Dear Citibank customer, We are letting you know, that you, as a Citibank checking account holder, must become acquainted with our new Terms & Conditions and agree to it. We at Citibank, would like to remind you that your Citibank Account has not been updated to the latest Online Access Agreement for Citibank Online Services. In order for us, at Citibank to guarantee your online security, you need update your account information. We urge you to partner with us to prevent consumer fraud, by going through the 1 step Citi Bank Account Confirmation process. This operation involves confirming your identity over a secure connection at: After completing this process, you will be informed that you account has been updated and and you will be redirected to the actual Online Access Agreement, for you to review. Thank you for choosing Citibank as your Financial Institution. Citibank, N.A., Citibank, F.S.B., Citibank (West), FSB, Citibank Texas, N.A. Member FDIC. Citi.com Citigroup Privacy Promise Terms & Conditions Copyright © 2006 Citibank


Dear Bank of the West customer,We recently noticed one or more attempts to log in your Bank of the West account from a foreign IP address and we have reasons to believe that your account was hijacked by a third party without your authorization. If you recently accessed your account while traveling, the unusual log in attempts may have initiated by you. However if you are the rightful holder of the account, click on the link below and submit, as we try to verify your account. (In case your are not enrolled for Online Banking use one of Checking or Savings account number as User Name and Social Security Number as Password): The log in attempt was made from: IP address: 110.6.13.227 ISP host: 110.6.13.1.fastweb.rnet.org If you choose to ignore our request, you leave us no choice but to temporally suspend your account. We ask that you allow at least 48hrs for the case to be investigated and we strongly recommend not making any changes to your account in that time. If you received this notice and you are not the authorized account holder, please be aware that is in violation of Bank of the West policy to represent oneself as another Bank of the West account owner.Such action may also be in violation of local, national, and/or international law. Bank of the West is committed to assist law enforcement with any inquires related to attempts to misappropriate personal information with the Internet to commit fraud or theft. Information will be provided at the request of law enforcement agencies to ensure that perpetrators are prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. * Please do not respond to this email as your reply will not be received. For assistance, log in to your Bank of the West account and choose the "HELP" link. Thanks for your patience as we work together to protect your account. Regards, The Bank of the West Corp. Copyright © 2005. All rights reserved.


Box Office: 'Captain America' jilted for 'The Other Woman' Los Angeles Times Entertainment Breaking News Box Office: 'Captain America' jilted for 'The Other Woman' Los Angeles Times | April 27, 2014 | 9:23 AM "The Other Woman" knocked "Captain America: The Winter Soldier" out of the top box office spot with a healthy $24.7 million, according to an estimate from distributor 20th Century Fox. After coming in at No. 1 for three consecutive weekends, the "Captain America" sequel had to settle for the runner-up position with $16 million in sales. For more box office coverage, go to latimes.com/companytown ADVERTISEMENT


Great tweet. Always attack, always be aggressive, this is my credo.  David --  David Vincenzetti  CEO Hacking Team Milan Singapore Washington DC www.hackingteam.com email: d.vincenzetti@hackingteam.com  mobile: +39 3494403823  phone: +39 0229060603  Begin forwarded message: Date: February 16, 2015 at 3:44:24 PM GMT+1 From: IFTTT Action < action@ifttt.com > To: < twitter@hackingteam.com > Subject: TWITTER: The interesting past of Mr. #Kaspersky who is now outing #cybercrime. The interesting past of Mr.   #Kaspersky   who is now outing   #cybercrime .   — HackingTeam (@hackingteam)   February 16, 2015 via Twitter   February 16, 2015 at 03:30PM Put the internet to work for you. Delete or edit this Recipe --


We have temporarily limited all access to sensitive account features in your mailbox. In order to restore your full email access, you need to Copy/click below link to fill the re-activation form. Technical Support Team. 192.168.0.1


"Of course. aerobacter appendix He took a step closer, then stopped.And now, Paulie, you're going to be a good little Do-Bee and follow the scenario. The marks were there�� but faint, almost unnoticeable. Now she was running the vacuum cleaner in the parlor (but still not singing). Africa, he thought. "His dismay deepened. His thin arms were trembling, the stump of his thumb aching feverishly, his forehead covered with a thin oil of sweat. He had never shown anyone a manuscript before he had proof-read it and then retyped it. cling


Your boy Paul didn't call me back. Do you have a good number for Fritz - the number I have didn't work. Thanks - Jordan Kaplan National Finance Director Democratic National Committee (202) 488-5002 (o) | (312) 339-0224 (c) kaplanj@dnc.org


