text:
A parade of fools will grace the stage March 30 for the Backstage Theatre's annual fundraiser, the Backstage Bash.
"The Bash unabashedly embraces the April Fools' theme in presenting a 'topsy turvy' celebration that features local acts with a silly spin to them," Backstage Artistic Director Christopher Willard said. "With this show, right is left, up is down, and you never know what is coming around the next corner."
Jeffrey Bergeron, aka Biff America, will host the event, and Willard and Lenore Giardina will direct.
"Jeffrey Bergeron is the host, so get ready for off-the-cuff humor and improv to put everyone in a great mood," Willard said. "Why they haven't asked this guy to host the Oscars is beyond me ... maybe because they'd have to use the bleep button to excess."
The night begins with an Italian buffet dinner, drinks and the opening of the silent auction. A "not so silent" auction and dessert dash will be held at intermission. Auction items range from a food tour to in-home performances to exclusive lodging packages, Willard said. But the main draw, of course, is the entertainment.
This year's Bash will feature musical numbers from Michelle Marzo and Giardina and a visit from Kate Monster, star of the Backstage summer production "Avenue Q." Last year's winners of the coveted Topsy Turvy Trophy (a sponsorship competition among acts), Adam Helfrich and Drew Reges, will return to protect their crown, Willard said. Noah and the ARCs, with CJ Mueller, Dave Pringle, Jere Lynch, Mike Kopicky and Rick "The Pup" Ascher, also made the bill.
"This is the 'ageless airband' that has closed each of our past Bash events," Willard said. "They're a great deal of fun, seeing these former ski pros up there, rocking out to '50s tunes. ... They'll have a few guests with them, too."
Vail Resorts red-suited information volunteers Bill Rider, John Walton, Ohnesian, Ray Smith and John Nielson will be dressing up as bro boarders and doing their version of "The Harlem Shake," Willard said. Other acts include ballroom duo Teresa and Roger Moen and "The Tao of Gibby," where local personality Mike Gibson will share some of his personal wit and wisdom.
Willard said Backstage is rating the programming of this year's Bash as PG-13.
"We have very affordable on-site babysitting services available through Activity Sitters, so parents can drop off their kids and enjoy the show while their kids are having a great time with the babysitting professionals of Activity Sitters," Willard said.
Money raised by the event supports the Backstage Theatre's various programs, such as KidsPlay and workshops, special events and operational expenses for the year, Willard said.
"The Backstage is Summit County's oldest nonprofit arts organization," Willard said. "Now in its 39th Season, the Backstage employs casts that are a blend of community and professional talent."
Attending the Backstage Bash is a way to support theater in the Summit County community.
"The Backstage is the community's premiere outlet to experience the performing arts, take a class, act and sing onstage, build and paint sets, design lighting, run a show and on and on," Willard said. "That kind of creative home is essential for any community to encourage and support. We're about to celebrate our 40th anniversary with many new exciting programs, shows and opportunities for all to be engaged with. We're grateful to reach this upcoming milestone and mindful that this kind of consistency and longevity does not occur without huge community support."


text:
Good morning and welcome to Summit Up, the world's only daily column that's updating the masses on our well-known creature of comfort.
John Thaler, who was featured in the Oct. 4 run of the Summit Daily for not having walked past Breck's town limits for nearly two years, has finally left!!!
Two years in Breckenridge, without even taking a little day trip to Frisco - Silverthorne is too far to ever consider - Thaler can officially say, that over the Thanksgiving holiday, he went back to his roots and got the hell out of Breck for once.
His friends were consumed by happiness.
"I have this vision that he would be grabbing onto the Breckenridge town sign while I'm pulling him out of town - he's very comfortable in Breckenridge, he doesn't leave naturally," said Thaler's best friend Holly Blando.
So what was it that finally got Breck's infamous John Thaler to take a vacation from a place he considers a full-time vacation?
He had to see his Granddaddy, who is 98-years-old residing in Virginia.
"My grandfather is turning 98 so I'm going back to Virginia for that," Thaler told the Daily back in October.
The real question, now that Thaler is back in Breck as cozy and comfortable as could be: Will he ever leave again?
"I love Breckenridge, it's just a small mountain resort town. What else could you want?" he said.
And so the story continues. We are happy to bring a happy ending to this story. To read chapter one, follow the link: http://tinyurl.com/bnh9ak3.
There are two qualities that stand-out in an admirable dude: Contentment and appreciation of Breck. Stay put as long as you can John!
That's all we got. Have a great Sunday. We out.

