14, 2013 New York, New York
\.
United States Circuit Judge Sitting By Designation
APPEARANCES For Plaintiffs: BONI & ZACK LLC By: Michael J. Boni, Esq, Joshua D. Snyder, Esq. John E. Sindoni, Esq. 15 St. Asaphs Road Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004 FRANKFURT KURNIT KLEIN & SELZ P.C. By: Edward H. Rosenthal, Esq. Jeremy S. Goldman, Esq. 488 Madison Avenue New York, NY 10022 MILBERG LLP By: Sanford P. Dumain, Esq. 1 Pennsylvania Plaza New York, NY 10119
For Defendant Google, Inc. DURIE TANGRI LLP By: Daralyn J. Durie, Esq. Joseph C. Gratz, Esq. David McGowan, Esq. Genevieve P. Rosloff, Esq. 217 Leidesdorff Street San Francisco, CA 94111
For Amicus Curiae Digital Humanities and Law Scholars: SAMUELSON LAW, TECHNOLOGY & PUBLIC POLICY CLINIC By: Jennifer M. Urban, Esq. Babak Siavoshy, Esq. Jason Schultz, Esq. University of California, Berkeley, School of Law 396 Simon Hall Berkeley, CA 94720 - and Matthew Sag, Esq. Loyola University of Chicago School of Law 25 East Pearson Street Chicago, IL 60611 For Amicus Curiae American Library Association, Association of College and Research Libraries, Association of Research Libraries, and Electronic Frontier Foundation: JONATHAN BAND PLLC By: Jonathan Band, Esq. 21 Dupont Circle, NW Washington, DC 20036
Добросовестное использование
Google Книги
Сводная оценка
Класс действий
Judge Denny Chin Google Books opinion 2013-11-14.pdf
CNET News
Summary judgment order in Authors Guild v. Google (Google Books)
Fred Von Lohmann
Google Settlement Rejection Filing
Google vs Authors Guild Opinion Oct 16 2015
IDG News Service
THE AUTHORS GUILD
Anne Janelle Guan
The Google Book Settlement
Vyacheslav Perjar
Competitive Enterprise Institute Letter Regarding Google Book Settlement
ryancradia
Case 1:05 Cv 08136 DC
LibraryJournal
mycase_ebook_guide-to-using-google-scholar-ebook.pdf
Google Library Project
rakesh_t
fair use library essay
Testing the Boundaries of Copyright Protection_ The Google Books.pdf
zuhura
jovy masangkay
'yvoj' Pintor Masangkay
O'Kroley v. Fastcase, Google - 6th Circuit.pdf
Mark Jaffe
Final Ingles Tecnico 1 UTN
German Burgardt
Google's Subversive Influence Over American Democracy_FINAL
Laura Marie Carroll
5 Ways The Google Book Settlement Will Change The Future of Reading by Annalee Newitz
jlchulilla
Chapter 6 Google Book Search Library Project.pptx
Thoughts on Copyright Reform
DCN Google Data Collection Paper
Version2dk
11-08-05 Oracle Google Joint Letter Re Lindholm
Florian Mueller
Case Comment on Google v. Equustek
Rajwant Singh Bamel
Documents and More
vfdvfdv
Memo in Support of Protective Order by MS AG Jim Hood 021116
yallpolitics
Rojas-Lozano v. Google - CAPTCHA Privacy Opinion
[Aula-17.08]SAMUELSON, Pamela. Preliminary toughts on copyright reform. (1)
Artur Guerra
Bibliogifts in LibGen? A study of a text-sharing platform driven by biblioleaks and crowdsourcing
aristotelesdicler
Ethical Considerations of Court-Ordered Disclosures of Litigant-Sponsored Law Bloggers
joshualoveall
History of Google
maheshbabuhere
Law On News Aggregators
Sergey Matyunin
D.E. 1 - FTX Class Action Complaint and Demand for Jury Trial
FINAL_Tornado Cash Complaint
Ripple v SEC procedural doc
Coinbase Regulatory Framework Final
Coinbase class action
Jarrett - DRAFT Complaint 05-18-2021
Coinbase Murder
Silk Road Order
Preliminary Statement to Ripple Answer 1.27.20
FOIA Letter
Binance complaint
FB Biometrics Filing
ECF 1 - Complaint - 20-Cv-2747
Defendants' Motion to Dismiss
2019-09-09 Filed Opinion [Dckt ]
Coinbase--Order Denying Mot to Compel, Mot to Dismiss in Part--8!6!19
11-7-18 Letter to Judge Irizarry Requesting Pre-Motion Conference (Filed) (00168166xDE802)[1]
FB Class Action
Ripple XRP Contract
Ripple Counterclaim
Tax Cuts and Jobs Act -- Full Text
WJ Editorial Staff
Manafort Indictment
Katie Pavlich
Shutterfly Ruling
Palin v NY Times - Opinion and Order Dismissing Lawsuit
Coinbase IRS Ruling
Coinbase Summons Details
Narrowed Summons
Eichenwald
Auman v. Confide - Filed Complaint
Anth 110 Syllabus - 2014
John Joseph Crandall
SHS Media-lnformation-Literacy Q1 Wk4 Day15
Leoben Rey Cagande
Copyright Disclaimer under fair use. for youtube
Warriorpoet
Copyright and Cultural Institutions
Erick Ungarelli
Iantosca v. Elie Tahari - Order
The Fashion Law
Attwood Meltdowns
Gyorgyi Boros
UT Dallas Syllabus for econ4351.501.09s taught by James Murdoch (murdoch)
UT Dallas Provost's Technology Group
MIL Q1 M6 Intellectual-Property-Guidelines-3 (1)
Aadi Reyes
IPR topics
deepak singhal
Desarrollo de Aplicaciones en Microsoft Excel 12 Casos Pr Cticos Resueltos Paso a Paso 91 to 101
aditesi
Intellectual Property Code (RA No. 8293)
Lizzy Way
Handout3
Rey Salomon
3x3 Process