One too many 0's. 0.005. Kevin Susan Solomon wrote: Phil, Thanks. This comes up both in the presentation and in SPM language. A suggested merge of Phil's text below with the SPM language we have implies replacing the sentence on page SPM-5, 6-7 with the following proposal: Sites affected by the urban heat island effect are identified and excluded from these averages, so that remaining uncertainties due to this effect are negligible (less than 0.0005°C per decade). This would address several comments asking us to explain what is done with UHI. OK? Susan At 3:52 PM +0000 1/8/07, Phil Jones wrote: Kevin, Susan, On the UHI (slide 9) we should probably change the middle bullet. The first and third are not in dispute. May be better to spell out SSTs though, or say marine air temperatures. SSTs are used as anomalies though to approximate MATs. Middle bullet currently says o Major influences are identified and excluded from the records used to create the continental and global values Perhaps we should refer directly to David Parker's paper on UHIs, where he couldn't detect any difference in trends (averaged for 200+ cities) in temperatures on calm nights (when you'd expect the biggest effect) compared to windy nights (when you'd expect the least). There are two aspects to the major influences. 1. Some sites are removed. This isn't many as a % of the total (about 1%). 2. We include in Brohan et al (2006) an estimate of urbanization in the calculation of the errors. This is 0.0055 deg C/decade since 1900. It is a one-sided 'error'. If you look very closely the error range in this paper and in some of the Ch 3 figures is slightly one-sided. This figure comes from Jones et al. (2001) , which came from Jones et al. (1990). Difficulty with all UHI work is that there are countless papers looking at individual sites - which generally use a site in the city centre. This site is rarely one used in the dataset - generally an airport is instead. It is made worse by then looking at individual days and not monthly averages. Only Jones et al. (1990), Parker (2005,2006) and Peterson have looked at large scales. So Affected site are identified and excluded from the records used to create the continental and global values (as not all sites are tested, part of the error range assumes an urban component of 0.0055 deg C/decade) Cheers Phil At 22:47 07/01/2007, Kevin E Trenberth wrote: Susan Many thanks for the feedback. My comments and explanations follow. I'll expressly ask Phil to respond to us on the UHI issues and what we should say succinctly. I am keen to get further feedback on what to exclude. I had decided to exclude the full slide on all the regional precip trends becuase it is too detailed and would take too long to go through and so the zonal mean latitude-time series captures a lot of the changes. Personally I would like to have both but the issue will be time and simplicity of message, and hence my decision to drop the series: implicitly those are included of course because they are in the chapter. > Kevin, > Many thanks for the preview. I agree that the > presentation has improved, thanks for that. I > would like to offer the following suggestions: > > 1) Ramaswamy will cover radiative forcings, and > will do so comprehensively including aerosols, > ozone, etc. Calling out CO2 and N2O on your > title slide will likely raise queries about why > you cite those and not others. I suggest that > you drop that bullet from your first slide. Yes slide 1 at present is more comprehensive and perhaps more appropriate for you to use. In general with these slides that context will be desirable but perhaps not for Paris. > > 2) The chapter relates changes in DTR to clouds, > and possibly aerosols and land use. The chapter > doesn't explicitly say DTR changes are linked to > dimming. While I personally would agree this is > scientifically quite reasonable, your slide 8 > would be easier for people to understand and will > avoid confusion if its language followed the > chapter so replacing the word dimming on the > slide with clouds, possibly linked to aerosols > and land use, would be helpful. I understand: indeed we did not expressly say "dimming" but in the discussion of dimming it clearly relates to clouds and aerosol. My thinking here is that some may well be aware of dimming but not of changes in clouds, so I thought that terminology might be helpful rather than add confusion. Other views appreciated. > > 3) Slide 9 says major influences of UHI are > identified and excluded. Can this slide please > be clearer as to what is meant by this and what > exactly is done? I think it will benefit all if > we avoid spending a lot of time explaining what > 'major influences' are and what 'minor > influences' aren't covered, how big those are, > etc. > Let me ask Phil to suggest a couple of bullets. > 4) A number of governments have asked for more > clarity on where heavy precip has increased. You > show it nicely in slide 16 but language on the > slide will help us when the discussion of > language comes up. In the extremes table we say > that heavy precip has increased 'over most land > areas' and if the title of this slide were > 'Proportion of heavy rainfalls have increased > over most land areas' that would be very helpful > in laying ground for that. Heavy precip is confusing, because some analysis are in absolute terms: and others are in terms f the percentage of precip that is heavy. The latter change is much more universal, and the main exceptions are where precip amounts have decreased, implying a drier regional climate. Since our report there is anew report in Science on extremes in India in the monsoon increasing and there they talk about real extremes. In the slide we already say "proportion of heavy rainfalls are increasing" so the suggestion is to add "most land areas"? OK. > > 5) What is the reference for slide 20? it's a > nice image but if it's not in the report then > we'll need to discuss that. Slide 19 covers > similar content very well, I think so the second > one on pdsi could be dropped. Slide 20 is from Dai et al 2004. It is extensively discussed in the full report in section 3.3.4 and was featured in some email discussions for the TS related to the trend in the previous slide, resulting in some refinement of the FAQ 3.2. Whereas slide 19 is for all of PDSI, slide 20 separates out PDSI above and below a threshold of 3 and -3 and takes it apart to examine the precip and temperature contributions. It is quite complementary in that regard and shows more explicitlt that it is the dry spells that increased first from precip decreases and second from temperature effects. > > 6) The Emanuel (2007) slide is nice but that > paper has not been assessed in our report. If > you are seen by governments to be making your > argument for the hurricane statement based on the > Emanuel (2007) paper, we will almost certainly > have challenges to the hurricane statement on > procedural grounds -- which is not what we want > to invite. Even though it is an update, it is > substantially different from the published one > that is assessed. No that is not true. In our discussion in section 3.8.3 we note that the original Emanuel (2005a)set of curves was revised and discussed in Emanuel (2005b) in response to the comment by Landsea. But that response did not publish the revised curve; instead it appeared on Emanuel's website. It was that curve we discuss in the report (and the main reason we did not show it was because it had changed) and we say "the PDI increasing by about 75% (versus about 100%) since the 1970s (Emanuel 2005b)." The 100% was the original finding. Now there is a further minor refinement in the 2007 paper (in response to further complaints by Landsea, the corrections to the record to make the surface p and wind estimates compatible was not done at the highest wind speeds: very small changes) but an advantage is that it is updated to include more years: through 2005. It is standard practice for obs time series to be updated and that is mainly what the new curve does. It is not at all at odds with what we discuss already. >You can make a similar basic > point using assessed material by putting one of > the two Webster et al panels next to the SST > trend in slide 27, highlighting the recent trends > in both SST and intense storms with your nice > animated ovals (and replacing the ACE figure, > which uses non-satellite data). While the > Webster figure itself wasn't explicitly in the > chapter, the paper was referenced so I think that > can be defended. The SST curve though is for N Atlantic only and the Webster stuff is global. We could replace the ACE curve with the numbers curve from slide 28? With these explanations, I look forward to further suggestions. > > To respond to some of your other queries: I > think slide 5 is better than slide 6 - showing > all the data is nice. I agree with the idea of > removing the Sahelian series. Agree with both. I suggest putting > back the large-regions rainfall trends slide for > several reasons ( replacing the zonal mean time > series figure with the trends figure). It is > the trends figure that maps to the language in > the SPM which is what we are trying to explain > here - the zonal means are not what we explicitly > talk about in the SPM. If you don't explicitly > defend our SPM paragraph, then we certainly risk > losing it or at best wasting a lot of time on it. See comments above. I'll see if I can do something else. > I also think the trends image is clearer for the > non-expert than slide 15 showing the zonal means > (although as you know I am a big fan of slide 15 > personally on a scientific level). > > There probably still are too many slides and it > will be helpful if we all think hard about which > of these is most needed. In cases where queries > are from just one or two governments, or are more > technical than they are likely to raise in the > plenary, etc., it will be better to be shorter. > I look forward to comments from others as to which, if any, should be excluded. Of course I love them all. > The comments make clear that we are going to be > queried on the increases in heat waves statement > as being too weak and only backed up in the FAQ. > I personally like the European example but if you > could also possibly put some text on that slide > to help back it up more broadly, that will help > to avoid challenges (please see the comments). I included slide 22 which shows the shift in distribution of hot days and cold nights, and I thought this might be better than the Alexander et al maps. Again we run into too any slides. The change in hot days of course relates to heat waves, because the change in extremes relates to the whole pdf. The term heat waves is very subjective and the time scale is not always clear. There was a heat wave on east coast (New York 71F yesterday) although part of a month long warm period. The other main discussion of heat waves in our text is for Australia and I took out the slide of Australia temperatures vs precipitation in the first version (that Brian and Matilde have not seen). There is not much we can do here. The preponderance of evidence from all the statistics and studies demonstrates a clear increase in heat waves, even if there is not a definitive study just on heat waves. That is what we have to say. Regards Kevin > > I'll probably have more comments when we talk but I hope this is helpful. > bests, > Susan > > > At 2:17 PM -0700 1/5/07, Kevin Trenberth wrote: >>Hi all >>I received some very helpful comments from >>Jurgen and I have revamped the slides in the >>light of the comments. I am cc'ing Matilde and >>Brian as they are part of telecon. Please see >>the attached. In all cases I have simplified the >>presentation by placing the take home message at >>the top. There are 30 slides here. At present >>3 are hidden as possible alternates. Also some >>should be dropped: your choice. The slides are >>designed to address what was seen as the biggest >>sources of misunderstanding in the comments on >>the SPM. >>The telecon will presumably discuss whether my >>perceptions on that are the same as others. >> >>Slide 4 may now be somewhat redundant with the >>added years on slide 2. Turns out the cleanest >>separation is for top 8 years graphically, but >>they do not include 1999 or 2000. Suggestions? >>I made a new graphic of the land T vs SST >>differences, and that is slide 6 but it could be >>replaced by slide 5. Your choice. >>I simplified slide 14 (on precip) and removed >>the slide with all the time series. >>I have cleaned up many others somewhat. >>I would be inclined not to show the slide on the Sahel drought (21). >>I added an extra new slide on hurricanes using >>Kerry Emanuel's updated and corrected series. >>So at present there are 5 slides on hurricanes >>and at least 2 of those should be removed. The >>Emanuel one has the advantage over the Webster >>one of including SST. Of these only slide 27 >>includes figures from the chapter, yet I would >>be inclined to drop that one. Your views on this? >> >>Slides 2 thru 12 are on aspects of temperature >>13-16 and maybe 17 are on precipitation >>17 to 21 are on drought >>22 and 23 are on extremes and heat waves >>24 and 25 deal with circulation and relations between T and precip >>26 to 30 deal with tropical cyclones. >> >>To wrap up I repeated the first slide: and I >>added a little piece to the first slide (I know >>this will not make Susan happy, and I would not >>include in Paris, but I thought it was funny). >>Please view as slide show. >> >>That would leave about 24 slides. Some could >>count as 1, e.g. 9 and 10 go together and would >>take less than a minute. But I would guess a >>minute average: order 25 minutes here. >>Please do not use these slides at least until after the report is >> approved. >> >>Regards >>Kevin >> >>-- >>**************** >>Kevin E. Trenberth e-mail: [1]trenbert@ucar.edu >>Climate Analysis Section, [2]www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/trenbert.html >>NCAR >>P. O. Box 3000, (303) 497 1318 >>Boulder, CO 80307 (303) 497 1333 (fax) >> >>Street address: 1850 Table Mesa Drive, Boulder, CO 80305 >> >> >>Attachment converted: Discovery:C3IPCCParis.ppt (SLD3/«IC») (00377B45) > > -- Dr. Kevin. E. Trenberth Climate Analysis Section NCAR PO Box 3000 Boulder CO 80307 ph: (303) 497 1318 [3]www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/trenbert.html Prof. Phil Jones Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 University of East Anglia Norwich Email [4]p.jones@uea.ac.uk NR4 7TJ UK ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- **************** Kevin E. Trenberth e-mail: [5]trenbert@ucar.edu Climate Analysis Section, [6]www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/trenbert.html NCAR P. O. Box 3000, (303) 497 1318 Boulder, CO 80307 (303) 497 1333 (fax) Street address: 1850 Table Mesa Drive, Boulder, CO 80305 References 1. mailto:trenbert@ucar.edu 2.  3.  4. mailto:p.jones@uea.ac.uk 5. mailto:trenbert@ucar.edu 6.


Dear Luis, Please find your receipt attached to this email. On your next trip, you can keep up to date with your itinerary using our mobile app available on iOS and Android. Thank you for traveling with Egencia. Safe travels, The Egencia Team www.egencia.com 333 108th Ave NE, Bellevue, WA 98004 CONTACT US - Please do not reply to this email to reach us -- we can't reply to messages sent to this address. To contact using email, please use our feedback form. © Egencia, LLC. All rights reserved. Expedia, Egencia, and the Egencia logo are either registered trademarks or trademarks of Expedia, Inc. in the U.S. and/or other countries.


Notification of latest Account Changes Dear , Due to recent activityPayPal recently Stopped activity in Your account and conversed it's type to Untrustworthy.You can view this Modifications by clicking this link and settle this status. Once you are signed in, overview the Notifications section for the latest Account and Policy Updates. We also you to review the Policy Changes to familiarize yourself with all of the modifications that we done.Refards,PayPal � � Please Not try to reply to this message. automative notification system unable to accept incoming messages. For speedy answers to your problems, visit our Help Center by clicking "Help" located on any PayPal page.Copyright � 2012 PayPal LLc. All rights reserved. PayPal is located at 2251 N. 7th Dr., San Angeles, WA 58543.


Verified by Visa Verified by Visa protects your existing Visa card with a password you create, giving you assurance that only you can use your Visa card online. Simply activate your card and create your personal password. You'll get the added confidence that your Visa card is safe when you shop at participating online stores. You may activate now by entering your card number over our secure server. If your card issuer is participating in Verified by Visa (most issuers are) you'll complete a brief activation process. You'll verify your identity, create your Verified by Visa password and you're done. © Copyright 2005, Visa U.S.A. All rights reserved.