subset: commoncrawl


text:
About the Book
"Dorsey differs from writers such as Carl Hiassen, James Hall, and Elmore Leonard…These guys fire bullets. Dorsey makes sure his gun is filled with hollow-point."
—Sarasota Herald Tribune
Readers who can't get enough of lovable serial killer Serge A. Storms can rejoice. He's back in Electric Barracuda—the latest outrageous romp through the Sunshine State by Tim Dorsey, master of the zany crime thriller. This time Serge is a fugitive running from the police, and murder and mayhem have never been more over-the-top hilarious. Tim Dorsey's Electric Barracuda is not to be missed. The Miami Herald put it best: "Nobody, but nobody, writes like this guy."
Serge Storms, that lovable thermonuclear vigilante, has been leaving corpses strewn across the Sunshine State for more than a decade. The authorities notice the body count, and send a task force to track down Serge. Could his luck finally have run out? Meanwhile, armed with his perpetually baked sidekick, Coleman, Serge decides to resurrect his Internet travel-advice website where you, too, can learn how to experience Florida through the eyes of a fugitive.
Off they go, blogging along a getaway route through the state's most remote bayous, back roads, and bars, where the number of cadavers begins stacking up like Serge's website hits. Clues and questions mount: Who are all the women being photographed in the swamp? And what made Coleman draw on his face with Magic Markers? In the meantime, Serge's grandfather's old Miami Beach gang suddenly has their life savings wiped out, and there's a good bet it was no accident. Too much action for Serge to juggle? Not when it involves his favorite new obsession: tracking Al Capone's little-known escapades in the Everglades.
Educator and Librarian Resources
Product Details
- Imprint: William Morrow Paperbacks
- On Sale: 01/03/2012
- Trimsize: 5.313 in (w) x 8 in (h) x 0.865 in (d)
- Pages: 384
- List Price: 14.99 USD
- BISAC1: FICTION / Humorous / General
- BISAC2: FICTION / Crime
- BISAC3: FICTION / General


text:
Paul Licht, director of the UC Botanical Garden at Berkeley, is undoubtedly a plant guy, but long before he got involved with the garden, he was a newt man. In fact, he still is.
"People ask me why I get so turned on by newts," Licht says, "and I don't really know why. They are fascinating animals. Fascinating. But once people learn about them, they get fascinated, too."
Fortunately for Licht and newt fans -- novice and experienced -- the Botanical Garden's Japanese pool offers probably the best location for observing newts in action. And man, is there a lot of action this time of year.
It's mating season for the newts, and like salmon and sea turtles, newts who spawned in the pool make their way back every year, once they are of age, to repeat the process.
Licht discovered the amazing world of newts in 1964, as a young Cal zoology student. The love affair lingers.
The pool at the Garden is an excellent spot to observe the little amphibians also known as salamanders. The water is clear and you can walk right up the edge and peer in.
The Bay Area is home to several species of newts, but the two that use the pond for newt love are Taricha torosa (California newt) and Taricha granulosa (rough-skin newt). The differences between the two are so minute that it takes someone like Licht to tell them apart. But there is one easy way to distinguish them: The California newt lays multiple eggs in sacs while the rough-skin newt lays them singly.
The mating process is the opposite of risque. This is no "50 Shades of Brown."
It begins, Licht explains, when the winter rains drive the male newts out of their hiding places -- they are very secretive animals, he points out -- and sends them high-stepping to the pond. The hormone that fuels the "water drive" is the exact same one that triggers lactation in women.
Once the male newts arrive at the pond they hop in and begin a metamorphosis. Their lizardlike tails lengthen and flatten, becoming fishlike. Their legs also beef up as they will need them to hold onto the females, who arrive sometime later.
Once the ladies show up, the courtship begins. The male picks a mate, swimming around her, vying for her favor. Sometimes several males will swarm one female, jockeying for position, but she will eventually choose one, who climbs on her back and holds her as they float in the water.
Once the mating contract has been made, the male drops to the bottom of the pond, leaves a deposit of semen and beckons the female to join him. She then dives down, applies the semen to her eggs and goes off alone to deposit them, usually on the stems of water lilies.
Once the female has depleted her egg supply she leaves the pond, but males will hang around, sometimes for months.
There's no way to predict how long the mating season will last. Licht says the pond is filling with eggs, but nowhere near as many as it usually has. He predicts another few weeks of action. After that, visitors can watch the eggs develop and the baby newts hatch.
It's an excellent show. For information, go to http://botanicalgarden.berkeley.edu.
And if you're more of a plant guy than a newt "guy," mark your calendar for the spring plant sale at the Garden, 10 a.m. to 2 p.m. April 27. This is one of the best sales around, offering unusual and rare plants from around the world.
You also can check out the pond for newts that still will be hanging around.
Joan Morris' column runs five days a week in print and online. Contact her at firstname.lastname@example.com; or P.O. Box 8099, Walnut Creek, CA 94596.


