text:
Climate Alarmism at Science Magazine?
I feel obliged to begin this piece with a disclaimer. I am not a climate sceptic.
That said, I believe that the case for climate change, and action on climate change, should be made with good science and honest arguments. And in that spirit, there's a paper in Science (along with Nature, one of the worlds most prestigious science journals) last week that's bothering me quite a lot. The abstract says this:
Terrestrial net primary production (NPP) quantifies the amount of atmospheric carbon fixed by plants and accumulated as biomass. Previous studies have shown that climate constraints were relaxing with increasing temperature and solar radiation, allowing an upward trend in NPP from 1982 through 1999. The past decade (2000 to 2009) has been the warmest since instrumental measurements began, which could imply continued increases in NPP; however, our estimates suggest a reduction in the global NPP of 0.55 petagrams of carbon. Large-scale droughts have reduced regional NPP, and a drying trend in the Southern Hemisphere has decreased NPP in that area, counteracting the increased NPP over the Northern Hemisphere. A continued decline in NPP would not only weaken the terrestrial carbon sink, but it would also intensify future competition between food demand and proposed biofuel production.
In other words, the claim is that, whereas in the past, increasing amounts of carbon dioxide was causing land plants to fix more carbon (and by implication grow more and better), now land plants are overall fixing less carbon because the planet was getting hotter and drier in the 2000s.
That's obviously scary, since all 6.5 billion (and on the way to 9 billion) of us humans have to eat from those plants, and if they are drying up and doing less well because of climate change, that's clearly a trend in the wrong direction. And sure enough, various newspapers, magazines, and blogs picked up this paper. Here's the UK Guardian:
Rising temperatures in the past decade have reduced the ability of the world's plants to soak up carbon from the atmosphere, scientists said today.
Large-scale droughts have wiped out plants that would have otherwise absorbed an amount of carbon equivalent to Britain's annual man-made greenhouse gas emissions.
Scientists measure the amount of atmospheric carbon dioxide absorbed by plants and turned into biomass as a quantity known as the net primary production. NPP increased from 1982 to 1999 as temperatures rose and there was more solar radiation.
But the period from 2000 to 2009 reverses that trend – surprising some scientists. Maosheng Zhao and Steven Running of the University of Montana estimate that there has been a global reduction in NPP of 0.55 gigatonnes (Gt). In comparison, the UK's contribution to annual worldwide carbon dioxide emissions was 0.56Gt in 2007, while global aviation industry made up around 0.88Gt (3%) of the world total of 29.3Gt that year, according to UN data.
and here's Climate Progress, with the characteristically blaring headline Science shocker: Drought drives decade-long decline in plant growth, which concludes:
And so we have another potential of an amplifying feedback in the carbon cycle.
This new study is the latest in a series of truly alarming scientific studies published just this year that suggest we may be closer to dangerous carbon-cycle tipping points and irreversible thresholds than anyone realized...
Ok, so I go to read the paper itself with a view to blogging about the latest data point in the overall scary trend of humans poking the angry beast with sticks. Now, before we go on, let's take apart the paper abstract above - what are the main claims this paper is making? The first sentence says:
Terrestrial net primary production (NPP) quantifies the amount of atmospheric carbon fixed by plants and accumulated as biomass.
Ok, so that's just defining what we're going to be talking about here - the total amount of carbon which plants extract out of the air and fix into their own tissues (as opposed to immediately using in their own respiration: including that would make it gross primary production instead of net primary production).
Next we get to the first major claim of the paper:
Previous studies have shown that climate constraints were relaxing with increasing temperature and solar radiation, allowing an upward trend in NPP from 1982 through 1999. The past decade (2000 to 2009) has been the warmest since instrumental measurements began, which could imply continued increases in NPP; however, our estimates suggest a reduction in the global NPP of 0.55 petagrams of carbon.
Ok, so NPP used to be trending up, now it's trending down. We even have a number for how much it's trending down: 0.55 petagrams between 2000 and 2009 (petagrams = Gigatonnes, billions of metric tonnes of carbon). So that's the big claim of the paper. Whereas the world's plants used to be going from strength to strength, at least as measured by total mass, now they are starting to get in trouble.
Note that there's no error bar quoted on that "0.55", a point we will come back to.
Now the rest of the abstract:
Large-scale droughts have reduced regional NPP, and a drying trend in the Southern Hemisphere has decreased NPP in that area, counteracting the increased NPP over the Northern Hemisphere.
So the reason for this trend reversal is droughts, especially in the southern hemisphere. And finally:
A continued decline in NPP would not only weaken the terrestrial carbon sink, but it would also intensify future competition between food demand and proposed biofuel production.
This is scientist speak for BAD AND SCARY. A) if plants stop absorbing so much carbon because of climate change, our own emissions will be buffered less, giving rise to a nasty vicious circle of escalating CO2 in the atmosphere, and B) we humans need/want those plants for own ends, and it's not going to be so great if there are fewer of them. Hence the Climate Progress headline of "Science Shocker", etc.
Ok, so I get into the body of the paper (which unfortunately you can't read unless you have a subscription or buy the paper from Science), and in due course I come to the argument for why there is now a reduction in NPP (the 0.55 petagrams, remember):
Satellite data can generally provide realistic information on vegetation dynamics, including land cover change (5, 6), disturbances, and recovery (7), which may help to reduce uncertainties in carbon-budget estimates. In this study, we investigate terrestrial NPP and climate variability over the past decade (2000 to 2009) by analyzing satellite data from the Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer (MODIS) on board NASA's Terra satellite and global climate data.
We used the global MODIS NPP algorithm (8) [see supporting online material (SOM) text S1] to examine spatially explicit NPP changes from 2000 through 2009. We used collection 5 (C5) 8-day composite 1-km fraction of photosynthetically active radiation (FPAR) and leaf area index (LAI) data from the MODIS sensor (9) as remotely sensed vegetation property dynamic inputs to the algorithm. Data gaps in the 8-day temporal MODIS FPAR/LAI caused by cloudiness were filled with information from accompanying quality-assessment fields (SOM text S2) (10). For daily meteorological data required to drive the algorithm, we used a reanalysis data set from National Center for Environmental Prediction (NCEP) (SOM text S3) (11). A Palmer Drought Severity Index (PDSI) (12) at 0.5° resolution was used as a surrogate of soil moisture (13) to measure environmental water stress by combining information from both evaporation and precipitation (SOM text S4). A lower PDSI generally implies a drier climate.
Global NPP slightly decreased for the past decade by –0.55 Pg C (Fig. 1). Interannual variations of the global NPP were negatively correlated with the global atmospheric CO2 growth rates (correlation coefficient r = –0.89, p < 0.0006) (Fig. 1) (14), suggesting that global terrestrial NPP is a major driver of the interannual CO2 growth rate. Carbon isotopic measurements have indicated that the exchange of CO2 with terrestrial ecosystems is the dominant cause of the CO2 interannual growth rate (15). Though NPP is a part of carbon exchange between the land and atmosphere, the strong correlation may imply that the process of heterotrophic respiration depends ultimately on the substrate supply from NPP (16), as shown by the strong correlation between gross primary production (GPP) and ecosystem respiration derived from eddy-flux towers (17). Although also a major contributor, global fire emissions do not correlate as strongly as NPP with interannual CO2 growth rate (SOM text S5) (18).
My emphasis. The bolded sentence is the main argument in the paper for why the 0.55 reduction is true, and it pretty much entirely consists of a reference to Figure 1. Ok, so Figure 1 looks this:
And the caption in the paper in the paper reads: Interannual variations from 2000 through 2009 in anomalies of annual total global terrestrial NPP (green circles) and inverted global atmospheric CO2 annual growth rate [red squares and (14)]. Global average annual total NPP is 53.5 Pg C/yr.
Ok, so we're looking at the green curve. And the claim is it's trending down by 0.55 in the units on the left hand side. Now, there's a major problem here to my way of thinking. The authors didn't give us a trend line, but one thing that's immediately clear is that the bouncing around from year to year in that green curve is quite large compared to any overall trend in it. So that raises the question: are we really sure that it's genuinely trending down? Or is it just bouncing around and happened by chance to be a bit lower at the end than the beginning? To give you some feel for this, I took the numbers off their graph (which might be slightly inaccurate but that will be small compared to the noise in the data), and made my own graph, along with a trend line:
The trend line is in black. My numbers come out to a slope of -0.05 GT/year, which is -0.045 -0.45 over the nine years. That's the reduction in NPP. However, to illustrate the concern about the robustness of this trend, suppose it had happened that the satellite was launched a year later, so the 2000 data point was missing:
Oops! Now it's going up! So in other words, this "trend" of "reduction" in NPP is extremely sensitive to exactly which data points we look at. It's not a robust trend, but rather is sensitive to noise. Suddenly our 0.05/year reduction has become a 0.03/year increase.
Now, there is a whole long history in science of how to assess this kind of thing - to test whether a particular number or trend is statistically significant, as opposed to the situation where it could well just be a fluke. It's a normal part of doing science that one analyzes the statistical significance of trends, and analyzes the likely range of uncertainty around a particular estimate. However, in this paper, there is no analysis in the paper of whether the reduction in NPP is statistically significant, and, as I noted, no error bar is provided for the "0.55 petagram" reduction.
I find it very strange for a paper published in a top journal to provide no evidence that the main claim in the abstract is actually statistically significant.
So I'm driven to doing my own analysis.
The simplest possible method is based on the theory of ordinary least squares. I entered the data above (including the 2000 point) into an online regression calculator here, and it tells us:
Look at the "Slope" part. The slope is -0.05 (in agreement with what Excel came up with in the graph above), but the standard error in the slope is 0.1 - in other words the negative slope is less than the expected uncertainty in the slope, and the result is very much not statistically significant. Roughly what this means is that, given this level of year-to-year noise, even if there was no real trend up or down, we would expect to get a trend reading between -0.1 and +0.1 about 2/3 of the time. So the -0.05 trend is entirely consistent with just being noise, and is not good evidence of a reduction in NPP.
I should stress here that we are not doing advanced theoretical ecology here. This is the kind of stuff scientists learn in their first undergrad stats class, or in my case, in first year undergraduate physics labs. Uncertainty analysis, OLS regressions for straight lines, etc, is absolutely basic stuff if one is a scientist.
So, I read the rest of the paper to see if I'm missing something, and when it seems like I'm not (the rest of the paper is mainly concerned with the drought/NPP connection and is quite interesting), I email the authors of the paper. I start off with Maosheng Zhao, the listed correspondence author, who is a research scientist with the Numerical Terradynamic Simulation Group at University of Montana, Missoula. My initial email was as follows:
I blog about energy/resource issues at
http://earlywarn.blogspot.com/
I read your Science paper on the decline in global NPP in the 2000-2009 timeframe.
I notice that you don't seem to have any analysis of whether the decline (the green line in your Figure 1) is statistically significant given the substantial year-to-year fluctuations. A quick OLS suggests that the slope of that data is -0.05 +/- 0.1 GT/yr, which certainly doesn't suggest statistical significance for the decline. Taking account of auto-correlations would seem like it could only make it less significant.
Am I missing something? Did you assess the statistical significance of the trend somehow?
Stuart Staniford.
So, given that this is not my field, I was kind of expecting that they'd come back and point out that I'd missed the importance of the paragraph on page XYZ in the supplemental material, which explained how they analyzed the trend a different way and it really is significant. Instead, Maosheng gets back to me essentially saying that yes, they agree with me that the data isn't statistically significant, but this is all the data that's available from the satellite. He and I go back and forth a couple of times, and then he brings in his boss Steve Running, the second author on the paper, who is a Professor at UMT, and the Director of the Numerical Terradynamics Simulation Group. He gave me permission to quote his emails verbatim, so here is the first one:
Hello Stuart;
We have a continuing difficulty in Earth science when doing time series
research of how to separate real system interannual variability from
measurement error. And the problem is even worse at global scales where
there is only one dataset from only one instrument. The large real world
variability generates a very high statistical threshold of significance for
defining changes in trend trajectory. Because terrestrial carbon sink issues
are of such high policy significance, we felt that this new global trend was
an important message that could not wait longer to give a first look. And
obviously Science magazine agreed. It will probably take another decade of
data to answer this question to full statistical satisfaction, which will
then be with a new satellite, as they don't last that long. So then we will
have to wrestle with changing sensor characterstics too. There are also a
number of other papers from other groups with different methodologies
showing similar trends in related variables, adding to our confidence that
these trends, for now, are real.
To which I responded:
Hi Steve:
I appreciate you guys taking the time to respond.
I completely understand the "this is all the data we have and it's an important problem" line of reasoning, and that that might well justify publication of a paper, but I still find it very surprising that the paper lacks an explicit discussion of the statistical limitations of the evidence supporting the main claim of the abstract (and certainly, as a longtime subscriber, my surprise extends to the Science editorial and refereeing process). By my calculation, just on the data in the paper, you've got something like a 5-10% chance of being wrong about the "there is a trend break" part, and more like a one third chance of being wrong about the "NPP is now trending down" part. That's weaker evidence than most fields of science will accept as clear evidence of an important claim. The abstract is not phrased as "our evidence is statistically weak but consistent with other papers", but more like "we discovered that this trend has reversed" - that's why it's in Science, right, not some other minor journal that I would never have paid attention to?
I intend to blog about this over the weekend. May I quote your emails publicly, or would you prefer that I just paraphrase the gist?
And he responded:
Stuart;
Some research findings are so important that society really cannot afford to
wait another 10+yr for 95% or 99% statistical confidence. We (and I suppose
Science) felt this result was one of them. And recognize that we are not
advocating this result, merely reporting what we measured and why we think
it is happening. I actually hope in 10-20yr that some young scientist proves
we are wrong, and that NPP trends have turned back up. Humanity will be much
better off if that occurs.
And yes, if you feel my comments are interesting enough, you can quote them
directly, I speak publicly on these topics all the time. For Maosheng you
need to get his permission.
Ok. So here we have a statistically non-robust result, that the authors are well aware is not statistically robust, being published because it's of "high policy significance". However, and critically, the authors included no discussion whatsoever of the statistical limitations of the evidence. The "-0.55" in the abstract is not "-0.55 +/- 1.1" or something like that to give the reader a heads up that there is a lot of uncertainty here. There is no calculation of the "p-value" of that trend (how likely it was to occur by chance), even though the rest of the paper is littered with p-values of subsidiary results. They know perfectly well how to calculate this, they know it's not statistically significant, but they chose to put their readers in a position where we have to take the data off the graph and do our own statistical analysis to realize what's really going on.
And the refereeing and editorial process at Science allowed the paper to be published like that.
I think that sucks.
Just to summarize, here's some things I'm not saying:
I'm not saying that climate change isn't real, or humans aren't causing it.
I'm not saying that trends in NPP aren't incredibly important, they are.
I'm not saying NPP is still trending up - the evidence in the paper is rather equivocal and it's hard to say for sure.
I'm not saying a paper on this satellite data shouldn't have been published, or that they should have waited ten years to do so.
I'm not even saying it shouldn't have been published in Science.
Instead, what I'm saying is:
The paper should have been much more explicit that this is a very preliminary result with weak statistical evidence - weaker than is normally accepted in scientific publications. There should have been an explicit error bar on the trend.
Maybe that would have resulted in less press and blogosphere attention. So be it. In the end, in the great debate with all manner of moneyed interests and massive human inertia, the only things climate scientists have going for them are the truth and the moral high ground. Those things shouldn't be thrown away lightly.