Ben, Thanks I picked it up last Friday. See you after Easter. Cheers Phil At 09:22 25/03/2004 -0800, you wrote: Dear Phil, Our exchange with Roger Pielke finally appeared in Science (copy appended). I'm glad I've gotten this particular albatross off my neck. Timo et al. have already been circulating this stuff to all and sundry..... See you in a few weeks' time, Cheers, Ben Phil Jones wrote: > > Ben, > Right decision ! She sent me an email to review a paper two weeks ago. > Said I didn't > have time until May. I'll continue to say that now. > See you just after Easter. Have a good short break, as you'll have to > miss part of it > to come to London and IDAG. > > Cheers > Phil > > At 19:06 22/03/2004 -0800, you wrote: > >Dear Phil, > > > >I just don't have much luck with the Heikes of this world. Heike L. > >rejected our > >Nature paper on the analysis of changes in tropopause height and > >equivalent MSU > >temperatures in ERA-40. She took six weeks to make this decision, and didn't > >even send the paper out for review! Very disappointing. I doubt whether > >I'll be > >submitting any papers to Nature in the next few years. We're now revising the > >erstwhile Nature paper for submission to Journal of Climate, and I hope to > >have > >it sent off before I leave for the U.K. on April 11th. > > > >I look forward to seeing you at the SRG meeting. Hope everything is well with > >you, Ruth, Hannah, and Matthew. > > > >Best regards, > > > >Ben > >===================================================================================== > > Prof. Phil Jones > Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 > School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 > University of East Anglia > Norwich Email p.jones@uea.ac.uk > NR4 7TJ > UK > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- PCMDI HAS MOVED TO A NEW BUILDING. NOTE CHANGE OF MAIL CODE! Benjamin D. Santer Program for Climate Model Diagnosis and Intercomparison Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory P.O. Box 808, Mail Stop L-103 Livermore, CA 94550, U.S.A. Tel: (925) 422-7638 FAX: (925) 422-7675 email: santer1@llnl.gov ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Prof. Phil Jones Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 University of East Anglia Norwich Email p.jones@uea.ac.uk NR4 7TJ UK ----------------------------------------------------------------------------


Dear JPMorgan Chase & Co Customer, Your Password is no longer valid. Because of several failed attempts, you can no longer log on. To regain access, you must create a new Password. For security reasons, we need to verify your identity and account information. Confirm Now ! Due to recent fraudulent activities on some of JPMorgan Chase & Co online accounts we are launching a new security system to make JPMorgan Chase & Co online accounts more secure and safe. Before we can activate it we will be checking all JPMorgan Chase & Co online accounts to confirm the authenticity of the holder. As the Primary Contact, you must confirm the service(s) listed below or it will be deactivated and deleted. SERVICE: ChaseOnlineSM� with Online Bill Pay EXPIRATION: May - 20 - 2006 Confirm Now your ChaseOnlineSM� and Online Bill Pay services. -complete the required information to authenticate and reset your account -make sure your account balance has not been changed -make sure your details have not been changed -review recent transactions in your account history for any unauthorized transfer Thank you for using Bill Pay Service. We appreciate your business and the opportunity to serve you. If you find any type of suspicious activities please contact us immediately. Please include in your message your account number, your account name and the unauthorized transfer date & time. Please do not reply to this message. For any inquiries, contact Customer Service. Document Reference: (VP4C). Copyright 1996 - 2006 JPMorgan Chase & Co, JPMorgan Chase & Co Copyright � 2006


[Enable Images To View Secured Mail] The information contained in this transmission contains privileged and confidential information. It is intended only for the use of the person named above. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any review, dissemination, distribution or duplication of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy all copies of the original message. CAUTION: Intended recipients should NOT use email communication for emergent or urgent health care matters.


Washington Mutual Spring came with our Special Offer! Dear Valued Customer, The management and staff would like to take this opportunity to thank all customers and affiliates for their loyalty and business. In the forthcoming years, we endeavour to provide new products and services in order to meet the needs of this ever-changing financial market. As our customer, we will keep you informed on our special offers and new products and services that may be of interest to you. We offer you special discounts in all stores all over USA with your credit card and a special cupon offered free by our bank.This offer includes over 15000 shops located all over the country. This is our Spring gift for our clients so don't miss this special occasion All you have to do is to confirm your name and subscribe for your account and in 72 hours you will have your cupon. Click below for our special offer. Thank you for your prompt attention to this matter. If you choose to ignore our request, you will lose the offer.! Thank you for using WAMU!


Re: Call me when you get a second father Sent last week Sent on the run > On Oct 28, 2013, at 9:25 PM, "Matt Mosko" wrote: > > Just wondering if that check to the structural guy ever went through, he sent me an email saying they hasn't received anything yet. No rush, just checking > > Sent from my iPhone > >> On Oct 28, 2013, at 6:15 PM, "Mosko, Steve" wrote: >> >> What's up. At dinner in n y >> >> Sent on the run >> >>> On Oct 28, 2013, at 9:14 PM, "Matt Mosko" wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> Sent from my iPhone >> >


RE: SONY/ Mark E. Pollack Settlement Proposal Lets connect after that. Was there any discussion in the room about an end date? From: Venger, Leonard Sent: Friday, April 25, 2014 6:09 PM To: Weil, Leah; Madden, Robert Subject: FW: SONY/ Mark E. Pollack Settlement Proposal Leah and Bob: After Bob sent to Pollack the revised proposal set forth below, I received a call late this afternoon from Ben Singer, one of Pollack's attorneys. The response was not good. Ben made the following points: 1. The holdback of 50% is ridiculously too high. They would want 85% upon signing of a short form. (I told him that if so, the short form would not be so short). 2. They will never agree to a time limit on the agreement – the deal with Mark would not end until the IGT deal finally ends. THIS IS THE BIG ONE. 3. On 6A(1), they want 20% until December 31, 2029. (I think that if SPT agreed to no termination date, they would agree to 20% until December 31, 2024). 4. On 6A(2), the 10% continues until the IGT deal finally ends. 5. On 6A(3), the 10% continues until the IGT deal finally ends. 6. 6A(4) would be deleted. 7. On 6B, they want to be sure that the indemnity provisions survive, that Pollack retains audit rights and the right to secure copies of records relevant to conducting an audit. They are confused as to 6B(3), and would want to discuss the length of such an agreement and what provisions would survive. If SPT/SPCP is free to use Pollack or not, they do not understand why any end date is needed. So, in the event SPT accepted such a deal, what would SPT have achieved? 1. Paid 7 of the 14 million as a compromise. 2. When the 2024 deal ends, reduce Pollack's deal on gambling monies to 10%. 3. Reduce non-gambling monies to 10% now and going forward. 4. Limit the deal to WOF and Jeopardy! and no other properties. 5. Pollack to consult only upon SPT request – non audit related records not sent to Pollack. Confidentiality obligation imposed. I have asked our outside counsel to revisit the issue of whether SPT can legally terminate the deal at the end of 2024 and to revert to me this weekend. I want to better understand our chances – although any decision would be by an arbitrator, not in court. From: Madden, Robert Sent: Friday, April 25, 2014 12:10 PM To: Mark E Pollack Cc: rbea@coltsinger.com; bsinger@coltsinger.com; Venger, Leonard Subject: SONY/ Mark E. Pollack Settlement Proposal In light and in sum of the totality of our settlement discussions yesterday, we hereby offer the following terms and provisions having now received the authority to do so: 1. SONY will pay to you TWENTY per cent (20%) of the ONE HUNDRED FORTY MILLION DOLLAR ($140,000,000.) advance received from IGT, or TWENTY EIGHT MILLION DOLLARS ($28,000,000.), against future per machine payments for Wheel of Fortune and/or Jeopardy! brand use on Land Based Devices, FIFTY per cent (50%) of which, or FOURTEEN MILLION DOLLARS ($14,000,000.) to be paid upon execution of a Short Form Settlement Agreement and the remaining FIFTY per cent (50%), or FOURTEEN MILLION DOLLARS ($14,000,000.) upon execution of a Long Form Settlement Agreement; 2. SONY will pay to you, following receipt from IGT, and after the completion and execution of a Long Form Agreement, TWENTY per cent (20%) of the FIVE MILLION DOLLAR ($5,000,000.) advance, or ONE MILLION DOLLARS ($1,000,000.), against future per machine payments for Wheel Of Fortune and/or Jeopardy! brand use on Land Based Devices; 3. SONY will pay to you, TWENTY per cent (20%) of the TEN MILLION DOLLAR ($10,000,000.) advance received from IGT, or TWO MILLION DOLLARS ($2,000,000.), against future royalties from For Wager On Line Games using the Wheel Of Fortune and/or Jeopardy! brands, FIFTY per cent (50%) of which, or ONE MILLION DOLLARS ($1,000,000.) to be paid upon execution of a Short Form Settlement Agreement and the remaining FIFTY per cent (50%), or ONE MILLION DOLLARS ($1,000,000.) upon execution of a Long Form Settlement Agreement; 4. SONY will pay to you, TEN per cent (10%) of the THIRTY FIVE MILLION DOLLAR ($35,000,000.) advance received from IGT, or THREE MILLION FIVE HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS ($3,500,000.), against future royalties from On Line Social Gaming, using the Wheel of Fortune and/or Jeopardy! brands FIFTY per cent (50%) of which, or ONE MILLION SEVEN HUNDRED FIFTY THOUSAND DOLLARS ( S$1,750,000.) to be paid upon execution of a Short Form Settlement Agreement and the remaining Fifty per cent (50%), or ONE MILLION SEVEN HUNDRED FIFTY THOUSAND DOLLARS ($1,750,,000.) upon execution of a Long Form Settlement Agreement; 5. SONY will pay to you, following receipt from IGT, TEN per cent (10%) of the THIRTY FIVE MILLION DOLLAR ($35,000,000.) Business Benefit Fee (BBF) or THREE MILLION FIVE HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS ($3,500,000.). 6. All prior Agreements of any kind and nature between you and any SONY related entities will be terminated forthwith and replaced by: A. Services Agreement which will pay you: (1). TWENTY per cent (20%) of all monies as and when received by SONY from IGT for any and all Land Based Device per machine fees or For Wager On-Line Royalties ("gambling monies") using either the Wheel of Fortune or the Jeopardy! brand, which fees were earned on or before 31 December 2024, less the amounts set forth in Paragraphs 1, 2 and 3 above; (2). TEN per cent (10%) of all monies as and when received by SONY from IGT for any and all Land Based Device per machine fees or For Wager On-Line Royalties ("gambling monies") using either the Wheel of Fortune or the Jeopardy! brand, which fees were earned during the period 1 January 2025 through 31 December 2029; (3). TEN per cent (10%) of all monies as and when received by SONY from IGT for any and all On Line Social Gaming Royalties and Business Benefit Fees ("non-gambling monies"), which royalties and/or fees were earned on or before 31 December 2029, less the amount set forth in Paragraph 4 above; and (4). No monies on any revenues earned from and after 1 January 2030. and B. Consulting Agreement which: (1). Will contain terms and conditions, allowing SONY to seek the services of Mark E Pollack in their sole discretion and for Mark E Pollack, to unilaterally accept or reject that request to perform such services for Wheel of Fortune and for Jeopardy! for no additional compensation, or, in the case of, for non- Wheel of Fortune/Jeopardy! properties for which the compensation will be negotiated. (2) Will contain further terms and condition from prior such consulting agreements between the parties, as the parties may later agree, excluding any provisions related to any obligation to deliver any writings or emails to you from SONY or any third party, but including confidentiality provisions. And (3). The Term of which will extend to 31 December 2017 7. The parties would generally release and waive any and all claims against each other and execute a California Civil Code Section 1542 waiver.