text:
About the Book
"There is indeed life after death, and Rosenblatt proves that without a doubt."
—USA Today
From Roger Rosenblatt, the bestselling author of Making Toast and Unless It Moves the Human Heart, comes a poignant meditation on the nature of grief, the passages through it, the solace of solitude, and the healing power of love. Rosenblatt's Kayak Morning is a classic in the making, akin to A Grief Observed by C. S. Lewis—a coming to terms with tragic, senseless loss that offers readers an unsentimental and deeply moving account of the possibility of true redemption. A profoundly beautiful and intimate gift from an exceptional writer, Kayak Morning is Roger Rosenblatt writing bravely and unforgettably from the heart.
From Roger Rosenblatt, author of the bestsellers Making Toast and Unless It Moves the Human Heart, comes a moving meditation on the passages of grief, the solace of solitude, and the redemptive power of love
In Making Toast, Roger Rosenblatt shared the story of his family in the days and months after the death of his thirty-eight-year-old daughter, Amy. Now, in Kayak Morning, he offers a personal meditation on grief itself. "Everybody grieves," he writes. From that terse, melancholy observation emerges a work of art that addresses the universal experience of loss.
On a quiet Sunday morning, two and a half years after Amy's death, Roger heads out in his kayak. He observes,"You can't always make your way in the world by moving up. Or down, for that matter. Boats move laterally on water, which levels everything. It is one of the two great levelers." Part elegy, part quest, Kayak Morning explores Roger's years as a journalist, the comforts of literature, and the value of solitude, poignantly reminding us that grief is not apart from life but encompasses it. In recalling to us what we have lost, grief by necessity resurrects what we have had.
Educator and Librarian Resources
Product Details
- Imprint: Ecco
- On Sale: 01/03/2012
- Trimsize: 5.5 in (w) x 8.25 in (h) x 0.4 in (d)
- Pages: 160
- List Price: 13.99 USD
- BISAC1: SOCIAL SCIENCE / General


text:
Lansing, MI 48933
Thank you for choosing Capitol Commons Apartments and Town Homes! You will love the park like setting with picturesque views from your apartment home! You will be close to all the Lansing activities and downtown fun the city has to offer. The Friendly staff at Capitol Commons looks forward to working with you and will provide friendly service as long as you live here! Enjoy the tour!