Bharathi Sreenivasulu
The Auschwitz Album
ecalzo
MODULE 10 - Geometric Applications
Jan Dee
Book Review-Teaching as Jesus Taught
JohnPaul Devakumar
Forex Pros Secret System User Manual
Alvin Cardona
copyright quiz
IPR Copyright
ridhimaamit
Black women's wisdom-Eboni Marshall.pdf
Toronto Computers Lawyers Group (2006-2007)
barry sookman
from other lands, the psalter (Orate Fratres).pdf
Monachus Ignotus
Semeia 18 (1980), the Myth Semantics of Genesis
Keung Jae Lee
Copyright Brochure
Jmerge4
GEC4 BSN1B
Viking_Age_11_Kingship_Christianity_and_Coinage_Gareth_Williams.pdf
David Taylor
Intellectual Property Law Outline
Kristi Pickens
Las_negociaciones_en_el_mundo_3_T_cticas_de_las_negociaciones_internacionales (1).pdf
RossanaGR
Anonymous h3uZzWZS
Queer Ecologies Sex Nature Politics Desire Chapter 12
Vadim Goncharov
The Library Book
Susan Orlean
Research Methods for Students, Academics and Professionals: Information Management and Systems
Kirsty Williamson
BiblioCraft: A Modern Crafter's Guide to Using Library Resources to Jumpstart Creative Projects
Pigza Jessica
Legal Forms for Everyone: Leases, Home Sales, Avoiding Probate, Living Wills, Trusts, Divorce, Copyrights, and Much More
Carl W. Battle
Sprint: How to Solve Big Problems and Test New Ideas in Just Five Days
Jake Knapp
Legal Guide for the Visual Artist
Tad Crawford
Slave Songs of the United States
CSPacademic
AdWords Secret Hacks Revealed: Killer Google AdWords Tips & Why They'll Crush Your Competition
Phil Adair
The Catalogue of Shipwrecked Books: Christopher Columbus, His Son, and the Quest to Build the World's Greatest Library
Edward Wilson-Lee
I Work at a Public Library: A Collection of Crazy Stories from the Stacks
Gina Sheridan
How To Build a Business Website
Keith Jennison
SEO for WordPress: How To Get Your Website on Page #1 of Google...Fast! [2nd Edition]
Kent Mauresmo
The Writer's Legal Guide, Fourth Edition
Sourcebook for Research in Music, Third Edition
Allen Scott
Intellectual Property Law: A Practical Guide to Copyrights, Patents, Trademarks and Trade Secrets
Victor D. Lopez
Google Adsense Secrets: What Google Never Told You About Making Money with Adsense
A B Lawal
SEO Master Using the Power of Wordpress: Build Your SEO Website from Scratch Using WordPress. Make Your Website Rank #1 On Google's Search Results Page
Konstantinos Kreouzis
Google AdWords For Dummies
Howie Jacobson
An Introduction to Library Science
Pierce Butler
Knapp, Zeratsky & Kowitz's Sprint: How to Solve Big Problems and Test New Ideas in Just Five Days | Summary
Ant Hive Media
Copy & Sell Vintage Photographs for Massive Profit Margins on eBay, Amazon, Etsy & Countless Other Websites
Avril Harper
Google Talking
Joshua Brashars
The Complete Guide to Patents, Copyrights, and Trademarks: What You Need to Know Explained Simply
Matthew Cole
Adobe Lightroom Classic CC: Mastering the Library Module
Robin Whalley
Web Marketing & SEO: Google DOs & Google DON'Ts
Brian Stephens
Encyclopedia of Canadian Social Work
Wilfrid Laurier University Press
The Google Resume: How to Prepare for a Career and Land a Job at Apple, Microsoft, Google, or any Top Tech Company
Gayle Laakmann McDowell
Library Classification Trends in the 21st Century
Rajendra Kumbhar
Library 3.0: Intelligent Libraries and Apomediation
Tom Kwanya


Breitbart: The federal government's Fourth National Climate Assessment, released on Friday, has gained praise from leftists and left-wing environmental groups as a dire warning of the coming death and destruction in the United States if we don't stop global warming.
Opinion: Now I know why my progressive friend sent me a rather panicked email saying he is "truly frightened" by climate reports.
The federal government's Fourth National Climate Assessment is a well-timed prelude to the Katowice Poland (here) Climate Change Conference coming December 2-14, 2018 by the climate wackos at the UN.
One thing we now know for sure, the progressives at the UN, EU, and the Vatican will not let up on their cause no matter how much data is presented to the contrary. Every snow storm, hurricane, fire and earthquake becomes a cause célèbre, with demands that the lone superpower destroy its economy while the world's biggest polluter, China, gets off agreeing to cut emissions in 2030 or so.
Draconian climate change laws combined with gun confiscation, a state religion, government approved digital currency, and implanted national IDs may be all a future dictator needs to trample the earth (Daniel 7:23).
I wonder if there is a way to explain a sudden event, like the disappearance of millions, on the climate?
The disappearance of millions of people? Climate change!!! (lol :>O))), or maybe…aliens took em!