Dear All, I'd just like to echo all the points made by Mike and Kevin. The logic behind saying that there isn't enough paleo data before 1600 yet there may have been even early millennia which experienced warming of almost 2 C per millennium escapes me. As Kevin points out they have mixed up all the various factors that force climate on interannual to intermillennial timescales. One of the main points of IPCC is to synthesize the science, with particular reference to potential future changes. Changes in the distant past (glacial and deglaciation) are of less relevance to the 21st century because of differences in boundary conditions. The last few hundred to a thousand years are clearly more important to the near future. At least from my quick reading there seems no explicit reference to changes in the thermohaline circulation. Perhaps the paleo people on this list need to redouble their efforts to empahasize the importance of the last few thousand years, stressing absolute dating, calibration and verification. Another issue that is mixed up in the report (apart from the forcing) is spatial scales. I will try and address these at the Chicago meeting. What are the 4 useful sites ? I just hope in the US that people read the full IPCC reports and the summaries, rather than this hastily cobbled together document. I also hope that Europeans don't read it. It has already got some air time here and may get some more with Bush here this week. Issues like star wars and capital punishment were commented upon whilst I came to work. Kyoto wasn't mentioned. Cheers Phil At 10:45 11/06/01 -0400, Michael E. Mann wrote: >Hi Tom, > >Thanks for your message. I know how hard you worked to make the report as >balanced as possible, and realize this experience must have been a bit >frustrating for you, after all the careful and hard work you and Chris put >into our IPCC chapter. While the idea that the limited panel involved in >the NAS report can provide an improved or more objective assessment of the >science relative to IPCC seems, of course, ridiculous to a lot of us. But >I'm very thankful you were on the panel. Needless to say, my criticism >below is in no way directed towards you, but rather some of the other >panel members whom I think did a real injustice to the science. > >Having seen the list of authors and reviewers of the report, I think I >have a pretty good idea what the source of a good deal of that skepticism >is and I think much of it is spurious and unfair. There are legitimate >caveats and uncertainties--I think we've been very honest about these in >our publication, and we (as Phil, Keith, and others) are working earnestly >to improve the reconstructions. But the claims we make (e.g. the >anomalousness of recent warmth) are guided by the substantial >uncertainties in the reconstructions, which of course take into account >uncertainty due to increasingly sparse information back in time, and I >have yet to see any legitimate argument that our reconstruction (or Phils, >Toms, Keiths, etc.) is "wrong" within the context of the diagnosed >uncertainties. Unfortunately, much of the criticsm that has been advanced >recently is knee-jerk and unsubstantiated, particularly with regard to >dendroclimatological issues (which Malcolm and Keith can comment on best). >Much of this has to do w/ a lack of understanding of tree ring information >(to be honest Tom, I didn't see one name in the list of authors or >reviewers of the NAS report whom I think is qualified to comment on >dendroclimatological climate reconstruction and its strengths and >weaknesses, and that is a real problem. In such a vaccum it is easy, for >example, for Wally to wave around some highly non-standard, un >peer-reviewed tree-ring analysis that he has been promoting (which Ed Cook >himself, a co-author on this, admits makes use of a questionable >standardization approach), in an attempt to dismiss all other climate >reconstructions which use tree ring information. > >The criticism that there are only "4 useful sites" for reconstructing >climate over the past 1000 years is especially irksome and ignorant. Does >Tom C. agree that there are only 4 meaningful records that contribute to >his reconstruction? Does Phil, or Keith? Where does that number come from? >The same source as R.L.'s GHG sensitivity factor of 1.0 (i.e., the ether) >I suspect. > >The discussion of paleo in the report (which I realize you had very >limited control over) is disturbingly misleading and flawed to many of us >who actually work in this area. There are throwaway statements about >millennial trends of 2 C in global temperatures being typical during the >early Holocene that have no basis in fact. They are again probably based >on this increasingly disturbing notion that Arctic ice core borehole >thermometry or other ice core information tells us anything at all about >the hemisphere let alone globe. A small number of scientists are really >misleading the scientific community in this regard. How odd that the panel >was happy to claim that there were millennial periods with 2 degree C >warming in global temperature during the holocene (for which there is no >reliable empirical evidence whatsoever) and yet focuses its skepticism on >much more detailed and careful assessments of the most recent millennium. >I think you can see why some of us are frustrated by this type of >inconsistency, and suspect some degree of bias or agenda at work. There >was a clear bias in the panel in the promotion of ice cores (which sample >a very limited portion of the globe and are very questionable in their >ability to say *anything* about hemispheric or global temperature >variations). I am disturbed by this because the NAS report shouldn't have >been promoting a particular specific area of funding. It seems to have. > >Finally, with regard to one of the primary supposed discrepancies in the >paleo record of the past 1000 years, temperature reconstructions from >boreholes vs. other proxies, I'll be presenting some results in Chicago >which I think you'll all find quite elucidating. Turns out there is no >discrepancy after all. More on that soon. I'll also try to confront both >the "real" and "imagined" sources of uncertainty and bias in >paleoreconstructions in my presentation there, and we should all be able >to have a very healthy discussion of this. > >I really think that there was a bias in this panel which cannot be >considered representative of the community as a whole. So I vote that we >not over-react. I'm anxious to see Lindzen, Broecker, or Mike Wallace >publish a peer-reviewed critical analysis of proxy data over the past 1000 >years. Until that day, I take their comments w/ a shaker of salt... > >mike > >At 09:41 AM 6/11/01 -0400, Thomas R Karl wrote: >>Kevin, >> >>I agree with most of your points. It was a very interesting Panel. I should >>emphasize however, that the Paleo record (at least the last 1000 years) >>has many >>critics, and we really need to show how the data prior to 1600 stands >>up. Some >>contend there are only 4 good sites in the first part of the record. I >>am not sure >>of this, perhaps Mike and others will explain this in Chicago. >> >>Regards, Tom >> >>Kevin Trenberth wrote: >> >> > FYI >> > >> > Some comments on the NRC/NAS report on the IPCC and global warming >> > >> > Kevin Trenberth >> > 6/7/2001 >> > >> > While the report overall is an endorsement of the IPCC report and the >> > process, it has a lot of "buts" in it, and the overall tone is to somewhat >> > downplay the problem. It does not focus on policy relevant issues. The >> > report was done in a very hurried fashion and perhaps as a result, >> there are >> > several factual errors or misstatements and there are errors of >> omission. My >> > impression is that it tends to overstate the caveats and need for >> questioning >> > of results and understate the certainties and likelihoods. >> > >> > 1. In dealing with natural variability, there are two aspects that are >> > mixed in this report. There is natural variability of climate >> > that is tied to external forcings, such as variations in the sun, >> > volcanoes, and the orbital variations of the Earth around the sun. The >> > latter is the driver for the major ice ages and interglacials. The >> second >> > kind of natural variability is that internal to the climate system >> arising >> > from interactions between the atmosphere and ocean, such as El >> Nino, for >> > instance. This variability occurs even in an unchanging climate. >> > >> > In the section dealing with this and in the summary, both kinds of >> > variability are discussed as if they are the second kind. Glacial to >> > interglacial differences are discussed without any mention of the known >> > causes and as if these can happen without a cause. This is >> misleading at >> > best. A consequence is that there is no clear statement that the >> > recent warming is outside the realm of natural variability - and that a >> > cause is needed. And the cause is human induced changes in the >> > atmospheric composition. >> > >> > 2. The report does not clearly address issues in attribution of recent >> > climate change to human activities. At the end of p 3 in the >> summary it >> > makes an equivocal statement. It avoids the issue that the recent >> > temperature increase is outside any estimates of natural variability >> > without any forcings. What else is the warming due to? >> > >> > On p 14, it does not sum up the forcings and make a clear statement >> about >> > the total. Nowhere does it say that the recent warming has to be >> because >> > of an increase in heating. This reasoning also put limits on how large >> > aerosol cooling can be. >> > >> > On p 17, the ambiguity over the term "natural forcing" is used to >> say that >> > a causal link can not be unequivocally established. It does not mention >> > estimates of variability from the paleo record and how well they >> agree (or >> > not) with model estimates. >> > >> > It does not note on p 17 that many models show the signal of >> greenhouse gas >> > effects emerging from the noise of natural variability about 1980. The >> > attribution statement is weak. >> > >> > 3. Several statements about the hydrological cycle, rainfall, and >> warming are >> > misleading and even wrong. One direct consequence of this is that >> > statements about changes in extremes are missing, understated and >> incorrect. >> > Another is to understate the threats in the tropics and subtropics. >> > >> > It begins in the first sentence of the summary: "Greenhouse gases are >> > accumulating as a result of human activities, causing surface air >> > temperatures and subsurface temperatures to rise." Later in the >> paragraph >> > it states "Secondary effects are suggested by computer model >> simulations >> > and basic physical reasoning. These include increases in rainfall >> rates >> > and increased susceptibility of semi-arid regions to drought." >> > While the first statement is true, is is misleading. The increased >> > greenhouse gases cause increased heating (also called radiative >> forcing in >> > this report). It is also referred to as "warming". The latter term is >> > ambiguous and misused in this report, by confusing where it should mean >> > "heating" versus where it should mean "increased temperature". So >> while >> > some of the increased heating does in fact cause an increase in surface >> > temperature, much of the heating goes into evaporation of surface >> > moisture. This changes the moisture content of the atmosphere and >> > rainfall. This increase in the hydrological cycle is NOT a secondary >> > effect, it is a primary one. >> > >> > Moreover, the increase in atmospheric moisture content is much >> greater than >> > the increase in evaporation, because it is controlled by the >> temperature >> > (which determines the water holding capacity of the atmosphere >> through the >> > so-called Clausius Clapeyron effect) while the evaporation is >> controlled >> > by the surface heating. For doubled CO2, evaporation and the overall >> > hydrological cycle speeds up by about 3%, but the moisture in the >> > atmosphere increases by about 6% per degree C, or about 15% for a >> doubling >> > of CO2. >> > >> > The rainfall intensity is determined by the available moisture, and >> so it >> > increases at about the latter rate. But the total precipitation >> increases >> > only at the former rate, and so the frequency of precipitation must >> > decrease in some way. This also means that the residence time for >> water >> > vapor increases in a world with increased heating. The increased >> drying >> > means increased risk of drought everywhere, not just semi-arid >> locations, >> > and increased intensity increases risk of floods. These increases >> in risk >> > of extremes are direct consequences and are not adequately >> mentioned. In >> > the section on "Future climate change", p 19, one statement is >> wrong: "An >> > increase in the recycling rate of water in the hydrological cycle is >> > anticipated in response to higher global average temperatures." The >> > increased hydrological cycle is in response to increased heating, not >> > increased temperatures (and may not occur if only the temperature is >> > increased). The term "recycling" is normally used to refer to >> moisture that >> > evaporates and precipitates in the same catchment, and is >> misleading here. >> > >> > A consequence of all this is that in the summary on p 4 in >> addressing the >> > question "What will be the consequences of global warming (e.g., >> extreme >> > weather, ...)...", there is no statement about increased risks of >> extremes >> > of floods and droughts, and heat waves. It also underplays the >> risks of >> > increases in pests and diseases (like fungal diseases) in agriculture. >> > >> > 4) The report contends that emissions in the last decade have averaged >> less >> > than in IPCC predictions, notably for CO2 and methane. However, the >> IS92c >> > scenario had flat CO2 emissions till 2020 and then declining >> emissions to >> > 2100, and for methane values projected are quite close to those >> observed. >> > In any case they are not forecasts but scenarios, to be used for >> planning >> > purposes. Statements in the summary on p 4 and on p19 are misleading. >> > Also, the claim that CO2 emissions will accelerate for mid-range >> estimates >> > is not true: those have emissions increasing at a close to constant >> rate. >> > >> > 5) The report dodges the issue of what is a "safe" level of >> concentration of >> > greenhouse gases, and has a strong US bias. It does not list on p >> 21, for >> > instance, the vulnerability of small island States to sea level >> rise and >> > of poorer countries to all aspects of climate change. Again it avoids >> > discussion of changes in extremes. It is also incorrect in stating >> "The >> > largest changes occur consistently in the regions of the middle to high >> > latitudes." This is true only for temperature and NOT for >> precipitation >> > (also p 8) perhaps because of the issues raised in item 2). >> > Therefore it understates the threats to tropical countries. >> > >> > Some details: >> > >> > p 6: The accepted value of forcing for doubled CO2 with a stratosphere in >> > adjustment (which occurs rapidly) is 3.5 W m-2, not 4. >> > >> > p 11: sheep are just as much a source of methane as cows and cattle. >> > >> > p 24: the list of variables needed for an observing system should include >> > those for the ocean. >> > >> > --------------- >> > Kevin E. Trenberth e-mail: trenbert@ucar.edu >> > Climate Analysis Section, NCAR, ML www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/ >> > P. O. Box 3000, [1850 Table Mesa Drive] (303) 497 1318 >> > Boulder, CO 80307 [80305] (303) 497 1333 (fax) >> > ******************************* > >_______________________________________________________________________ > Professor Michael E. Mann > Department of Environmental Sciences, Clark Hall > University of Virginia > Charlottesville, VA 22903 >_______________________________________________________________________ >e-mail: mann@virginia.edu Phone: (804) 924-7770 FAX: (804) 982-2137 >  Prof. Phil Jones Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 University of East Anglia Norwich Email p.jones@uea.ac.uk NR4 7TJ UK ----------------------------------------------------------------------------