Labels: climate change, drought, net primary productivity
Sam Charles Norton said...
Well done Stuart - you're being holy again ;-)
(BTW you might find this post of mine - tangentially related - of some interest: http://elizaphanian.blogspot.com/2010/05/time-for-reformation-of-science.html )
kjmclark said...
Wow. Yeah, you're right, someone blew that. What are we going to say in two years when the data is just as unclearly trending back up, and the deniers claim this paper was bunk and NPP is rising after all? It's hard enough getting the public to listen without journals jumping the gun.
And now we're in the predicament of either hoping future data confirms this result so that the deniers have no ammunition - with the side effect that NPP is trending down and we're in more trouble; or hoping that NPP isn't trending down yet - and the deniers get to postpone action by pointing out the scientists were wrong.
Didn't they think about that?
Applause all round for your correctness.
It is a shame but only the deniers get to be lying dirty bastards paid off by coal and oil industry and the scientists have to be Jesus Christ squeaky clean vest types.
Like Nero burning Christians at the stake and taunting them about turning the other cheek, some would obviously lose their temper at some point. The whole situation is pretty nasty as Truth Must Out and Time is Short.
Burk said...
Thanks very much for your excellent analysis. You should write a letter directly to science if you want this spread more widely.
I could imagine that they may have some rationale for some of the year-to-year variation that might escape just being dumped into a least-squares error analysis. But if they don't way what it is, then you are correct in your argument.
One more thing to say is that if primary productivity fails to positively respond to CO2 in a strong way, and that is what this data says, whether marginally positive or negative, then that also says some very dire things about our climate future.
I'm no climate skeptic either, nor is this my field... but the authors should admit this is negative finding and present it as such. I notice that they carefully used the word "suggest" to describe their results, so it's not like they didn't know that the difference was non-significant. I guess they might argue that a trained scientist would know the difference between a "suggestion" and a true finding... but it still strikes me as fairly dishonest presentation that clearly confused some journalists.
Fixed Carbon said...
Stuart and Burk:
Note the "CO2 (inverted)" label on the green and red figure that you reproduced: when the NPP anomaly decreased, the CO2 anomaly increased.
The paper doesn't say (re Stuart's early paragraph) "whereas in the past, increasing amounts of carbon dioxide was causing land plants to fix more carbon..." The limitations on NPP discovered by these authors are inferred to be owing to decreased water availability to global vegetation. Presumably, drought was caused by increased temperature, thus evaporation and evapotranspiration increased without correspondingly increased precipitation. This is a major implication of the work because increased temperature puts more moisture into the air, ceteris paribus. This is a huge concern for agriculture, does geographical variation in precipitation change with global warming?
A decade ago, growth chamber and green house studies with crops suggested that the increasing anthropogenic CO2 would stimulate NPP and we would all be saved from ourselves! Alas, it turned out not to be true, as demonstrated by the FACE (Free Air Carbon Enrichment) experiments. NPP in the natural environment is increased by more soil water, more sunlight (day length, annual total radiation, etc), more soil nutrients such as N, P, etc, and less competition among plants (crowded root systems and tangled vegetation slow plant growth). But CO2 increases over the relevant ranges do not cause natural vegetation to fix more carbon. CO2 increases do change the character of vegetation by selecting for species adapted to higher CO2, but this apparently has not impacted global NPP yet. So, more NPP causes the CO2 anomaly to decrease, but more CO2 does not cause NPP to increase measurably.
Stuart Staniford said...
Fixed Carbon:
My interpretation of the red curve in Fig 1 is that when the NPP is lower than usual in a particular year, the CO(2) in the atmosphere jumps up more than usual (and vice versa). The high correlation between the two is basically saying that fluctuations in the NPP are the major control on the short term fluctuations in the CO(2) growth (after factoring out the trend growth in the CO(2)). I don't see a reason to question that conclusion.
I should have qualified "terrestrial NPP", not just NPP. So this goes to why this trend (or lack of it) is an important question.
Alexander Ac said...
good post. They should have included the uncertainty into that result. And of course, if you take away one point out of 9, the trend will change. And not to say anything about the uncertainty in the global NPP estimation! However, they provide supplementary material for some explanation.
I am afraid that in 10 years we will not need any proof of statistical significance, unfortunately. Just check drought in Russia or Canada this year, or Australia last year, etc...
no paper is perfect and I agree that if it is Science or Nature, it should be more balanced.
Would be interesting to see how the trend would change after including 2010 :-)
Stuart: Your response seems ok to me. What I questioned was your statement, "whereas in the past, increasing amounts of carbon dioxide was causing land plants to fix more carbon..." Burk used similar language.
Regards, Don
Oh, I see what you are saying. Zhao and Running attibute the prior increase trend to "increasing temperature and solar radiation" and I took at least the temperature part to be due primarily to CO(2) trends and solar radiation trends to be of secondary importance. I wasn't intending to take a position one way or the other on the importance of direct CO(2) fertilization, but I see how my words could be read that way.
Excellent post, Stuart. I probably would not have learned about this without you posting on it.
Kevin Drum made a pretty good point in addition to this over at his blog, which was basically "I can understand why they think it's important, but in the wake of the whole "climategate" debacle, we can't afford to be overly vague on stuff like this."
Do have have a comment to the NASA article?
http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/plant-decline.html
Eric Hacker said...
Well done. Thank you for taking the time to research and write it up so thoroughly.
0.55 is an empirically derived number, not a statistic. If you weighed me 20 yrs ago (165) and today (180), you could conclude I gained 15 pounds. What is their to put an error bar around unless 20 years ago you put me on a scale with chickens and today you put me on a calibrated digital scale? Does it mean I'll weigh 195 in 20 more years--no, and I've made no such claim. Could I weigh 181 tomorrow? Sure, but that does not invalidate today's measure.
Whatever Climate Progress has to say is irrelevant to analyzing the claims in the paper--you conflate the two.
The authors don't give a trendline because they are not intending to say anything about the future. They are not preparing a forecast. Note in their response the address that they cannot do "trend trajectory."
Their is nothing in the paper to suggest they make more of their data than what they have. You have TRIED to read more into the paper than there is--attack Climate Progress if you have to but not the authors of this paper.
Mike - your "0.55 is an empirically derived number" interpretation will not fly since the difference between their 2000 and 2009 points is 1.2 - 0.35 = 0.85, not 0.55. Even if that was the correct interpretation, it's still a meaningless number unless you distinguish what is likely due to the underlying trend and what is due to noise.
(If the abstract of the paper had been "Fluctuations in NPP driven by droughts" I wouldn't have had a problem with it.)
I mention the Guardian and Climate Progress coverage purely to illustrate the kind of attention that the paper had gotten. These outlets interpreted the paper in a way that is entirely natural, given the abstract. The problem is that the claims of the abstract are not adequately justified by the data presented in the paper.
" My numbers come out to a slope of -0.05 GT/year, which is -0.045 over the nine years."
I believe you mean -0.45 over 9 years
Stuart--OK, point taken on the math. Not sure where -.55 comes from since it does look more like -.85 (typo?). But the point is the same. The abstract never claims that there is a trend. It says a "reduction," which from 2000 to 2009 it clearly is (you can also compare the 1/2 decade averages). This contrast this with an expected increase. They also are clear that they do not know what will happen in the future. "Noise" is only relevant if you are trying to make a prediction. Read my example again.
Hi Stuart, OT, have you seen these excellent graphs regarding food/arable land/population? See here: http://www.landcommodities.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=main.dspInvestmentFundamentals
maybe worth commenting...
Brett - thanks, fixed.
I agree there is a reduction, but the point is that it's not a statistically significant one, and the norms of science dictate that they should disclose and discuss that fact.
www.gregor.us said...
Stuart thank you so much for a great post. Apart from my own email discussion about the Science/Nature magazine findings, your post is like a free and short seminar on statistical analysis, which I found incredibly useful. I'm going to save this post as a PDF, and use it as a teaching tool. Wonderful stuff.
Ugo Bardi said...
Stuart, good post and you are making several correct points. But I think the significance of this paper is best understood if one looks at reference 2 that they cite. That previous study reported an increase in NPP over the 2 decades from 1980 to 2000. They didn't report the standard deviation on their measurements, either but, if you compare the two studies, there is a rather evident change in trend. During the past decade NPP didn't go up any longer, but it started to flatten out and perhaps go down. That's most likely because global warming is inducing droughts and other disturbances.
So, I do think that the paper deserved to be published; which is what you are saying, too. Unfortunately, the authors have been somewhat careless in pushing this paper throughout, doing things in a hurry is never a good idea. I think I understand them: these findings ARE important. But at times scientists don't realize what kind of wolves there are, out there, ready to attack science a the smallest chance.
But these data are not only important, they are truly worrisome. They indicate that we may be seeing "peak productivity" of the world's ecosystem. It needs more data for a confirmation, of course, but you don't need to be 100% sure to be worried.
You may also wish to give a look to my comment on this paper on my blog (alas, it is in Italian!)
http://ugobardi.blogspot.com/2010/08/in-calo-la-produttivita-dellecosistema.html
Ugo:
I didn't put it in the post, since I was trying to keep it accessible, but I did do that analysis roughly in email with the authors, and I came up that the trend change from Zemani et al was just short of statistical significance (they have not disputed that conclusion so far). However, it's close - probably around p = 0.1 or so depending on what kind of yardage you want to allow for autocorrelation (which is likely to be present to some degree here since the NPP is heavily climate influenced and so multi-decadal oscillations like ENSO are likely to factor into it). Still, the statement "The NPP trend has changed for the worse" is on somewhat more solid ground than "The NPP is now reducing" But they said the latter, not the former...
I have good intentions of blogging further on this point soon.
You mean Nemani et al.,
Sleepyfloyd said...
I don't see a link to this at climateprogress. If you posted it I would predict a 49.9% chance of moderator rejection, 49.9% chance of vicious flaming, and .2% chance of respectful disagreement and concurrance in the view of the study authors.
Understanding of statistics is so important because global anything is a statistcal construct - temperature/precipitation/foliage...
The obligation to exagerate abstracts, summaries, and headings has been claimed by many researchers and IPCC authors/editors. As in this case, the entire paper is not fraudulent and has integrity, but the abstract is garbage.
Walker said...
Good on you. Very much appreciate seeing someone give such a clear explication of why the data deserve a second look and some thinking about the implications.
I think Science was correct to publish the paper, but that there is something wrong with the peer review process that did not flag the need for a sensitivity analysis.
All that said -- the other thing missing (and missing from your dissection) is "What would NPP have been had the prior trend simply continued (i.e., the prior increases continued at the prior rate, despite increased CO2) and then also what should NPP have been if the increased CO2 was driving NPP to increase at an increasing rate.
When I think of it that way, I can see why this is such a disturbing result. If the carbon cycle is working the way we should hope it is (increased atmospheric levels leading to increases in uptake at various sinks) then the fact that there is not a strong, clear increase in NPP 2000-2009 is scary enough.
Like you, my disclaimers: I'm not saying NPP is dropping. For me, the fact that the data suggest that it MIGHT highly likely be dropping, in fact (if you accept 90% = highly likely) is scary enough. If the paper prompts an intense search for better data and measurements of this critical question, then good on them too.
Alex - yes, Nemani, thx for correction.
physecol said...
I agree with Burk Braun. You should write a letter to Science pointing out the lack of statistical significance in the trend.
I've been a little late getting to your excellent post.
I would like to point out that Zhao and Running's derivation of 'q10' - the rate of evapotranspiration increase per every 10 degree celsius rise in temperature, and their use of fixed value q10, both, are >2 or =2.
Mahecha et al 2010, published a month earlier in Science, showing q10 values are ~1.4 across all types of ecosystems. This parameter affects significantly, estimates of 'carbon loss' or metabolic demand/stress as calculated in Zhao and Running.
William M. Connolley said...
I'm late too (I'm coming via Romm, in case you wondered) but liked your post.
http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2010/11/time_to_opine.php
Peter T said...
Your take on the paper is perfectly reasonable. But I think it assumes that the context - which the authors take for granted - is unimportant. The context is the general scientific acceptance that global climate change is a real and urgent problem. In considering possible responses, we cannot assume that vegetation will behave as normal, nor can we wait ten years or so to find out if the vegetation response is slightly positive instead of, as suggested here, slightly negative or worse. The latter likelihood needs to be factored in as early as possible.
As for confusing journalists - that has been shown repeatedly to be very, very easy. It's not something the scientists can reasonably be asked to take into account.
Broken Yogi said...
Good post. I'm a climate skeptic/denier/paid oil company shill/hater-of-life-who-wants-our-planet-to-burn-in-hell, so take what I say with a grain of salt, but the slight decline or sideways trend these findings indicate shouldn't be surpising at all, given that the same sideways trend is evident in the temperature record over the last ten years also.
One would generally assume that rising temperatures would lead to more plant growth and thus more carbon fixing going on. Whereas, steady or declining temperatures would lead to steady or declining carbon fixing, which seems to be what's going on.
The problem with the trend lines here is the same as the problem with the last ten years the of temperature record. It's a fairly short data set, and the starting points yield different slopes. If one starts in very warm 1998, the slope goes downward up to the present. If one starts in the cooler 2000, the slope trends upward. If 2002, the slope goes down again. The general indication is that over the last decade the temperature trends have broken, resulting in what is mostly a sideways trend. What's not clear is if this is a true break in rising temps merely a temporary interruption.
THe point is that it's this fundamental problem with interpreting the temperature record that underlies this same problem with the carbon fixing record. We just don't know how significant it is yet. But on the other hand, this is also relatively good news. It would be a different story if the temperature trends had continued up during this period, and yet the carbon fixing had gone sideways or down. That would indicate a fundamental break with the general climate principle that increased warmth will also increase plant growth and thus carbon fixing. So that's another issue that needs to be addressed in this paper, but isn't. They are trying to suggest that there's something scary about their findings, even if they are accurate, when that is not the case due to the same sideways trend in the temperature record
Hank Roberts said...
Hm. I was hoping one of the scientists would comment on
"We just don't know how significant it is" (I thought that was the point, we do know: 'not very yet'; something about dealing with trends assuming no change, or assuming change in one direction, and when variability is changing -- not easy but being worked on, I think.
"general climate principle that increased warmth will also increase plant growth"
which seems to be missing an "all other things held the same" caveat.
I really agree with you.
GPP = ε_max [parameter]* Temperature_Scalar [obs] * Water_Stress_Scalar [obs] * APAR [obs-model]
Here, using independently caculated PAR, APAR = FPAR x PAR ( cos (SZA)).
However, in my guess, it has a problem that weaker greening signal after 2000 in high latitude due to "Sensor degradation". (This signal reported from GIMMS data).
FLUXNET GPP data has a significant positive trend while MODIS NPP has a negative.
It is Very Likely that Increases in NPP have slowe...
Ups and Downs of NPP
US Prison Population
Patent Stats Chart
Building with Twigs and Birdsnests
Male Labor Force Composition
City Crippler Car Worms
Tracking Progress on Deleveraging
A Little More on Disaster Loss Statistics
Disaster Losses Over Time
OPEC Concurs on July Oil Supply Increase
Global Market Shares
Two Corollaries to Stein's Law
IEA Reports Big Increase in July Oil Supply
The Embodied Carbon In a Concrete Foundation
Matt Simmons, RIP
Labor Force Loses Half a Million Women in last 3 M...
Carbon Neutrality with PVs
Carbon Offset Value of Straw Bale Houses
Components of Inflation
Trends in Initial Public Offerings
OECD Unemployment