text:
Nina Garcia is Marie Claire's creative director & a Project Runway judge. Follow Nina on Twitter: @NinaGarcia
What device do you use Zite most on?
My iPad.
Walk us through your reading process.
Well, it's a very straightforward process… I always start with my Top Stories and click to the ones that seem interesting… If I think that this story in particular will interest my twitter and facebook followers, I will share it… Then, depending on my mood or time, I will visit more or less sections… I do always make it a point to click on Arts & Culture, Fashion & Social Media.
What types of articles do you tend to share most?
It all depends on the article… I like to be surprised and I like to surprise my followers as well… Obviously, a lot of my followers expect that I share stories related to the fashion world, but, for example, I learned that people LOVE to read articles from the Harvard Business Review and stories about social media… As I said, there's no rule. It's really what piques my interest.
What are some of your favorite sources of content that you read on Zite?
To me, the Harvard Business Review is a must. Fashion articles from Marie Claire & The Guardian (FashionBeans for men's) and then articles from Mashable, The Next Web and Inc.
How much time do you spend reading on Zite daily?
It all depends on the day… I generally use Zite in the mornings and nights… I would say between 30-60 minutes daily.
What are your top three sections that you look at daily?
Top News, Fashion and Social Media.
If you could add one new category to your Zite – anything – what would it be?
A category about TRENDS. A category that talks trends in general terms: architectural trends, fashion trends, book trends, arts trends… etc… All in one category.
When you're not working, what activities do you enjoy?
As a working mom, I like to spend time with my family. I'm also an avid TV viewer (although mostly on my iPad!). Some of my current favorites are Game of Thrones, Homeland, and Downton Abbey.
What's the most interesting Holiday-related reading you've read on Zite this week?
There was an article from The Next Web about online activity during Christmas day that really interested me… It was proof that we really live in a mobile world and we (the people that work in the magazine and fashion world), need to learn from that. (see below)
More than 50% of all online activity took place on mobile devices during Christmas day, study shows http://zite.to/Rkzzmt via @tnw
What's your favorite fashion trend right now? And what's one you wish would go away?
One fashion trend that I wish would go away are angry shoes. I like shoes that are feminine and attractive… And there are so many trends that I like for spring…. The black and white combinations, the return of the 60s, white, gold, etc. However, the most important thing to keep in mind about trends is not to follow them, but rather, to make them your own. So I always encourage my followers to be bold, creative and have fun with their fashion choices.
What are you most looking forward to in 2013?
I'm very excited about 2013. We are launching a new season of Project Runway on January 24. I'm very excited about my ongoing partnership with JCP–this is the year when we'll really start seeing some of the hard work that the great team there has been working on for the past months! And of course, I'll be reporting from the couture shows in Paris before fashion week takes off in February! And hopefully, you'll soon start seeing some of the projects we've been incubating in 2012.


text:
Find a Great Selection of Used Cars at Tustin Scion, Serving Irvine, Anaheim and Santa Ana
In the market for a reliable used car near Tustin, Irvine, Anaheim or Santa Ana? You'll find a great selection of used Scion vehicles, as well as used cars from other top automakers at Tustin Scion. Why not save a little money on your next car? After all, 'used' is only in the name. Whether you're looking for a coupe, sedan, minivan, truck, or SUV; you can rest assured knowing all of the vehicles in our inventory below look and run like new.


text:
Olli Harvey presented a proclamation to the members of the Jackson County Commission on October 4. Harvey was the spokesperson for Ripley Main St. and a group of women who had fought the battle against breast cancer and survived.
Said Harvey, "Its very, very real. It is estimated that this year, 2012, that 1,316 women will come down with breast cancer. And, from that number probably 294 will die. I don't think I have seen the figures for West Virginia before and it is staggering, staggering indeed."
Harvey told commissioners her story about her battle the disease.
"I did have breast cancer and had a total mastectomy ten years ago. Monnie Landis, Joella Nickleson, and several of the women here have had breast cancer. So it is something that Relay for Life, you're familiar with it, its in the spring. We always work to raise funds to help fight breast cancer," said Harvey.
The statistics, according to Harvey, are shockingly high for the chances of women being diagnosed with the disease.
Harvey said, "We are very concerned that a woman has an one in eight lifetime chance of getting breast cancer. We are always trying to tell women have a history or breast cancer in their family to please start getting an annual checkup. Please start getting it. Hopefully, we can keep continuing to the point that one of these days there won't be so many of the one hundred thousand women in the United States."
Location, ST | website.com