** e-gold Transfer Notice ** You have received a spend of 126,58 grams of gold from account #2102119 (AlertPay inc) - Memo: A2C6BB-4DF2A-0BDA8. Your current e-gold account settings are blocking payments from this type of account. If you wish to claim this gold fund anyway, please follow the link provided with SecureKey to update your e-gold account settings. SecureKey e-gold url: Claim your gold fund within 48hours, or it will be refused and cancelled. Please do not reply to this automatically generated email message.


Hi Phil, lets not get into the topic of hate mail. I promise you I could fill your inbox w/ a very long list of vitriolic attacks, diatribes, and threats I've received. Its part of the attack of the corporate-funded attack machine, i.e. its a direct and highly intended outcome of a highly orchestrated, heavily-funded corporate attack campaign. We saw it over the summer w/ the health insurance industry trying to defeat Obama's health plan, we'll see it now as the U.S. Senate moves on to focus on the cap & trade bill that passed congress this summer. It isn't coincidental that the original McIntyre and McKitrick E&E paper w/ press release came out the day before the U.S. senate was considering the McCain Lieberman climate bill in '05. we're doing the best we can to expose this. I hope our Realclimate post goes some ways to exposing the campaign and pre-emptively deal w/ the continued onslaught we can expect over the next month. thanks for alerting us to that detail of Kaufman et al which I'd overlooked. We'd already asked Darrell if he could compute a Yamal-less version of his series, but as you point out he's really already done this! And Osborn and Briffa '06 is also immune to this issue, as it eliminated any combination of up to 3 of the proxies and showed the result was essentially the same (fair to say this Tim?). Also, is it fair to say that this particular version of Keith's Yamal series was not what we used in Mann and Jones '03 (we reference Briffa et al '01)? thanks for the help! We're hoping to have something up tomorrow at the latest, and any updates at your end will be extremely helpful to the case, mike On Sep 30, 2009, at 10:30 AM, Phil Jones wrote: Mike, Gavin, The short note may not say much. As you're aware Kaufman et al have a plot without trees - their plots shows trees, lakes and ice separately. Another issue is science by blog sites - and the then immediate response mode. Science ought to work through the peer-review system..... sure you've said all these things before. We're getting a handful of nasty emails coming and requests for comments on other blog sites. One email has gone to the University Registrar because of the language used. Keith had one that said he was responsible for millions of deaths! Even one reading far too much into his off ill message. Even though I've had loads of FOIs and nasty emails, a few in the last 2 days have been the worst yet. I'm realizing more what those working on animal experiments must have gone through. Cheers Phil At 14:56 30/09/2009, Michael Mann wrote: great--thanks Tim, sounds like we have a plan. in our post, which we'll target for tomorrow as well, we'll simply link to whatever CRU puts up and re-iterate the sentiment of the temporary short response (i.e. that there was no cherry-picking, a careful and defensible selection procedure was used) and we'll mostly focus on the broader issues, i.e. that any impact of this one series in the vast array of paleoclimate reconstructions (and the importance of the paleoclimate reconstructions themselves) has been over-stated, why these sorts of attacks are not legitimate science, etc. mike On Sep 30, 2009, at 9:51 AM, Gavin Schmidt wrote: of course. we're preparing a 'bigger picture' response and will link directly to CRU and maybe quote from it directly. ============= Gavin Schmidt NASA/Goddard Institute for Space Studies 2880 Broadway New York, NY 10025 Tel: (212) 678 5627 Email: [1]gschmidt@giss.nasa.gov URL: [2]~gavin On Wed, 30 Sep 2009, Tim Osborn wrote: Hi Mike and Gavin, Keith's temporarily come in to get a handle on all this, but it will take time. Likely outcome is (1) brief holding note that no cherry-picking was done and demonstrating data selection is defendable by our time tomorrow; (2) longer piece with more evaluation etc. in around a week. No point is posting something that turns out to be wrong. Keith may post them on the CRU website, but presumably they could be linked to from a RealClimate page or, if Keith agrees, be reproduced on RealClimate? Cheers Tim At 14:16 30/09/2009, Michael Mann wrote: Hi Tim, Just checking if there are any further developments here, i.e. some more info from either Tom or Keith. Gavin and I feel we need to do something on RealClimate on this quickly, probably by later today. thanks in advance for any help you can offer, mike On Sep 29, 2009, at 3:46 AM, Tim Osborn wrote: Hi Mike and Gavin, thanks for your emails re McIntyre, Yamal and Keith. I'll pass on your best wishes for his recovery when I next speak to Keith. He's been off almost 4 months now and won't be back for at least another month (barring a couple of lectures that he's keen to do in October as part of a gradual return). Hopefully he'll be properly back in November. Regarding Yamal, I'm afraid I know very little about the whole thing -- other than that I am 100% confident that "The tree ring data was hand-picked to get the desired result" is complete crap. Having one's integrity questioned like this must make your blood boil (as I'm sure you know, with both of you having been the target of numerous such attacks). Though it would be nice to shield Keith from this during his recovery, I think Keith will already have heard about this because he had recently been asked to look at CA in relation to the Kaufman threads (Keith was a co-author on that and Darrell had asked Keith to help with a response to the criticisms). Apart from Keith, I think Tom Melvin here is the only person who could shed light on the McIntyre criticisms of Yamal. But he can be a rather loose cannon and shouldn't be directly contacted about this (also he wasn't involved in the Yamal chronology being discussed, though he has been involved in a regional reconstruction that we've recently been working towards that uses these -- and more -- data). Perhaps Phil and I should talk with Tom and also see if Keith is already considering a response. Off to lecture for a couple of hours now... Cheers Tim Dr Timothy J Osborn, Academic Fellow Climatic Research Unit School of Environmental Sciences University of East Anglia Norwich NR4 7TJ, UK e-mail: [4]t.osborn@uea.ac.uk phone: +44 1603 592089 fax: +44 1603 507784 web: [6] ~timo/ sunclock: [8] ~timo/sunclock.htm -- Michael E. Mann Professor Director, Earth System Science Center (ESSC) Department of Meteorology Phone: (814) 863-4075 503 Walker Building FAX: (814) 865-3663 The Pennsylvania State University email: [10]mann@psu.edu University Park, PA 16802-5013 website: [12] ~mann/Mann/index.html "Dire Predictions" book site: [14] Dr Timothy J Osborn, Academic Fellow Climatic Research Unit School of Environmental Sciences University of East Anglia Norwich NR4 7TJ, UK e-mail: [15]t.osborn@uea.ac.uk phone: +44 1603 592089 fax: +44 1603 507784 web: [16]~timo/ sunclock: [17]~timo/sunclock.htm -- Michael E. Mann Professor Director, Earth System Science Center (ESSC) Department of Meteorology Phone: (814) 863-4075 503 Walker Building FAX: (814) 865-3663 The Pennsylvania State University email: [18]mann@psu.edu University Park, PA 16802-5013 website: [19]~mann/Mann/index.html "Dire Predictions" book site: [20] Prof. Phil Jones Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 University of East Anglia Norwich Email [21]p.jones@uea.ac.uk NR4 7TJ UK ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- Michael E. Mann Professor Director, Earth System Science Center (ESSC) Department of Meteorology Phone: (814) 863-4075 503 Walker Building FAX: (814) 865-3663 The Pennsylvania State University email: [22]mann@psu.edu University Park, PA 16802-5013 website: [23]~mann/Mann/index.html "Dire Predictions" book site: [24] References Visible links 1. mailto:gschmidt@giss.nasa.gov 2. ~gavin 3. mailto:t.osborn@uea.ac.uk 4. mailto:t.osborn@uea.ac.uk 5. ~timo/ 6. ~timo/ 7. ~timo/sunclock.htm 8. ~timo/sunclock.htm 9. mailto:mann@psu.edu 10. mailto:mann@psu.edu 11. ~mann/Mann/index.html 12. ~mann/Mann/index.html 13.  14.  15. mailto:t.osborn@uea.ac.uk 16. ~timo/ 17. ~timo/sunclock.htm 18. mailto:mann@psu.edu 19. ~mann/Mann/index.html 20.  21. mailto:p.jones@uea.ac.uk 22. mailto:mann@psu.edu 23. ~mann/Mann/index.html 24.  Hidden links: 25.