Can you imagine the mourning that came with Moses' death? He led Israel for over forty years and gave them the Law from God's mouth. He watched over them, prayed for them, and led them to the edge of the Promised Land. Moses also prepared Joshua to take his place of leadership. He did a lot right in his life, but he still could not enter the Promised Land because of his failure at Meribah. I find it interesting that we are told that he climbed a mountain before his death. In other words, he was in perfect physical condition. His eyes could still see every nook and cranny, and his body could easily get him to the top of the mountain. This reminds me that the timing of our deaths is by God's design and not our own. We are on this earth for a specific number of days. Some die early in life; while others live to see triple digits. Some stay healthy throughout their lives; while others struggle with disease and physical illness. We do not determine when we die; God does. Moses was healthy, but his time on earth was finished. He had a heavenly home waiting for him. We do everything we can to stay alive on this earth when the greatest joys of life will never be found here; they will only be found in eternity. Stop worrying about the number of your days and commit to living every day for God's glory and by God's grace.
Help me, Lord, to stop concerning myself with death, because You defeated it through Your Son at Calvary. Help me to live each day for Your glory and to make a maximum impact upon this world until You call me home.


Megaloblastic Anemias is a topic covered in the Pocket ICU Management.
Although not considered a typical ICU disease, there are acute processes that megaloblastic anemia (MA) contributes to or directly affects.
Rapid response with folate (5 mg) and B12 (1 mg) is expected.
Insidious diseases can progress to acute disease when nutritional depletion is combined with rapid cell turnover.
Eventually, the basic cellular folate deficiency affects maturation phases of rapid growth cells with resultant enlargement (without maturity) and retention of normal transcription of DNA to RNA (maturation without development).
The final result is thwarted DNA repair, which fragments from mechanistic frustration of "S" phase division, leading to shortened, dysfunctional and irregular life spans of erythroid, leukoid and mucosal cell lines, ultimately ending in premature death.
Folate deficiency most often is result of poor nutrition or rapid loss from exaggerated cell growth (reticulocytosis of hemolytic anemia).
This loss is worsened when intestinal cell sloughing is accelerated in malabsorptive diseases.
B12 deficiency is most commonly caused by pernicious anemia, which is created by loss of intrinsic factor (IF) from anatomical and/or functional parietal cell loss (gastric surgery, blind loops, loss of terminal ileum).
Intrinsic factor is required for B12 absorption.
Body reserves are higher than folate and daily requirement is ~5 mcg.
1-5 mcg is absorbed daily from a diet of 5-30 mcg/d.
"Megaloblastic Anemias." Pocket ICU Management, PocketMedicine.com, Inc, 2010. Anesthesia Central, anesth.unboundmedicine.com/anesthesia/view/Pocket-ICU-Management/534175/all/Megaloblastic_Anemias.
Megaloblastic Anemias. Pocket ICU Management. PocketMedicine.com, Inc; 2010. https://anesth.unboundmedicine.com/anesthesia/view/Pocket-ICU-Management/534175/all/Megaloblastic_Anemias. Accessed April 18, 2019.
Megaloblastic Anemias [Internet]. In: Pocket ICU Management. PocketMedicine.com, Inc; 2010. [cited 2019 April 18]. Available from: https://anesth.unboundmedicine.com/anesthesia/view/Pocket-ICU-Management/534175/all/Megaloblastic_Anemias.