text:
Ricker Polsdorfer, MD
If you are healthy enough to tolerate it, surgery is the first option to be considered when approaching the treatment of
brain tumors
. The goals of surgery depend on what type of tumor is suspected based on the history, clinical findings, and images. The hope is always that the entire tumor can be removed, although some tumor will remain after surgery with most tumor types. If only a small amount of tumor can be safely removed, most surgeons prefer to take a
only to identify the tumor type. Then, non-operative therapies such as
are used.
Surgical procedures include:
Craniotomy means "cutting into the head." All conventional brain surgery begins this way. The opening will be as close to the tumor as possible. Some tumors are best approached through the nose or the top of the neck. Most approaches go through the scalp and the skull to expose the upper part of the brain, which is called the cortex.
Description of the Procedure:
The skin, usually the scalp, is shaved and an incision is made. Then a piece of the skull is removed to expose the brain. In some cases, after the brain is exposed, the surgeon may do some mapping to identify functional areas of the brain. The tumor will be exposed, isolated from normal brain, and removed. The surgery may take many hours.
A biopsy is a sampling of tissue. The doctor examines the biopsy to make a diagnosis. Biopsy tissue can be obtained via a craniotomy, or it can be obtained through a smaller surgery called a stereotactic biopsy. The surgeon drills a small hole through the skull. Then, images are used to guide a needle into the brain and tumor. A sample of tissue is removed. The decision of whether to proceed with a biopsy or a larger craniotomy will be made by your surgical team.
Pressure inside the skull is a critical factor, since the brain is very sensitive to pressure changes. Increasing pressure impairs brain function rapidly and can be potentially fatal. If this happens, it can be treated with a procedure known as a shunt.
A small hole is made in the skull. Through this hole, a tube is inserted into one of the fluid-filled spaces inside the brain. The other end of the tube is passed under the skin from the head to the trunk where it drains fluid into the heart or abdomen. A one-way valve in the tube prevents back flow into the brain.
A potential problem with a shunt is that when fluid is moved from the brain to the lower portions of the body, the brain tumor cells are also moved. This is a risk the patient and surgeon must discuss prior to the placement of a shunt.
Operating microscopes are commonly used during neurosurgery. Magnification increases the precision with which an operation can be done.
The surgeon may need to know exactly what function is performed by parts of the brain near the surgical site. There are several ways to map your brain. Some are used during surgery; while others do not require surgery. They may involve:
Additional surgical procedures may include:
The blood supply to tumors can be identified by
. This blood supply can then be shut off by introducing a variety of plugs. These plugs can block the artery from the inside, causing the tumor to die from lack of blood flow.
Brain tumor. EBSCO DynaMed website. Available at:
http://www.ebscohost.com/dynamed/what.php. Updated May 28, 2013. Accessed June 4, 2013.
Brain tumor.
National Cancer Institute
website. Available at:
http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/types/brain. Accessed June 4, 2013.
Last reviewed May 2015 by Mohei Abouzied, MD, FACP
Please be aware that this information is provided to supplement the care provided by your physician. It is neither intended nor implied to be a substitute for professional medical advice. CALL YOUR HEALTHCARE PROVIDER IMMEDIATELY IF YOU THINK YOU MAY HAVE A MEDICAL EMERGENCY. Always seek the advice of your physician or other qualified health provider prior to starting any new treatment or with any questions you may have regarding a medical condition.
Copyright © EBSCO Publishing. All rights reserved.


text:
NEWARK -- With a November election now set to feature three challengers against one incumbent, the school board was enveloped Friday by the campaign's biggest issue: whether to replace a popular superintendent.
Board members -- including incumbent Nancy Thomas -- had a vested interest in the question. After three hours in closed session, they declined Superintendent Dave Marken's offer to rescind his resignation, and identified a finalist who could replace him.
Also, school board member Charlie Mensinger said after the meeting that he had withdrawn his candidacy papers Friday and will not seek re-election.
"I am withdrawing due to the negative climate surrounding the election," Mensinger said. "I feel it is better to go away quietly than to participate in something that is tearing the district apart."
Each announcement likely will affect the election prospects of Thomas and the board challengers -- Elizabeth Brazil, Tom Huynh and Christopher Wecks.
Keeping Marken on the job would improve the education prospects of Newark's children, said a dozen speakers among 100 people who crowded into a Silliman Center room Friday. A few waved signs with scrawled messages: "We love Marken" and "You asked. He said yes!"
The special meeting had been scheduled for trustees to interview at least one candidate to replace Marken, whom many credit with lifting Newark Unified to unprecedented heights after three years on the job.
Marken resigned in late May, and supporters later accused the board of alienating him by overstepping governance boundaries and intimidating district employees.
In a reprise of several meetings since Marken resigned, speakers Friday urged the school board to keep its popular and effective superintendent.
Marken was out of town visiting his father, said Virginia Marken, who addressed board members on her husband's behalf.
"Dave has never wanted to leave this district," she said. "And the overwhelming support from parents, students, teachers, staff and the community has ... shaped his decision to stay."
A principal speaking on behalf of the district's managers also asked the board to keep Marken on the job.
Marken acted in the district's best interests, said Graham Elementary Principal Terrance Dunn. "We now ask you to do the same," he said. "Please act in the best interest of the district ... by supporting Dr. Marken's service for the full term of his contract."
Linda Simpson, a Newark first-grade teacher, urged the board to "not give in to pride" and to set aside hard feelings. "Think of what is best for the kids and the decision is an easy one," Simpson said. "Keep Dave here and let us work our Newark magic."
After more than 40 minutes, the board adjourned to a three-hour closed session to interview a candidate to replace Marken.
"We took a vote on accepting the rescinding of his resignation and the vote did not pass," trustee Jan Crocker said in an interview following the closed session.
The school board members did not reveal their vote tally on Marken. "Because there was no action, there's no requirement to report out the vote," Crocker said.
The board also announced that a finalist to replace Marken had been selected but that a new superintendent could not be officially hired until Aug. 19, the board's next regular meeting. Trustees did not announce the finalist's name.
One disappointed Marken supporter said the five-member board had "slapped us in the face" by refusing his offer to stay.
"The overwhelming feeling in the room was that those five people have no respect for us, our students or our community," district employee Christine Herrera said.
Contact Chris De Benedetti at 510-353-7011. Follow him at Twitter.com/cdebenedetti.