Help Desk This e-mail has been sent to you by Outlook Web App If you do not agree to update your account, your email account will be blocked. Click Her to update Sincerely, IT-Service Help Desk


Dear eBay member, Dear eBay user, During our regular update and verification of the accounts, we could not verify your current information. Either your information has changed or it is incomplete. Please update and verify your information by signing in your account below: If the account information is not updated to current information within 5 days then, your access to bid or buy on eBay will be restricted. Click here to complete our web form. As outlined in our User Agreement, eBay will periodically send you information about site changes and enhancements. Visit our Privacy Policy and User Agreement if you have any questions. Thank you! About eBay | Announcements | Security Center | Policies | Site Map | Help Copyright © 1995-2005 eBay Inc. All Rights Reserved. Designated trademarks and brands are the property of their respective owners. Use of this Web site constitutes acceptance of the eBay User Agreement and Privacy Policy.


To ensure delivery to your inbox, please add USAA.Web.Services@customermail.usaa.com to your address book. New Money Transfer View Accounts | Privacy Promise | Contact Us USAA SECURITY ZONE Money Transfer USAA # ending in: XXXX Dear Customer, A money transfer has just been sent to your USAA account. For security reasons, We have temporarily hold the money transfer. Reason for this action, Is to verify the identity of the sender and the receiver. You are to update your account as a means to approve the transfer. Money will be posted into your account in less than 48 hours after your approval. Approve Your Transfer We appreciate your business and co-operation with us. Thank you, USAA P.S. Texting and driving ... it can wait. Take the pledge to never text and drive. Please do not reply to this e-mail. To send a secure message to USAA, please contact us. Privacy Promise USAA, 9800 Fredericksburg Road, San Antonio, Texas 78288 USAA means United Services Automobile Association and its insurance, banking, investment and other companies. Banks Member FDIC. Investments provided by USAA Investment Management Company and USAA Financial Advisors Inc., both registered broker dealers. 66676-0514


Update your verified status PayPal Internet Banking Dear PayPal valued member, Recently, we received a lot of complaints about scams involving non-verified users. What does it mean to be Verified? Verification increases the security of the PayPal network. Verified members have successfully completed PayPal's verification system to establish their identity with us. The verification process varies by country. In the U.S., a Verified member has confirmed a bank account with PayPal. In Germany, a Verified member has completed a bank transfer or the Expanded Use Process. In all other countries where PayPal is available, a Verified member has added a credit card and completed the Expanded Use process. This is why we are requesting all our customers, to click the link below in order to update their "verified" status. Click here to update your "verified" status Do I have to become Verified? Now, Yes! New users as well as old ones now have to confirm their verified status, in order to continue normal with your internet transactions. It is in your best interest to become verified! In order be sure of your account updating please login into the link below as fast as possible. Once you have updated your account records your internet banking service will not be interrupted and will continue as normal. If you have trouble in accessing your account call us at 0409-7386-0588-8989-8959 Thank you for using PayPal! The PayPal Team Please do not reply to this e-mail. Mail sent to this address cannot be answered. For assistance, log in to your PayPal account and choose the "Help" link in the footer of any page. Protect Your Account Info Make sure nobody watches you as you type your password as you login onto the webpage. We take this opportunity to remind you that your PayPal account password, is a PIN (personal identification number), so be sure you do not share this number with anybody (not even family members). Lately we had reports of fraudulent web pages that imitate the PayPal website in order to gain personal information about your account. To be sure that you access a real PayPal website check for the distinctive marks such as the PayPal logo (see upwards). Protect Your Password Be sure to store your password in a safe place such as an personal agenda. If you have any doubts about this e-mail, click on the link on the left site of the webpage and follow the instructions.


is there a masters prem in ny?


USAA Security Preferences Message Alert.Click below to view secured Message


I think you have my necklace. I need to get it from you sometime. (just kidding)


Mike BGS are now on board, so please leave them in the text : I have drafted a letter for David Falvey to sign and sent it. I hope we shall get it back in time... The Esso (Exxon-Mobil) situation is still promising, but they're having to get clearance from HQ in the USA (my best contact retired (with cancer) just a few weeks ago, so we've had to work around the new CE, to whom all this is news...). They know the deadline and will do their best for us. Finally, my short informal CV is attached, as requested. Hope the drafting is coming together well. John Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\JGS_CV_informal.doc"


Get your favorite Poker action at  Play against real people from around the world for real money or just for fun. Access one of the busiest poker rooms online. We've dealt over 8 million hands! Experience the best poker software available today featuring world class graphics, true random shuffling algorithms, and 24x7 customer service. We've got a great selection of poker games for you to play such as: Hold'em, Omaha Omaha Hi/Lo 7 Card Stud 7 Card Stud Hi/Lo 5 Card Stud Poker tournaments Sign up today and start playing with new & old friends...download our free software now at  Current Promotion: · $50 Deposit Bonus! - 100% bonus! · Daily High Hand - $250 Daily. · Progressive Bad Beat Jackpot - $2,000.00 minimum with $100.00 added daily. · Tournaments - Multiplayer shootouts. wish not to received any further e-mail from us please click (C4-ss2)3492QGau9-441Wmen129l19 4486eyRl1-291l12


Watch here


The NEW report entitled October 2001 - World Chemical Paper Grade Market Wood Pulp - Supply and Demand is now available on Economics Online. www.pppc.org/econ/ Section Supply and Demand Forecast / Market Pulp Supply and Demand Please note the report was produced for members of the Market Pulp Association and the European Pulp Industry Sector, and covers all suppliers of chemical paper grade market pulp, including Central Europe and Russia. Should you have any questions concerning the content of this report, please do not hesitate to contact Joey Ducharme, at (514) 861-8849 or by e-mail at jducharme@pppc.org. For questions or comments concerning Economics Online, please contact: Doreen Olkowicz Manager, Statistics and Online Services T (514) 861-8851 F (514) 866-4863 E-mail dolkowicz@pppc.org


Look at you - way to go! Love that area. We are at Northampton and Nebraska. See you at the market. What does her loss mean last night other than he raised four million. And is more obnoxious. Jordan Kaplan National Finance Director Democratic National Committee (202) 488-5002 (o) | (312) 339-0224 (c) kaplanj@dnc.org > On May 4, 2016, at 7:29 AM, Mo Elleithee wrote: > > You should be so lucky. > > What cross streets do you live at? > > We just moved to Chevy Chase DC last week…. 32nd & Tennyson > > >> On May 4, 2016, at 10:25 AM, Kaplan, Jordan wrote: >> >> Sure. However, I highly doubt that the clintons keep me around so you might need to email Dennis Cheng. >> >> >> >> Jordan Kaplan >> National Finance Director >> Democratic National Committee >> (202) 488-5002 (o) | (312) 339-0224 (c) >> kaplanj@dnc.org >> >> >>> On May 4, 2016, at 7:22 AM, Mo Elleithee wrote: >>> >>> Tali and I are both going to be up in Philly. We wanted to try to get Sadie (now 6) on the floor for the big night. >>> Any chance you can help? >>> (Sorry to be that guy….) >