text:
Nominate a Lawyer
Highlighted Lawyers
Editorial Timelines
William M. McErlean
Barnes & Thornburg LLP
Recognized Since:
Recognized in:
Law School:
http://www.btlaw.com
One North Wacker Drive, Suite 4400
Bill has tried more than 40 commercial litigation cases, including the first civil RICO action in the Northern District of Illinois. He has handled a variety of complex, high-stakes commercial cases in courts and before arbitrators throughout the country, defending and prosecuting RICO, securities fraud and common law fraud claims at trial and on appeal.Bill has also tried franchise, contract, professional malpractice, UCC, ERISA, lender liability, partnership and corporate dissolution and freeze-outs, trade regulation, trade secret, and real estate broker disputes. In addition, he has defended his client's rights in business torts and construction and real estate disputes.
Bill regularly prosecutes and defends multi-million dollar cases, including bet-the-company cases where the result will determine whether or not his client stays in business.
Notable Cases include:
Handled the defense and prosecution of many claims of malpractice against accountants and law firm and attorneys.
Represented as lead counsel Alliance 3PL Corp., a third-party logistics provider in the trucking industry, in its successful breach of contract action against a Missouri trucking company that had solicited business from one of Alliance's largest customers in violation of the contract between the two companies. After a week-long jury trial in federal court, Alliance obtained a $2.1 million jury verdict in its favor with assistance from Barnes & Thornburg.
Represented TLC Beatrice International Holdings, Inc. and the Estate of Reginald F. Lewis as lead counsel in its successful defense in three related proceedings in which Carlton Investments, a former Drexel Burnham Lambert, Inc. sponsored partnership, sought over $300 million in damages and removal of the Board of Directors in a derivative suit in Delaware Chancery Court and a breach of contract claim in New York Supreme Court. TLC Beatrice's counterclaim in the New York Supreme Court led to a contempt proceeding in federal district court in the Southern District of New York before Judge Milton Pollack, the judge who had approved the settlement of all civil litigation against Drexel and Michael Milken. This, in turn, led to TLC Beatrice's challenge to the constitutionality of that settlement before the Second Circuit Court of Appeals in Presidential Life Insurance Co. v. Milken. All cases resolved one week before oral argument in the Second Circuit by the payment of a nominal sum by the Estate of Reginald F. Lewis to TLC Beatrice of which the Estate owned 60 percent.
Lawyer Bio
Firm Details
Award List
Georgetown University , J.D., graduated 1978
University of Notre Dame, B.A., graduated 1975
Bar Admissions:
Court Admissions:
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois
Recognized in The Best Lawyers in America for work in:
Lawyer Client Comments
Leave a Client Comment
View Firm Profile
17 Office Locations
in 1 Country
View Our Offices
2029 Century Park East, Suite 300
655 West Broadway, Suite 900
1000 North West Street, Suite 1500
Wilmington, DE 19801-1054
3475 Piedmont Road, NE, Suite 1700
52700 Independence Court, Suite 150
Elkhart, IN 46514-8155
888 South Harrison Street, Suite 600
11 South Meridian Street
First Source Bank Center, Suite 700
100 North Michigan Street
South Bend, IN 46601-1632
2723 South State Street, Suite 150
171 Monroe Avenue, NW, Suite 1000
3000 Town Center, Suite 2440
225 South Sixth Street, Suite 2800
4819 Emperor Boulevard, Suite 400
41 South High Street, Suite 3300
Columbus, OH 43215-6104
2121 North Pearl Street, Suite 700
In making your comments, please do not refer to a pending legal matter.
I give permission for this quote to appear with my name attribution.
There was an error during saving, please try again.
If you continue to get this message, please contact us at info@bestlawyers.com or 803.648.0300 for assistance.
Please complete the captcha then submit.
Your comment was saved successfully!
Lawyers of the Year
Specialized Research
Marketing Guidance
Best Lawyers +1-803-648-0300
© 2010-2019 Best Lawyers — All Rights Reserved.
by Best Lawyers®
Get the latest insights on the news, trends, and people that shape the global legal field with our weekly email digest.

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


Rachel Shaffer is a research assistant. Jennifer McPartland, Ph.D., is a Health Scientist.
BPA, DDT, PCBs, PBDEs, phthalates, PFOA … Forgive the alphabet soup, but chances are you've heard of at least some of these endocrine-disrupting chemicals (EDCs), which have been the subject of a lot of public and media attention in the last several years. Research has begun to uncover the ways in which these chemicals can interact with the body's hormone – or endocrine – system to disrupt various natural biological processes, including metabolism, the reproductive system, and development of the brain and nervous systems.
While the endocrine-disrupting properties of the chemicals named above have been confirmed, scientists suspect there may be many more such chemicals in our environment, in the products we use, and in our bodies. How can we identify them?
EPA has identified an estimated 9,700 chemicals to be screened – a very daunting task given the time- and resource-intensive nature of the testing battery EPA has established. Might there be a way to expedite the identification and testing of the more problematic chemicals? A study published earlier this year in Environmental Health Perspectives (EHP) investigates a possible approach: using in vitro high-throughput (HT) assays developed through EPA's ToxCast and Tox21 programs to target and prioritize chemicals for further testing under the EDSP. While use of these assays poses its own challenges, might it at least help in determining an appropriate testing sequence?
The EHP study referenced above focused on the initial phase of the EDSP and investigated whether available HT assays could sufficiently identify potential endocrine disruptors so as to prioritize chemicals for Tier 1 testing.
The results were mixed. For certain types of endocrine disrupting effects – those related to estrogenic and androgenic activity – the authors reported that the HT assays were fairly predictive, reaching the same conclusion for 90% of the chemicals as did the standardized tests EPA used as a benchmark. By contrast, assays for other types of endocrine disrupting effects – including those related to thyroid function – performed quite poorly, "correctly" categorizing only 50-60% of chemicals.
What accounts for this stark difference? The explanation may lie in the manner by which chemicals perturb different parts of the endocrine system. Many of the chemicals known to disrupt normal estrogen and androgen activity do so by binding to the same cell receptors that estrogen and androgen bind to. The current battery of HT assays is fairly effective in detecting this activity. On the other hand, chemicals that interfere with the thyroid system, for example, act in many different ways, and the existing HT assays are unable to adequately detect these other types of interferences.
This shortcoming reflects a broader challenge facing the use of this new approach to toxicity testing. If we are to have complete confidence in the results of these new techniques, then the assays used need to cover the full biological response landscape. In other words, they must be able to detect disruptions in any of the hundreds of biochemical processes that take place in our bodies (for more on this limitation, see this EDF primer page). If not, then the tests may miss an effect (in the situation just described, an endocrine-disrupting effect) of a chemical not because there isn't one, but merely because an assay for the specific effect has not yet been developed.
In the long term, such limitations may be addressed through research that yields new assays that increase coverage. In the interim, however, transparency and full disclosure about the capacity of these approaches are crucial. The authors of the EHP study did a good job in communicating clearly about the pros and cons of this potential application of HT assays to the EDSP: based on the results, they concluded these assays can be used to effectively and efficiently prioritize estrogenic and androgenic chemicals, but not other types of EDCs.
A new era for EDSP is peeking around the corner. In fact, EPA is holding a meeting on the development and application of EDSP21 this week. Further incorporating these 21st century methods provides the potential to improve this chemical screening program, but, as demonstrated by this study, full transparency about the gaps and limitations is essential.
This entry was posted in Emerging Testing Methods, Health Science and tagged bisphenol A, computational toxicology, endocrine disruption, flame retardants, in vitro, in vivo, phthalates, Tox21, ToxCast. Bookmark the permalink. Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed.


