Apparently you were lying then, too!

“Aren’t they still the SAME bacteria only with built up resistance to penicillin? Did the penicillin-resistant bacteria morph into a DIFFERENT sort of bacteria? ”

Some David Jones cards and prints are on sale at the Library’s Online shop.

1860 and 1856 numbers are in parenthesis for comparison.


Millwright 1, (1860, 1) (1856, 3)
Miller 8, (1860, 6) (1856, 5) (some would be considered millwrights)
Milling 1 (1860, 1)
Sawyer 4, (1860, 2, however numerous farmers were also sawyers) (1856, 8)
Carpenter 13, (1860, 8) (1856, 24)
Blacksmith 3, (1860, 2) (1856, 6)
Cooper 2, (1860, 2) (1856, 4)
Stonemason 2, (1860, 30 (1856, 4)
Wheelwright 0, (1860, 0) (1, 1856, wagon maker)
Wagon maker 0, (1860, 4)
Machinist 0, (1856, 1)
Manufacturer 0, (1860, 1) (1856, 1)
Moulder 0, (1856, 1, may be involved with woodworking or a moulder with the potters)
Teamster 1, (1856, 1)
Hostler 0, (1856, 3, stablemen)
Potter 2, (1856, 2, first of very few potters in the area)
Shoemaker 3, (1860, 2) (1856, 4)
Sadler (1856, 1, saddle and harness maker)
Merchant 4, (1860, 2, 1 retired) (1856, 6)
Tailor 1, (1860, 0) (1856, 1)
Hotelkeeper 1, (1860, 0) (1856, 1)
Clerk 0, (1860, 0) (1856, 1)
Physician 1, (1960,1) (1856, 5, unusually high number for a pioneer area)

Brewer 1, (1860, 2)
Chair Maker 0, (1860, 2)
Tinner 0, (1860,1)
Basket Maker 0, (1860, 1)
Brick Maker 0, (1860, 6)
Lime Burner 1, (1860,1)
Teacher 0, (1860, 4)
Shingle Maker 0, (1860, 1)
Druggist 1, (1860, 2)
Minister 0, (1860, 1)
Farmers were the remainder of the occupations,
However, many families worked at multiple trades as well as farming.
Cabinet Maker 3
Type Setter 1
Harness Maker 4
Grocer 2
Joiner 1
Brewery Worker 2
Hotel Cook 1
Weaver 1
Architect 1
Sawmill Worker 1


In Parenthesis, based on Jones's experiences in World War I, ..

A G Foster apparently has his knickers in a twist because he doesn’t get to be Big Brother.

BBD is transparently no scientist. .. (snip) ..
The models are inadequate to the science and the computers are inadequate to the models. And if it ain’t quantified it ain’t science. And believe me, it ain’t quantified. … (snip).. Nothing wrong with the science, says he. BBD could not even define the science. –AGF


There are two types of footnotes: comments and citations

1) Thatcher set up the CRU for the purpose of assessing the danger of global warming. The EU lavishly funded the CRU with the apparently assigned mission of identifying evidence of anthropogenic climate change.
2) The CRU adopted dendrochronology as the best hope for such identification when models failed to reproduce natural variation .
3) P D Jones of CRU collaborated with Bradley in 1993 to smooth the LIA out of the graphs.
4) Briffa established himself as the go to guy to get tree ring studies published.
5) Briffa and others asserted the utility of dendrochronology for climate reconstruction by insisting that tree ring density could be used not only as precipitation proxy but also as temperature proxy, by first identifying volcanic eruptions.
6) Briffa encouraged dendrochronologists to publish temperature reconstructions whether or not the data warranted them, as we see with Graybill and Funkhauser.

7) The CRU covertly campaigned to oust editors and discredit journals that published criticism of the warming dogma as espoused by the CRU. They are more activists than scientists:
8) MBH could be confident of publication even when their novel statistics rewrote climatic history, eliminating the most pronounced natural variation, the LIA. They knew they were offering precisely what the EU and CRU were looking for.
9) CRU man Phil Jones was eager to collaborate with Mann in subsequent publications.

American: 20th Century - Internet Public Library

After the Eemian peaked CO2 stayed high for 15ky while T plummeted, apparently in response to falling insolation. CO2 couldn’t save our ancestors from the last ice age and we’ll be lucky if it saves us from the next, Callendar’s optimism notwithstanding.

Apex Tutorials - Salesforce coding lessons for the 99%

…when he changed “not” to “NOT,” and inserted no ellipsis (…) to indicate the deletion, which is a major no-no. And of course cutting the sentence in the middle of a parenthesis is an even worse no-no, but this is the sort of thing one can expect from a perfect idiot.