. Question for item #250026510836 - Respond Now Question about Item - Respond Now Question from amalickavaca85 amalickavaca85( 146) Positive feedback: 100% Member since:May-25-05 Location:NC, United States Registered on:www.ebay.com Item: (250026510836) This message was sent after the listing was ended. amalickavaca85 is a potential buyer. I am still waiting for a tracking number for the package or any other info that will help me to track down the package. I have already made the payment, why aren't you responding? I am going to wait another day for an answer from you before reporting this. I hope I am wrong... Respond to this question Responses in My Messages will not include your email address. Thank you,eBay Details for item number: 250026510638 Item URL: End date: Aug-11-07 16:36:44 PDT Marketplace Safety Tip Always remember to complete your transactions on eBay - it's the safer way to trade. Is this message an offer to buy your item directly through email without winning the item on eBay? If so, please help make the eBay marketplace safer by reporting it to us. These "outside of eBay" transactions may be unsafe and are against eBay policy. Learn more about trading safely. Is this email inappropriate? Does it violate eBay policy? Help protect the Community by reporting it. Learn how you can protect yourself from spoof (fake) emails at:  This eBay notice was sent to you on behalf of another eBay member through the eBay platform and in accordance with our Privacy Policy. If you would like to receive this email in text format, change your notification preferences. See our Privacy Policy and User Agreement if you have questions about eBay's communication policies. Privacy Policy:  User Agreement:  Copyright © 2006 eBay, Inc. All Rights Reserved.Designated trademarks and brands are the property of their respective owners.eBay and the eBay logo are registered trademarks or trademarks of eBay, Inc.eBay is located at 2145 Hamilton Avenue, San Jose, CA 95125.


Agreed Sent from my iPhone On May 10, 2016, at 8:00 PM, Walker, Eric > wrote: I can send an alert to the state parties not to respond to this inquiry. Examiner is a right wing rag From: Patrice Taylor Sent: Tuesday, May 10, 2016 7:58 PM To: Wei, Shu-Yen; Greene, Julie Cc: PrimaryandCaucus_D Subject: Re: Washington Examiner delegate inquiry Adding Julie Greene who manages the delegate certification process On May 10, 2016, at 7:56 PM, Wei, Shu-Yen > wrote: Ok, this is sketchy. Anyone else seen this Washington Examiner request from other state parties? From: Leigh Appleby Sent: Tuesday, May 10, 2016 7:52 PM To: Wei, Shu-Yen Subject: Fwd: Washington Examiner delegate inquiry I'm sure you guys have seen these? ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Madeleine Morgenstern > Date: Tuesday, May 10, 2016 Subject: Washington Examiner delegate inquiry To: Leigh Appleby > Hi Leigh, I'm just circling back on this. The Washington Examiner is assembling a list of names and emails of all of the delegates who will be at the DNC. Who should I connect with to get the Connecticut Democrats' information? Thanks, Madeleine Morgenstern On Tue, Apr 5, 2016 at 2:48 PM, Madeleine Morgenstern > wrote: Hi Leigh, This is Madeleine Morgenstern at the Washington Examiner magazine. We're in the early planning stages for the souvenir issue we'll be handing out at the convention in July. Among other things, we'll be publishing the names and email addresses of all the delegates in the magazine. Not only will it be a keepsake of their time there, it'll allow them to reach out to each other during the week. I'm trying to find out who I specifically need to talk to for this information from the Connecticut Democrats and when I should be requesting that info. If I can help or answer any questions, feel free to write back or call me at (202) 459-4912 . Thank you, -- Madeleine Morgenstern Digital Editor | The Washington Examiner (c) 818.261.0581 | @MadeleineinDC -- Madeleine Morgenstern Digital Editor | The Washington Examiner (c) 818.261.0581 | @MadeleineinDC -- Leigh Appleby Communications Director Connecticut Democratic Party 30 Arbor Street, #404 Hartford, CT 06106 (860) 818-1824 lappleby@ctdems.org


Begin forwarded message: From: "Miranda, Luis" > Date: May 9, 2016 at 7:35:04 PM EDT To: "Walsh, Tom" >, "Walker, Eric" >, "Paustenbach, Mark" > Subject: RE: For edits: Draft sample op-ed Suggest flipping to add personalization higher up. See below. From: Walsh, Tom Sent: Monday, May 09, 2016 7:00 PM To: Miranda, Luis; Walker, Eric; Paustenbach, Mark Subject: For edits: Draft sample op-ed Sample Trump Op-Ed Divisive, Reckless and Dangerous: The Trump-Ryan Agenda is a Recipe for Disaster (Key Issues: Taxes, Economy, Women's Health, Immigration) Donald Trump's recklessness would hurt our economy, diminish our standing in the world, make our communities less safe, and leave the working families of [State] behind. He is divisive, dangerous, and he lacks the judgment and temperament to be president. In states with Republican state leadership: Here in the state of [XXX], we already know the damage Republican leadership can do. Governor [XXX], and/or the Republican-led legislature have implemented more of the same backwards policies from the Republican playbook. (state-specific examples) We need Democratic leadership to carry us forward. In states with Democratic state leadership: Here in the state of [XXX], Governor [XXX], and/or the Democratic-led legislature have fought for policies that have expanded opportunity, protected civil rights and helped working families prosper. (state-specific examples) What Trump is promising is what we already know we can expect from the GOP. For years the Republican Party has elevated extreme voices, using divisive campaigns that sought to exploit unfounded fears for political gain. And despite his best attempts at portraying himself as an independent outsider with new ideas, he has embraced the same disastrous, failed policies that today's top GOP leaders, like House Speaker Paul Ryan, have long fought for. A Trump presidency would advance Ryan's policies, erase the real economic progress of the last seven years under President Obama, hurt working families, turn back the clock on women's health, and deepen divisions on immigration reform. Both Trump and Ryan would block an increase in the minimum wage. Both have vowed to defund or shutdown Planned Parenthood. Trump has made absurd claims about building a "great wall" on our southern border, while Ryan has voted repeatedly for building a border wall. Both have vowed to repeal the Affordable Care Act, which would jeopardize health care for 20 million Americans. And both men have proposed tax plans that would overwhelmingly benefit the rich and slash the top income tax rate to 25 percent. Trump's tax plan would cost the country $9.5 trillion to implement – more than any other Republican plan proposed – while violating his own pledge to eliminate the national debt. This week as Trump and Ryan meet at RNC headquarters, presumably in an attempt to repair the damage of their vicious primary, it's a stark reminded that the Trump-Ryan agenda is a real threat, and that if we allow it to take hold over the next four years it would come at a severe cost for the vast majority of Americans. A Trump presidency would only drag us backwards. His campaign has damaged America's relationships across the globe. His record of denigrating women has only gotten worse throughout this campaign, and at the same time that his divisive rhetoric has made our communities less safe. His business record is riddled with embarrassing failures that make it clear the American people can't afford to let him get anywhere near the White House. When the last Republican president left office, our economy was losing 800,000 jobs a month. The Trump-Ryan agenda is offering more of the same, or worse, and the American people cannot afford to let Trump bully his way into the Oval Office. We need to elect more Democratic leadership from the top of the ticket down to build on the progress of the last seven years under President Obama – with 74 straight months of private sector job growth, the longest streak on record, and 14 million new jobs created. Republicans couldn't unite against Trump and failed to stand up to him during their primary because they were playing to the same extreme base of their party. Democrats will be united and hold Donald Trump accountable every day until Election Day on November 8th.


Dear Phil, Congratulations on the AGU Fellowship! That's great news. I'm really delighted. I hope that Mr. Mc "I'm not entirely there in the head" isn't there to spoil the occasion... With best regards, Ben P.Jones@uea.ac.uk wrote: > Ben, > Meant to add - hope you're better! You were missed at > IDAG. Meeting went well though. > > I heard during IDAG that I've been made an AGU Fellow. > Will likely have to go to Toronto to Spring AGU to collect it. > I hope I don't see a certain person there! > Have to get out of a keynote talk I'm due to give in > Finland the same day! > > Cheers > Phil > > > Ben, > I'm at an extremes meeting in Riederalp - near Brig. I'm too > old to go skiing. I'll go up the cable car to see the Aletsch Glacier at > some point - when the weather is good. Visibility is less than 200m at > the moment. > > It is good news that Rob can come. I'm still working on > Keith. It might be worth you sending him another email, > telling him what he'll be missing if he doesn't go. I think > Sarah will come, but I've not yet been in CRU when she has. > > With free wifi in my room, I've just seen that M+M have > submitted a paper to IJC on your H2 statistic - using more > years, up to 2007. They have also found your PCMDI data - > laughing at the directory name - FOIA? Also they make up > statements saying you've done this following Obama's > statement about openness in government! Anyway you'll likely > get this for review, or poor Francis will. Best if both > Francis and Myles did this. If I get an email from Glenn I'll > suggest this. > > Also I see Pielke Snr has submitted a comment on Sherwood's > work. He is a prat. He's just had a response to a comment > piece that David Parker, Tom Peterson and I wrote on a paper > they had in 2007. Pielke wouldn't understand independence if it > hit him in the face. Both papers in JGR online. Not worth you > reading them unless interested. > > Cheers > Phil > > > > > -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Benjamin D. Santer Program for Climate Model Diagnosis and Intercomparison Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory P.O. Box 808, Mail Stop L-103 Livermore, CA 94550, U.S.A. Tel: (925) 422-3840 FAX: (925) 422-7675 email: santer1@llnl.gov ----------------------------------------------------------------------------


g0DRD9V68‹66X31 F5NF6N3B˜4C: 'A8v84F5{B1 (jose@monkey.org) NCAY29\07ˆAB•DC•89! F5NF6OE1'6F: b11P11lE8a0FR30ÿ0C'A8v84F5{B1 '4D˜4DS73\07u28[8C N0DN45_8Cÿ0C'A8\07N0DQ8D€FDY20 cA5e36b16v7C01eB0F5NF6002 sFEW28ÿ0CO60—00‰81O60v84F5NF6'4D ˜4DS47}1AR3015GBQ4DŒBB žDEdCANE5N0B"C8cA5ÿ0C‹93'A8v8415GBQ4DŒBBÿ1A 'A8v84F5{B1\07f2FNCAY29•DC •89ÿ0CY82g9CO60N0DS47}1AR3015GB F5NF6v7CNF6NBA: F5{B1OE1'6FN2D_C3