text:
View source for The Earl of Lindsay
← The Earl of Lindsay
'''David Lindesay-Bethune, 15th Earl of Lindsay''' was a Non-executive Director of the [[Severn Valley Railway Company Limited|Severn Valley Railway Company]] from 1969.<ref>SVR News 15</ref> He succeeded [[Sir Gerald Nabarro]] as Chairman of the Severn Valley Railway in 1973. Nabarro's time at the SVR had resulted in divisions within the SVR organisation, and in the following years Viscount Garnock (as he was then titled) was instrumental in bringing the Railway together. At the [[SVR(H)]] AGM in May 1976 he stepped down as Chairman for business reasons, being succeeded by [[Bill Broadbent]].<ref>SVR News 39, 40</ref> The Earl had worked on the LNER as a young man, and in time became the owner of the SVR's only LNER locomotive, [[61994 The Great Marquess]] (LNER 3442). The locomotive was briefly steamed at the SVR in 1973, but would not steam again until 1989. It was always the Earl's wish to see 3442 working on the West Highland Line, for which Gresley's K4 class was designed. On 15 July 1989 the Earl, although ill, saw his wish fulfilled when he rode for the last time on the footplate of his engine as it departed from Fort William. Sadly he died 16 days later on 1 August 1989. 3442 carried a wreath for the return working over the Settle and Carlisle Line and also on the following days in service on the SVR. The Earl's funeral was marked in accordance with railway tradition by the sounding of 3442's whistle at Kidderminster. '''James Lindesay-Bethune, 16th Earl of Lindsay''' succeeded his father as Earl of Lindsay in 1989.<ref>Wikipedia</ref> In summer 1997 he was appointed a [[The Severn Valley Railway in preservation#Chairmen|Vice-President of SVR(H)]] representing the Loco Owners, as his family at the time still owned The Great Marquess.<ref>SVR News 123</ref> {{As of|2020}} he remains a Vice-President of SVR(H). ==See also== *[[The Severn Valley Railway in preservation#Chairmen|SVR Chairmen]] *[[Severn Valley Railway Timeline 1980-1989#1989 | History of 1989]] ==References== <references/> ==Links== *[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Lindesay-Bethune,_15th_Earl_of_Lindsay David Lindesay-Bethune, 15th Earl of Lindsay] on Wikipedia *[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Lindesay-Bethune,_16th_Earl_of_Lindsay James Lindesay-Bethune, 16th Earl of Lindsay] on Wikipedia
Return to The Earl of Lindsay.
Retrieved from 'https://www.svrwiki.com/The_Earl_of_Lindsay'


text:
recipients—a serious infringement of a core liberty153—its issuance was the result of an administrative process lacking in safeguards required to protect such rights.
Prior to taking an action that deprives an individual of his rights, the
government must conduct a searching inquiry on how such a deprivation
can be accomplished. In Mathews v. Eldridge, the Supreme Court
described the balancing test that should be used to determine the amount of
process that must be provided before the government may deprive an
individual of their rights:
First, the private interest that will be affected by the official action;
second, the risk of an erroneous deprivation of such interest
through the procedures used. . . and finally, the Government's
interest, including the function involved and the fiscal and
administrative burdens that the additional or substitute procedural
requirement would entail. 154
The effective consequence of this balancing test is that the amount of process due is directly proportional to the right being deprived. 155 With respect to the right to reproduce, the Court has determined the right is fundamental, which requires the utmost procedural due process. 156 While the Court does not generally provide detailed guidance on procedure, in this instance it has explicitly held that "[t]he opportunity to present reasons, either in person or in writing, why proposed action should not be taken is a fundamental due process requirement." 157
The decision to issue an order to Mr. Arsenault before granting even a simple hearing to present his evidence clearly falls short of what the Constitution requires. Arsenault was not afforded a hearing prior to issuance of the order, and the existing regulatory framework, as the FDA itself affirmed, permits the agency to decline his request for one if it determines that no questions of fact remain. 158
The FDA also incorrectly imposed the burden of proof on Arsenault when he attempted to challenge the cease-manufacturing order. According to CBER, the burden of proof rested on Arsenault to prove that a genuine
153. See Carey v. Population Servs. Int'l, 431 U.S. 678, 685 (1977).
154. Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 335 (1976).
155. Clark v. Jeter, 486 U.S. 456, 461 (1988).
156. Skinner, 316 U.S. at 538.
157. Cleveland Bd. of Educ. v. Loudermill, 470 U.S. 532, 546 (1985).
158. Motion to Deny Trent Arsenault's Request for a Hearing at 4, Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (CBER), (Feb. 7, 2011), available at http://trentdonor.org/
sites/g2sites/trentdonor/d/21703-2/trentdonor-fda-motion-to-deny-hearing-07feb2010.pdf (last visited Aug. 3, 2012).


Elbow Room – Kathmandu based progressive/djent band has released new single titled "Purge". The band was formed in year 2013 and released split album "Conspiracy Theory" with band "Shadow in Shade" back in August, 2015. Purge is their first single release and based on their update second single is also on the way. If progressive metal or djent or modern metal bands like Sikth, Textures etc. are in your playlist then they will definitely fit in your playlist perfectly.


text:
Trade wars have led to both World Wars
While trade war threats ramp up between Donald Trump and China there's a timely warning that major trade wars have contributed to escalations into both World Wars.
CNBC: Trump says he's 'ready' to put tariffs on all $505 billion of Chinese goods imported to the US
President Donald Trump has indicated he is willing to put tariffs on all $505 billion of Chinese goods the U.S. imports.
The rhetoric ramps up the U.S.-China trade war another step, though each country has issued just $34 billion in tariffs so far.
President Donald Trump has indicated that he is willing to slap tariffs on every Chinese good imported to the U.S. should the need arise.
"I'm ready to go to 500," the president told CNBC's Joe Kernen in a "Squawk Box" interview aired Friday.
"I'm not doing this for politics, I'm doing this to do the right thing for our country," Trump said. "We have been ripped off by China for a long time."
Trump said the U.S. is "being taken advantage of" on a number of fronts, including trade and monetary policy. Yet he said he has not pushed the tariffs out of any ill will toward China.
"I don't want them to be scared. I want them to do well," he said. "I really like President Xi a lot, but it was very unfair."
From The Diplomat: Trump's Trade War on China Is About More Than Trade
Against this backdrop, the trade war can be viewed as a paradigm shift of Washington's China policy. Along with other recent developments in U.S. policy, such as the Taiwan Travel Act passed in February and the passage of U.S. Navy warships through the Taiwan Strait, the trade war is, in effect, part of a much larger strategy of hedging.
Once we realize that the trade war is not merely about trade, we can then appreciate the very real potential for large-scale conflict between the United States and China.
Dene Mackenzie at ODT looks at some history: Trade wars catalysts for world war, the past teaches
History often repeats itself if we do not learn from it. The two full-blown trade wars some 80 and 100 years ago helped to ignite the two world wars.
Trade wars can also cause currency wars.
The end of World War 1 sparked the first worldwide currency war, starting in Weimar Germany in 1921, followed by France in 1925. In the end, all the major economies scrambled to devalue their currencies — sterling, the franc and the US dollar — throughout the 1930s.
In 1930, US president Herbert Hoover signed into law the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act, which intensified the currency war and deepened the Great Depression. The protectionist law raised tariffs on more than 20,000 imported products and triggered retaliation by many of the United States' trading partners.
Trade wars stoke nationalism and hatred among people and finally trigger wars, as evidenced by the breakout of World War 2.
The Japanese invaded Manchuria in 1931, and the whole of China in 1937; the Germans invaded Poland in 1939, then the rest of Europe; and the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbour in 1941.
A quote often attributed to the 19th-century French economist, Frederic Bastiat, goes: "When goods do not cross frontiers, armies will".
The geopolitical situation has changed a lot over the last two centuries – but as WW1 and WW2 showed, military might and technology has increased substantially. The risks are much higher when nuclear armed countries are involved.
Especially now when the erratic and loose-mouthed Trump is on one side of the tensions.
We don't want to hear "I meant yesterday that I definitely wouldn't be launching missiles immediately, not would".
The trade war with the US could not have come at a worse time for China, which had just begun focusing "in earnest" on fixing problems in its economy, JP Morgan analysts said on Wednesday.
…those indirect effects could lead to large collateral damage, they said.
There's a lot of gamesmanship going on, and there are also major risks to local economies and the world economy.
Bluster and threats are often eventually moderated by discussions and negotiations leading to reasonable solutions. But not always.
There's also always risks of things escalating into military war.
by Pete George on 21st July 2018 • Permalink
Posted in International, USA
Tagged China, Donald Trump, trade war, USA, world war
Posted by Pete George on 21st July 2018
https://yournz.org/2018/07/21/trade-wars-have-led-to-both-world-wars/
Israel declares itself 'nation-state of the Jewish people'
/ 21st July 2018
Henry Kissinger: 'We are in a very, very grave period'
Kissinger tells @EdwardGLuce: A divided Atlantic would turn Europe into "an appendage of Eurasia", which would be at the mercy of a China that wants to restore its historic role as the Middle Kingdom… https://t.co/l182nVuoiI
— Jon Hillman (@HillmanJE) July 20, 2018
The alternative, Kissinger adds, is not appealing. A divided Atlantic would turn Europe into "an appendage of Eurasia", which would be at the mercy of a China that wants to restore its historic role as the Middle Kingdom and be "the principal adviser to all humanity". It sounds as though Kissinger believes China is on track to achieve its goal.
America, meanwhile, would become a geopolitical island, flanked by two giant oceans and without a rules-based order to uphold. Such an America would have to imitate Victorian Britain but without the habit of mind to keep the rest of the world divided — as Britain did with the European continent.
From Financial Times https://www.ft.com/content/926a66b0-8b49-11e8-bf9e-8771d5404543
Kissinger is a warmonger from way back.The premise of the OP is encapsulated by this so called 'conspiracy theory'…except the facts back don't lie.
Agree Blazer Kissinger is a hideous person, he was relevant 50 years ago and no one should take any notice of him now. I put him in the same basket as all those other ageing neo con republicans who just seem to itch on the trigger finger looking to intervene somewhere.
Lindsay Graham, John McCain, Newt Gingrich, Pat Buchanan et al.
I don't agree at all. It was an interesting interview if you read it. Kissinger was responsible for Nixon's rapprochement with China and ending the Vietnam war for which he received the Nobel Peace Prize – having earned it, unlike Obama. Nothing in the interview suggests he is looking for military engagement also unlike most of those you list.
With all due respect the 2nd world war wasnt caused by trade wars, certainly it was a big part in the lengthening of the depression in the US but the subjugation of the germans and their swingeing war reparations and then hyper inflation gave Hitler a foothold.
Kitty Catkin
No, it wasn't a trade war ! That idea is an over-simplification.
US-driven Economic sanctions against Japan were probablyTHE most significant factor that led to the Japanese attacks on Pearl Harbour, Singapore, Hong Kong, Darwin & all the territories they seized extremely rapidly were seized primarily to secure the resouces they had been denied & needed to expand their economy & their military & prevent the other Great Powers from ever being able to humiliate & constrain them again.
'In GOD we trust' : GUNS/gold.. OIL & DRUGS the 3-4 main things that keep their economy running !
MrT likely has his fingers in them all…..
I think it's an unreasonable stretch to claim trade wars significantly contributed to either world war. That said, free trade helps prevent armed conflict. The hope remains that Trump's actions along with Brexit will force a permanent reduction in trade barriers.
No two countries with McDonalds have ever been to war against each other, that may have changed with Putins adventures now but it was always a fun fact and a demonstration of how fabulous capitalism is and what a gift to humanity.
Russia has McDONALDS and so does Georgia…back to the drawing board.
https://www.mightyape.co.nz/product/confessions-of-an-economic-hit-man-paperback/1695808/images


text:
ARTIST DATABASE - S
Seventh Dimension
'Black Sky'
(Prog Metal)
FFO: Dream Theater, Symphony X, Opeth, Andromeda
Location: Stockholm, Sweden
Label: Corrupted Records
Description: The fourth album by the Stockholm based prog metal band Seventh Dimension. Seventh Dimension is a 5-piece progressive metal band that was formed in 2009 by founding members Luca Delle Fave (Guitars), Rikard Wallström (Bass) and Marcus Thorén (Drums) in the underground progressive scene of Stockholm, Sweden. The bands main influences are bands such as Dream Theater, Symphony X, Andromeda, Porcupine Tree, Opeth among others. While searching for the remaining band members, Luca spent a lot of time writing music that would end up on their first album, 'Circle of Life'. In 2010, the band became complete after Nico Lauritsen (Vocals) and Erik Bauer (Keyboards) joined the band. In 2011, the band debuted on the live scene in Stockholm as the opening band to prog metal band Forgotten Suns from Portugal. They would later open for them again in Lisbon. In 2012, Seventh Dimension entered the studio to record their debut album. They immediately marked themselves as a story telling band with big visions by debuting with a concept album that got to see the light of day on January 15th, 2013. In promotion for the album, Seventh Dimension kept playing around the Stockholm area as well as on prog festivals. Shortly after the release of 'Circle of Life', new music was being written for the next album. The second album 'Recognition' was released on February 13th, 2015. Prog Metal Zone gave 'Recognition' a top score and included it in their list of "Best progressive rock/metal albums of 2015" while the band also started to gain fans over in Japan.
The third album 'The Corrupted Lullaby' was released on November 1st, 2018 and was the most ambitious project Seventh Dimension had done so far. It was a concept album that as a whole displayed the bands vision of creating a story from start to finish with a fitting soundtrack to every event. The album got a great reception, landing great reviews and much attention on various websites and magazines, including bringing the band to perform as the main event on a show at Wild Side, Tokyo in September 2019. In March 2020, the band released their first ever cover song, covering Dream Theater's classic 23-minute prog epic 'A Change of Seasons' from 1995. Shortly after this, the band would start recording their fourth album which was announced by the end of the year. The entire album was recorded from separate locations due to the pandemic. Prior to the release of the new album, the band released three singles on YouTube for the songs 'Resurgence', 'Falling' and 'Black Sky: Into the Void'. In June 2021, the fourth album 'Black Sky' was released, introducing a heavier side of the band with a more compact set of punchy prog metal songs, as a contrast to the predecessor 'The Corrupted Lullaby'.
Band line-up:
Nico Lauritsen – Vocals
Luca Delle Fave – Guitars
Rikard Wallström – Bass
Erik Bauer – Keyboards, synth
Marcus Thorén – Drums, percussion
01 – Premonition
02 – Bad Blood
03 – Kill the Fire
04 – Resurgence
05 – Falling
06 – Black Sky: Assembly
07 – Black Sky: Into the Void
08 – As the Voices Fade
09 – Incubus
Seventh Dimension – Black Sky: Into The Void
Seventh Dimension – Falling
Seventh Dimension links:
Band/Artist location – Stockholm, Sweden
Website – Facebook – You Tube – Soundcloud – Bandcamp – Merch – BC Merch –
Twitter – Instagram – Apple – Spotify – Amazon – Deezer – Last Fm
Theo Nt
Previous post:Ewiniar
Next post:Theo Nt
Gabriella Metz – Interview
Hillbilly Herald
The Castor Troys
Beat Hotel
Slomatics Interview


Whatever the grow older, girls certainly believe buy fifa 17 point it is difficult to refuse to surrender to playing with these types of games. Should really be my own cousin called Isabella who only switched 15, fact is still enjoying these kind of Online Barbie Games online. It is undeniable: these Kissing Games For Girls will always be an integral part of their own world. So why on the planet are these kinds of Free Ladies Games so common?
Nintendo 's' products are much popular that the Wii appears to fly the shelf off when they are located in to the shops. It's triggered a scarcity of product as the organization is unable to meet up the requirement of the folks. The merchants have taken advantage of this and have elevated Wii's expense for many more pounds.
It is not actually unlucky for you yourself to be below. Because we are among the trusted runescape gold sites where you could FIFA 17 gold.We are supplying cheap gold when you view to customers. Runescape gold value can be as low as 80 cents per thousand. It is really cheap runescape gold you can find the market that is gold. What is not less, you can get gold instant delivery.
Nintendo released the eShop at launch for your Wiiu this past year and it's nearly the same as Xbox Live. You'll be able to 2016 new games, whether a retail or indie concept. With The Wii-U having a control that resembles a pill, it'll be quite simple for Developers to release titles on the Wiiu and also Smart-Phones in the same time. This will raise Wii-U income and dramatically increase gametime using the program.
Just in case you have kids, and they're guys, you're able to enable them and games for boys online to play with. There are numerous specially-created fir various ages, of these, so it's not practically possible to not locate something which your boy as well as you will not appreciate. Specially when he's online the matter is always to preserve him administered. These games would be the greatest point for him and for you also. He has many choices, therefore he won't get bored, and you also wont need to pay this type of large amount of cash on video-games to entertain your kid. Try games like 3Foot Ninja, generator competition, Pingu Activities, Bowman need aid and many others too. You can find all kinds of activities to keep their focus alive. Like questions, everything exists, even although you go for strategy games, racing games or instructional games.
It's really a decent selection considering you're able to download what you desire together with your account. However, there are cheaper approaches to discover these packages.
PSP games could cost a great deal together sport could range between $30-$60 each. After you have mastered the game, most likely it'll be quite tedious to enjoy with over and over it again. Consequently you may currently be fed up with paying a fortune to get every time to fresh games, and also you may indeed want to get some PSP downloads that are free.
Sony has applied the Bravia Mobile http://www.mmovc.com/fifa-17/fifa-17-account Technologies, which unlike the AMOLED Technology doesn't provide severe degrees of lighting; but, provides clarity and facts. To end, we can state that, although this phone might not look somewhat cheap to some- it is worth each pound!


Have woken up to news that Nicholl does not love me. Not even a P.S. this year. Had made terrible mistake of getting hopes up after making BlueCat semi-finals. Am now convinced BlueCat is complete fluke; name was obviously there by mistake.
Considering chucking writing dream & becoming Domestic Goddess instead. Ignoring current state of house as indicator of potential success.
Was just asked what activities are therapeutic for me (in lieu of shopping, which tends toward destructive for both finances and morale). Came up blank. Perhaps could be part of problem.
Have found relaxation solution! Need hot tub. No purpose besides relaxation. Perfect.
Have realized have no money for hot tub & hot tubs are expensive.
3) Sell soul to devil (probably pays better, money being root of all evil, after all).
4) Find nasty info on celeb/politician & blackmail.
5) Convince parents to buy one instead & mooch unapologetically (hot tub will melt away guilt, surely).
Fear all possible solutions are 1) likely to increase stress, at which point will have to find other means of relaxation in transition period between start of plan and acquisition of hot tub, and 2) unlikely.
Relaxation is too hard & obviously for the birds.
Reconsidering notion to become Domestic Goddess as have just dumped potently colored lunch ALL OVER SELF.
Perhaps Domestic Goddnessness is still in the cards, with application of apron and/or bib at all times.
Have just discovered presence of four black beans and one cherry tomato underneath arse. Make that four smushed black beans and one crushed cherry tomato. Did not eat them.
Friend: "You are a creature of grace and wonder today." Too true, I know. Just like every day.


text: select count(*) from cast_tbl_1_v a, cast_tbl_2_v b where a.c_float = b.c_integer;