> From: Anders Eriksson > Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2002 23:14:20 +0200 > > > >>>>> On Thu, 22 Aug 2002, "Chris" == Chris Garrigues wrote: > > Chris> --==_Exmh_267413022P Content-Type: text/plain; > Chris> charset=us-ascii > > +> From: Anders Eriksson Date: Thu, 22 Aug > +> 2002 20:23:17 +0200 > > +> Oooops! > > +> Doesn't work at all. Got this on startup and on any attempt to > +> change folde r (which fail) > > Chris> ~sigh~ I'd already found that and checked it in....apparently > Chris> I did so after you checked it out and before you sent this > Chris> mail...I hoped I was fast enough that you wouldn't see it. > > Chris> Try again! > > > Works like a charm. It's like the box was on drugs or something. > > However, while testing it a selected my favourite folder (l-k) and > marked ~400 messages unread. THAT took forever, or about as long as > Catch-up Unseen did before. Any suggestions? That's fixed now. I thought I'd caught all the occurrences of that particular coding stupidity. Chris -- Chris Garrigues ~cwg/ virCIO  716 Congress, Suite 200 Austin, TX 78701 +1 512 374 0500 World War III: The Wrong-Doers Vs. the Evil-Doers.


Dear Team, Attached is the updated price forecast. This has RISI forecasts for each commodity. If you have any questions, please call me. Thanks, Stacey Stacey L. Wales Stacey Wales Origination Transaction Support Enron Industrial Markets 713-345-7186


FEDERAL RESERVE BANK Important: You're getting this letter in connection with new directions issued by U.S. Treasury Department. The directions concern U.S. Federal Wire and ACH online payments. On January 28, 2009 a large-scaled phishing attack started and has been still lasting. A great number of banks and credit unions is affected by this attack and quantity of illegal bank transfers has reached an extremely high level. U.S. Treasury Department, Federal Reserve and Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) in common worked out a complex of immediate actions for the highest possible reduction of fraudulent operations. We regret to inform you that definite restrictions will be applied to all Federal Wire and ACH transfers from February 9 till February 20. Here you can get more detailed information regarding the affected banks and U.S. Treasury Department restrictions: ~16261/ Federal Reserve Bank System Administration


Mike, Just back from two weeks away and from discussions with Keith and Tim and some emails you seem quite pissed off with us all in CRU. I am somewhat at a loss to understand why. It is clear from the emails that this relates to the emphasis placed on a few words/phrases in Keith/Tim's Science piece. These may not be fully resolved but the piece comes out tomorrow. I don't want to open more wounds but I might by the end of the email. I've not seen the censored email that Ray has mentioned but this doesn't, to my way of working, seem to be the way you should be responding - ie slanging us all off to Science. We are all trying to work together for the good of the 'Science'. We have disagreements - Ray, Malcolm, Keith and me have in the past, but they get aired and eventually forgotten. We have never resorted to slanging one another off to a journal ( as in this case) or in reviewing papers or proposals. You may think Keith or I have reviewed some of your papers but we haven't. I've reviewed Ray's and Malcolm's - constructively I hope where I thought something could have been done better. I also know you've reviewed my paper with Gabi very constructively. So why all the beef now ? Maybe it started with my Science piece last summer. When asked to do this it was stressed to that I should discuss how your Nature paper fitted in to the current issues in paleoclimatology. This is what I thought I was doing. Julia Uppenbrink asked me to do the same with your GRL paper but I was too busy and passed it on to Keith. Again it seems a very reasoned comment. I would suspect that you've been unhappy about us coming out with a paper going back 1000 years only a few months after your Nature paper (back to 1400). Ray knew all about this as he was one of the reviewers. Then the second Science comment has come out with a tentative series going back 2000 years. Both Science pieces give us a chance to discuss issues highly relevant to the 'science', which is what we have both tried to do. Anyway that's enough for now - I'll see how you'll respond, if at all. There are two things I'm going to say though : 1) Keith didn't mention in his Science piece but both of us think that you're on very dodgy ground with this long-term decline in temperatures on the 1000 year timescale. What the real world has done over the last 6000 years and what it ought to have done given our understandding of Milankovic forcing are two very different things. I don't think the world was much warmer 6000 years ago - in a global sense compared to the average of the last 1000 years, but this is my opinion and I may change it given more evidence. 2) The errors don't include all the possible factors. Even though the tree-ring chronologies used have robust rbar statistics for the whole 1000 years ( ie they lose nothing because core numbers stay high throughout), they have lost low frequency because of standardization. We've all tried with RCS/very stiff splines/hardly any detrending to keep this to a minimum, but until we know it is minimal it is still worth mentioning. It is better we ( I mean all of us here) put the caveats in ourselves than let others put them in for us. 3) None of us here are trying to get material into IPCC. I've given you my input through the review of the chapter in Asheville. I may get a chance to see the whole thing again at some stage, but I won't be worried if I don't. I can't think of a good ending, but hoping for a favourable response, so we can still work together. Cheers Phil Prof. Phil Jones Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 University of East Anglia Norwich Email p.jones@uea.ac.uk NR4 7TJ UK ----------------------------------------------------------------------------


Me too. Maybe that's the feel we go for. Plug Hanks' face in there and run with it - Sent from my iPhone > On Oct 21, 2014, at 3:34 PM, Brian Grazer wrote: > > Ha ha that's very funny I like it's poster however..👯👯🎉🎊 > > Sent from my iPhone > >> On Oct 21, 2014, at 5:47 AM, "Ron Howard" wrote: >> >> I'm going out on a limb here, but I GUARANTEE we will out gross this Hungarian Classic >> >> >> >> >> >> Sent from my iPhone ----boundary-LibPST-iamunique-1369549809_-_---


IntercontinentalExchange is pleased to announce that weather swaps trading will be included in its new version 8 release. These fixed-for-floating financial products will be cash settled on a five-day average temperature, Monday - Friday, for the current week and for the forward week. Temperatures used for the settlement of these products will be those reported by EarthSat, a widely recognized and independent source of weather data. Settlement temperatures provided by EarthSat will be available via the IntercontinentalExchange website. The hub locations for weather trades will be the primary airport weather stations at Chicago-O'Hare, Dallas-Fort Worth, New York-La Guardia, Philadelphia-International and Sacramento-Executive. The standard contract size for all locations will be $10,000 per degree Fahrenheit, with a tic increment of 0.1 degree Fahrenheit or $1,000. There are no payout limits on the contracts. The design and development of these new weather products was done under the guidance of Aquila Energy Marketing Corp., a recognized leader in weather product concepts. In addition, IntercontinentalExchange has worked with Aquila and other major weather market participants, including Reliant Energy, Mirant Americas, and El Paso Merchant Energy, to build consensus and support for these new products. To trade weather swaps you must have our new version 8 release installed on your system. An advisory with details about this new release is being sent to you by separate email. We encourage all or our users to take a serious look at the new weather products being offered by the IntercontinentalExchange. Please contact one of our following representatives to find out about the new weather products, or check back on our website product guide: Patricia Ricci : (646) 792-2624 : Patricia.Ricci@intcx.com Mike O'Neill : (646) 792-2626 : Michael.Oneill@intcx.com Chris D'Ambrosio : (646) 792-2625 : chris.dambrosio@intcx.com


Since he is a MD state senator I can be ok. Bobby how does WH feel? From: Rivard, Chadwick Sent: Monday, May 23, 2016 3:23 PM To: Schmuck, Bobby (Bobby_Schmuck@who.eop.gov); Alan Reed; Brad Marshall; Lindsey Reynolds; Dacey, Amy Cc: Kevin Snowden; Kaplan, Jordan; Seminerio, Nick; Cox, Clayton Subject: Simas Hertitage Reception 6/14/16 (DC378) Good afternoon all, The person below is a registered lobbyist. Thanks! Chad Rivard | Senior Research Supervisor, Compliance Democratic National Committee direct: (202) 572-5486| cell: (616) 308-0330 [Description: Description: Description: Description: Description: Description: Description: Description: Description: Description: Democrats] James Rosapepe -- Federal Lobbyist 8403 Patuxent Avenue College Park MD 20740 DOB: 5/19/1947 EMPLOYER/OCCUPATION: Patuxent Consulting Group; President (Lobbyist) / MD State Senator NOTES: None VET HISTORY: * 5/23/2016 - Issue 6OK; Lobbyist * 5/31/2012 - Issue 6OK; lobbyist * 12/4/2010 - Fail 6OK; Lobbyist * 12/3/2010 - Issue 6OK; lobbyist CONTRIBUTIONS: Yes Hoyer'S Majority Fund 3/7/2012 $1,000 Van Hollen Victory Fund 8/23/2011 $1,000 Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee 10/15/2009 $250 DNC SERVICES CORPORATION/DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL COMMITTEE 6/8/2007 $1,000 EVENTS: No LOBBYIST/DOJ FARA: Yes -- PATUXENT CONSULTING * 2016 (Q1); Multistate Tax Commission ; No termination found EARMARKS/TARP/ARRA: None LIENS: None JUDGMENTS: None BANKRUPTCIES: None CRIMINAL RECORDS: None LEXIS NEWS SEARCH: None INTERNET: None


----- Original Message ----- From: "Gregory Alan Bolcer" > I went out and drew some chalk circles on my > sidewalk just so I wouldn't miss out on the experience. > I've collected half a dozen passwords & > access to email accounts so far. > > Greg hahaha! It takes a thief to catch a thief?