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaGithub


text:
Don't believe the hype about economic good news
Whenever the Brexiteers were confronted with experts warning that leaving the EU could be economically damaging, they knew just what to do: shout "scaremongering", make a breezy accusation about EU-funded elites – and dismiss "experts".
They were, of course, wrong. It's been a month since the UK voted to leave the European Union, and the official Leave campaign's prediction that "after we Vote Leave, there won't be a sudden change that disrupts the economy" is not holding up well.
Brexiteers might point to the news that the UK economy grew 0.6% in the second quarter of this year or that GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) is investing £275 million in expanding its UK sites. But the second quarter performance predates the result of the referendum, and the chief executive of GSK, Sir Andrew Witty, told the Financial Times that the Brexit vote "adds a bit to the negative side of the scales in making investment decisions".
Investment will not stop as a result of the vote, but spread this caution across an economy and it could fall by a surprising amount. And there are other signs of trouble ahead as well.
The morning after the vote, the pound fell to its lowest level in 31 years, before hitting a fresh new low earlier this month.
Because the moment the result became clear, the UK became a less attractive place to put your money. The International Monetary Fund now thinks the UK will only grow half as much next year as it would have – in the best case scenario.
And it's not just the IMF scaremongering. The Confederation of British Industry says manufacturers' optimism about the business situation has seen its fastest drop since 2009.
And the latest purchasing managers index – an early indicator for the state of the British economy – saw its largest ever fall, returning to its 2009 level.
And you can add to that the fall in the FTSE 250, which plunged after the vote, and is still down 2% from its pre-referendum high.
The Express and its "BREXIT BOOM" headline writers would probably disagree. After all, the FTSE 100 is higher than it was before the vote! Except that the FTSE 100 companies generate quite a lot of their income abroad – so the lower pound inflates their value.
Back in Britain, people are trying to get their money out of some investments. Seven property funds have suspended trading in the biggest freeze of investment funds since 2008. Evidence is mounting that property prices have stalled and may be falling.
The government is also hurting. In one of his last acts as Chancellor, George Osborne dropped his ambition to deliver a budget surplus.
And his successor, Philip Hammond, says he might have to "reset" fiscal policy in the Autumn. He can try to give the economy a shot in the arm by spending more, but there are limits to how far he can go…
Particularly after the Brexit vote saw us lose our AAA credit rating. As it is, UK borrowing in 2015/2016 was £75 billion or a big 4% of GDP and be £65 billion higher than forecast over the next couple of years as Hammond tries to counter the post-referendum slowdown.
Hammond might get some help from the Bank of England, where chief economist Andy Haldane thinks we need a stimulus "sledgehammer": interest rate cuts, and more quantitative easing. Mark Carney, the Bank's governor, has already "guided" investors to expect lower interest rates.
The real worry is that all of this is still unfolding. People are still optimistic that we'll work out a good deal with the EU, staying in the single market. If we don't, things could be much worse. In any event the uncertainty could drag on for years.
And even the Brexit architects are already feeling the pinch. Boris Johnson, our new foreign secretary, has lost his £275,000 a year Daily Telegraph column, and has been forced into a flatsharing arrangement with Liam Fox and David Davis. It's a hard life.
Edited by Michael Prest
Tags: Boris Johnson, economy, Philip Hammond, Property, Vote Leave Categories: Articles
3 Responses to "Don't believe the hype about economic good news"
Julie Summers says:
What an amazing article with not a modicum of common sense! Can we establish one thing for sure…. NO ONE thought the result of the referendum would come out in favour of Leave.
Initially this caused seismic shockwaves in government and business alike which was mirrored in the FTSE100 and FTSE250. We were then told to ignore the ftse 100 as for some it recovered too quickly and to see what destruction we had brought about on ourselves by observing the FTSE250. The business world soon realised that little had changed and soon reverted back to type.
This is now borne out by the fact the FTSE250 is a negligible 0.003% lower than that at Brexit eve which in truth was a high falsity due to large amounts of trades betting on a Remain victory.
You also quote the IMF who intially predicated immediate recession if Leave won the day. 3 Weeks later, once the shockwaves had been assuaged, this was revised to 1.6% growth. What an amaziing turnaround!!
Yes, we are in a period of uncertainty and will continue to be so for some time but we now have an immense opprotunity that we should grasp with both hands.
Our destiny is in our own hands!
As for boris having to share a flat….hmmmm, you really are clutching at straws trying to generate some negativity.
Jonathan Hoffman says:
http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/691589/Britain-BOOMS-EU-vote-economy-economic-news-Brexit
I have complained to the Express about this absurd headline (22 July): "Britain BOOMS after EU vote: Ignore the doom-mongers…it's good news all round"
I cited the forward-looking data that was available on 22 July as well as the credit downgrades, IMF forecast downgrade and consumer confidence reading.
If they do not agree to publish a correction I will go to IPSO.
31st July 2016 at 7:57 am
Mick Bott says:
Well said sir! Just emailed ipso myself asking for advice on whether they can do anything to curb full-blown newspaper campaigns of lies and deceit in relation to the EU referendum. I've often wondered why ipso appears to be so powerless in the face of the gutter press. I wonder if they'll tell me why.
Perhaps if enough of us emailed them, they might at least explain themselves properly.


text:
var ANY: any;
var ANY1;
var ANY2: any[] = ["", ""];
var obj: () => {}
var obj1 = { x: "a", y: () => { }};

function foo(): any {
    var a;
    return a;
}
class A {
    public a: any;
    static foo() {
        var a;
        return a;
    }
}
module M {
    export var n: any;
}
var objA = new A();

// any type var
var ResultIsString1 = typeof ANY1;
var ResultIsString2 = typeof ANY2;
var ResultIsString3 = typeof A;
var ResultIsString4 = typeof M;
var ResultIsString5 = typeof obj;
var ResultIsString6 = typeof obj1;

// any type literal
var ResultIsString7 = typeof undefined;
var ResultIsString8 = typeof null;
var ResultIsString9 = typeof {};

// any type expressions
var ResultIsString10 = typeof ANY2[0];
var ResultIsString11 = typeof objA.a;
var ResultIsString12 = typeof obj1.x;
var ResultIsString13 = typeof M.n;
var ResultIsString14 = typeof foo();
var ResultIsString15 = typeof A.foo();
var ResultIsString16 = typeof (ANY + ANY1);
var ResultIsString17 = typeof (null + undefined);
var ResultIsString18 = typeof (null + null);
var ResultIsString19 = typeof (undefined + undefined);

// multiple typeof  operators
var ResultIsString20 = typeof typeof ANY;
var ResultIsString21 = typeof typeof typeof (ANY + ANY1);

// miss assignment operators
typeof ANY;
typeof ANY1;
typeof ANY2[0];
typeof ANY, ANY1;
typeof obj1;
typeof obj1.x;
typeof objA.a;
typeof M.n;

// use typeof in type query
var z: any;
var x: any[];
var r: () => any;
z: typeof ANY;
x: typeof ANY2;
r: typeof foo;
z: typeof objA.a;
z: typeof A.foo;
z: typeof M.n;
z: typeof obj1.x;

//// [typeofOperatorWithAnyOtherType.js]
var ANY;
var ANY1;
var ANY2 = ["", ""];
var obj;
var obj1 = { x: "a", y: function () {
} };
function foo() {
    var a;
    return a;
}
var A = (function () {
    function A() {
    }
    A.foo = function () {
        var a;
        return a;
    };
    return A;
})();
var M;
(function (M) {
    M.n;
})(M || (M = {}));
var objA = new A();
var ResultIsString1 = typeof ANY1;
var ResultIsString2 = typeof ANY2;
var ResultIsString3 = typeof A;
var ResultIsString4 = typeof M;
var ResultIsString5 = typeof obj;
var ResultIsString6 = typeof obj1;
var ResultIsString7 = typeof undefined;
var ResultIsString8 = typeof null;
var ResultIsString9 = typeof {};
var ResultIsString10 = typeof ANY2[0];
var ResultIsString11 = typeof objA.a;
var ResultIsString12 = typeof obj1.x;
var ResultIsString13 = typeof M.n;
var ResultIsString14 = typeof foo();
var ResultIsString15 = typeof A.foo();
var ResultIsString16 = typeof (ANY + ANY1);
var ResultIsString17 = typeof (null + undefined);
var ResultIsString18 = typeof (null + null);
var ResultIsString19 = typeof (undefined + undefined);
var ResultIsString20 = typeof typeof ANY;
var ResultIsString21 = typeof typeof typeof (ANY + ANY1);
typeof ANY;
typeof ANY1;
typeof ANY2[0];
typeof ANY, ANY1;
typeof obj1;
typeof obj1.x;
typeof objA.a;
typeof M.n;
var z;
var x;
var r;
z: typeof ANY;
x: typeof ANY2;
r: typeof foo;
z: typeof objA.a;
z: typeof A.foo;
z: typeof M.n;
z: typeof obj1.x;


Springfarm Yorkhill is a nice Jewish neighbourhood, but of course people from a wide range of backgrounds live there and in the other neighbourhoods of Thornhill.
Thornhill is a community in the Regional Municipality of York and is split between the cities of Vaughan and Markham. This unique community offers an excellent range of services, schools, entertainment options and is quickly becoming a sought after area because of its affordable homes and proximity to Toronto. To gain a better understanding of the Thornhill area, here is a brief overview of its demographics.
Thornhill has an ethnically diverse population. The largest visible minority in the community is Chinese comprising almost 11% of the total population. There are also large numbers of Korean, Iranian and Italian people living in Thornhill.
According to the latest Canadian Census, Thornhill-Vaughan had a population of 56,361 and Thornhill-Markham had a population of 47,333. These populations have remained relatively stable over the past five years, but certain neighbourhoods and areas within the Thornhill boundaries are growing at a very fast pace.
Suburbs such as Thornhill Woods in Vaughan is one of the fastest growing communities in all of Canada. Much of the population growth in these new suburbs is being driven from young families moving out of Toronto because of high condo prices and the hope of owning a stand alone home.
From the demographics of Thornhill and the average age, one can deduce that the great majority of residents are young families and are of working age. Again, the proximity to Toronto, the short commute and the saturation and exorbitantly priced Toronto condo market are all major attractors for young professionals and families and will continue to be for years to come.
Most of the housing available in Thornhill is single-detached homes (65%). Over 87% of residents in Thornhill own their own home, while just 13% of residents rent. These stand-alone homes are very attractive to young families looking to relocate from Toronto. However, there is also a nice selection of townhouses, apartments and condos that are available and being built in many of the newly developed suburbs, such as Thornhill Woods.
Certain areas of Thornhill continue to grow at a very quick pace and it remains an attractive community for several reasons. The many newly developed neighbourhoods in the area offer affordable housing options when compared to the Toronto condo market. Also, the proximity to Toronto makes the area an attractive place for those willing to commute to and from work.
Combine these housing options with a number of other factors such as excellent schooling and education choices, a multi-cultural community and endless shopping, entertainment and food choices and you can begin to see why the Thornhill area is such a sought after place to call home.


text:
ArticlesCorporationsCronyismEthicsNewsUS News
The Ethics Of Drone Contractors
Melinda Pillsbury-Foster May 18, 2013
Around January 21st1998 a meeting, or series of meetings, took place at Green Hills Software, Inc., between Dan O'Dowd and Glenn Hightower. The meeting included on their agenda approval of a false stock option agreement to replace the award of shares made to Craig Franklin in 1996.
This was the final step Dan needed to take before exercising the sudden death partnership agreement between himself and Hightower, who had provided the original funding which allowed Green Hills to open its doors in 1982. More on Hightower can be read here.
Dan had cut a deal with Franklin, agreeing to help him evade characterization of the stock award as marital property in exchange for Franklin's assistance to prevent Hightower from exercising his right to buy out the company for 47 million, far less than the approximately 350 million it was actually worth.
Franklin's wife, Melinda, had no idea her husband was divorcing her, though later she would find out he had filed the day he returned from their Hawaiian vacation with the entire family of six children on January 1st. It was planned not as a divorce but as take-no-prisoners war.
Melinda had every reason to believe their marriage was stable. The previous year she had saved Craig from the tax disaster his non-filing of returns had caused. He had, in fact, never filed until Melinda forced the issue the previous year when she discovered the reason they were bankrupt was Franklin's non-filing.
Other things she did not know came very close to killing her and the couple's son, Arthur.
Hightower found out about the plan just after the meeting during which he was persuaded to sign off on Franklin's new share agreement. Dan informed him the sudden death partnership agreement had been exercised.
Shocked, Hightower returned to Pasadena and began to make arrangements to raise the capital. This, he believed, would not be difficult for him. He had started and still owned other companies. He was wrong only because he did not know Craig was to persuade the other vice presidents and critical employees to agree to walk out if he owned Green Hills. Craig did just this the next summer. When the due diligence team came to Green Hills a walk-out occurred. Lavish promises of additional stock and other benefits had been made to the senior personnel. Not all promises were kept, but after the fact there was little they could do about it.
Dan and Craig are both psychopaths. There is more on these men in an article titled, "When psychopaths cooperate"
Over the next nearly two years the outcome of the Hightower buyout remained in question because Glenn, outraged by Dan's manipulations, which had begun with a restraining order keeping him from making contact with employees, filed a law suit after the orchestrated walk out. Law suit, Exhibit 7 "Morgan Pillsbury – Franklin Transcript"
Dan, who has all of the human skills of a piranha, evidently finally realized he needed someone to create a more human face for the corporation. Since Dan hoped to take Green Hills public this should also be someone with an impressive corporate resume able to make affirmative introductions to potentially useful board members, essential to acquiring credibility.
And thus entered a new member for the GHS Team.
John B. Douglas III, Unlikely Addition to the Green Hills Team
Mr. Douglas bio, as per the Green Hills Site:
Douglas' association with Green Hills Software actually began simultaneous with the time Dan was feverishly working to ensure he had the 47 million locked down to buy Green Hills himself. Reading the various and carefully worded resumes which abound on the Internet for Jack you find this phrasing at Bloomberg Business Week. "Mr. Jack Douglas has been Vice Chairman at Green Hills Software since April 2003. Mr. Douglas served as Chief Executive Officer to obtain multiple forms of debt and equity financing and on other strategic initiatives. Mr. Douglas also acts as a key advisor to other growing companies. "
Chief Executive Officer of Green Hills Software during the time they were attempting to go public? Of course, it could be a mis-statement by an online site which was perpetuated through reposting. But there are other indications money was tight during the period of 1998 – 2003 when Green Hills became a government contractor.
Dan borrowed a million dollars from Dr. Carl Franklin, Craig's father, supposedly to pay for Craig's stock options. It would have seemed reasonable for Craig to then use the generous dividends being paid from 1998 on to repay this, but evidently this did not happen. The money was extracted from Dan. Craig never repays loans since he has better uses for the money. This has been true his entire life, with only a few exceptions.
This 'loan,' for whatever reason it was made, was not repaid when expected and only firm action on the part of Dr. Franklin's other two sons, Sterling and Larry, both attorneys, resulted in extracting the money from Dan.
Someone with Jack's qualifications must have seemed like a dream come true for Dan at the time because along with Jack's connections he also brought a far more normal personal manner than either Dan or Craig had to offer as officers of the company.
Also, there was Dan, strapped for money, with Hightower suing and only Craig to provide him with comfort and ideas.
Craig at this time, late 1998 through 1999, had become obsessed with having a hit man kill his wife, according to affidavits given later by those talking to him every day. (Affidavit, Middle of Page 2) This came about because Melinda was, like Hightower, not following the carefully scripted plan he and Dan had laid out. She was supposed to die during the divorce from her heart condition, as Hightower was supposed to just go away. Therefore, it is doubtful Dan found their daily lunches together very comforting. Craig's public ranting probably made Dan, who is far more cautious, uneasy.
Craig looks far more normal here than he actually is. Despite appearances, he is highly intelligent with an I. Q. of 180, making him smarter than Einstein.
Jack not only looks normal, he looks charming, sophisticated, and intelligent. His resume, which includes his graduation, summa cum laude from Harvard Law, speaks for itself. Jack could be depended on not to shock potential investors with his table manners, too, an iffy proposition with Craig.
Additionally, Jack's masterful analysis for running an in-house division for corporate counsel, "The Reebok Rules," is filled with sage advice, some of which Jack might have found useful himself.
Now, what motivated John B. (Jack) Douglas III, to go to work at Green Hills, besides money? Jack had received stock when he was working for Apple and, presumably, his income from the stellar corporations, including Reebok, where he held senior executive positions, "helping Reebok grow to over $3 billion in revenue," also provided substantial remuneration, as did Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
Each of these jobs seems to have grown shorter in duration. Jack was at Reebok for ten years, the others for far shorter periods, compressed into the time he had also assumed a consulting role with Green Hills.
By all reports, if they are to be believed, it was not any problem with his professional performance which caused him to move on. That leaves personal considerations and, of late, we have had indications all was not normal with Jack's personal life.
On April 17th Jack was arrested for committing an act of, "Lewdness, open and gross, c 272 s16 (272/16)" in plain sight of a family seated for a meal at the Olive Garden Restaurant in Taunton, Massachusetts. The father of the children, an off duty police officer immediately confronted Jack, this leading to his arrest and arraignment. The event took place at 3:49pm. The facts are recounted in the police report.
Evidently, Jack is an exhibitionist, a form of sexual perversion, "known by several names including: flashing, apodysophilia, and Lady Godiva syndrome, according to Thrive Boston.
According to the same site "Some exhibitionists have a conscious desire to shock or upset the person or persons they are exposing themselves to. In contrast, a high percentage of exhibitionists hope or fantasize that the target of their exposure will become sexually aroused and want to engage in sexual activity with them.
In some cases an exhibitionist will masturbate while exposing him or herself."
The first part of this accords with Jack's reported activity.
The Defense Human Resources Activity (DHRA) site provides the outcome of studies which state male exhibitionists may be sexually inhibited, or even impotent, this starting before age 18 in most cases. Most common in men in their twenties the impulse supposedly diminishes during the 30s and 40s, becoming less common. Another study found, "that the typical exhibitionist is married, has above average intelligence, is satisfactorily employed, and shows no other evidence of serious emotional problems.132 and that, the absence of other emotional problems has been a consistent finding in a number of studies. 130"
The condition is reported to be treatable and treatment programs are available which lower the rate of recidivism to 'rare.' Today Jack is entering his sixties, however, making him somewhat unusual for an exhibitionist.
It is therefore unlikely the incident in Taunton was the first time Jack exhibited himself, raising the possibility his changes in employment and frequent changes of address are not unrelated to this condition.
It is conceivable Green Hills provided a safe harbor for Jack because events in his personal life had overcome him. By leaving Millennium and 'hiring on' at Green Hills he could continue to live in Massachusetts and still have an active professional profile, even if it was one which radically changed his previous, far more prestigious, trajectory.
Also, he did not actually have to live in Santa Barbara and see very much of Dan and Craig. But he knew, through his interactions with them, beginning in 1998, the company would cover for him if questions about his personal life were raised. Dan had certainly provided this service to Craig, who was guilty of raping women in his office during working hours, to say nothing of his after-hours activities.
And, given the arrest cited above, it is very likely he knew it would be well to have an understanding and helpful employer.
Despite not inconsiderable research on the web there is actually very little to be found about Jack's personal life. Those with which he is associated are better understood as extensions of his professional life.
Unlike his fellow Team members Jeff Hazarian and Jason Issacs, he appears to be uninvolved in his local community in any not-for-profit organization. Hazarian and Issacs both joined Green Hills after the events of 1998 and are in stable marriages. Hazarian is very active in his church. Issacs and his wife contribute and participate in local charities, which other members of the GHS management team, do not appear to do.
In effect, Dan provided a sanctuary for those employees inclined to engage in personally unethical behavior. This became a perk of employment, where it obtained the services of individuals who otherwise would not have tolerated his unwillingness to share profits and a business strategy which included providing weapons used to commit human rights violations around the world.
The score card for the management team can be read like this:
Dan and Craig – Psychopathic.
Dave Kleidermacher and Dave Chandler – Caught by greed and their complicity in Dan's 1998 fraud.
Jack – Sexually Deviant, needs assistance in finding an effective treatment program.
Chris Smith – Unknown.
Tim Reed – Cal Tech graduate, still researching.
Jeff and Jason – Tolerant of the corporate culture which financially benefits them.
Previous The Savagery Of The Obama Backed Syrian Terrorists
Next 54 CO Sheriffs File Federal Lawsuit Over New Gun Laws
Melinda Pillsbury-Foster


A five-time winner of the DownBeat Collegiate Award, the Frost Latin Jazz Orchestra brought to the audience a performance by Grammy nominee and McArthur fellow Dafnis Prieto. the event was organized by the Frost School of Music. The organization seeks to improve our lives through the study and performance of music. It is devoted to excellence and a culture characterized by a culture of collegiality, in which diverse people, careers and musical styles are encouraged. The performance consisted of songs from his new big-band album. Also, Alberto de La Reguera will premiere new works for the orchestra to complete an exciting evening of music. The event was held at UM Gusman Concert Hall in Coral Gables.