text:
Recently I got a new phone (Samsung Galaxy Nexus) and it appears PS3 media server refuses to acknowledge any pictures that I take using it. It just says "no there are no images". No error, no broken icon links or anything. I can put any picture from any other camera in the same folder and it will show up just fine, so I know it's not a problem with folder depth. The pictures aren't named anything crazy, and the extensions are all ".jpg" Everything shows up fine on my computer obviously, and comparing the files via MediaInfo does not show any oddities. There are also no strange NTFS permission issues with the images that don't work (I've got an MCSA and am fairly familiar with getting all that crap setup).
The Galaxy Nexus is set to take pics at 5mp (2592x1944). I haven't yet tried a smaller size, but I guess I'll be trying that next. This is a very odd issue. Oh, and videos that I take with the phone show up fine as well, even in the same folder. And of course, yes I am selecting the correct icon on the PS3 Ribbon for picture or video depending on the media I'm trying to view.
Anybody else experience this or have any ideas? I'm really confused here.


text:
Richard Littlemore | December 21, 2007
By Richard Littlemore • Friday, December 21, 2007 - 22:19
Climate change denial lives - though not nearly to the extent that Swiftboater Marc Morano would have you believe in his latest overstatement about "prominent scientists" who dispute man-made global warming.
Morano's list of "over 400" alleged climate quibblers includes the usual deniers for hire Fred Singer, Tim Ball, Christoper Monckton, PR people who have no credibility on issues scientific and who each have a handsome record of saying things widely and demonstrably at variance with the truth.
There is also a group of second-order "scientists," who are not scientists at all.
There's "Dr. Richard Courtney, a British coal journal editor whose PhD is rumoured to have issued from a Crackerjack box. There's Stephen McIntyre, the one-time mining promoter and amateur statistician who has earned unending fame by constantly attacking the same, remarkably resilient climate reconstruction.
There's the climate quibbler's latest star, "Dr. John Mclean," apparently another amateur who has neither a PhD nor any specific training in climate science. One might also legitimately question whether a panel of TV weather forecasters actually qualify as "prominent scientists."
Finally, Morano includes a group of legitimate scientists who are not deniers at all, but who are often quoted out of context.
For example, Morano quotes Dr. Eigil Friis-Christensen, Director of the Danish National Space Centre offering this banal statement of the obvious:
The sun is the source of the energy that causes the motion of the atmosphere and thereby controls weather and climate. Any change in the energy from the sun received at the Earth's surface will therefore affect climate."
Morano, however, neglects to mention that Dr. Friis-Christensen says, quite clearly, that change is solar radiation CANNOT be demonstrated to have caused the climate change of recent years.
In fact, he says:
There is no reason to neglect a contribution from man made greenhouse gases."
Giving credit where it's due, Morano is a tireless and creative writer of fiction.
His long screed on this occasion links liberally back to his early bouts of disinformation, making it appear as though he actually has legitimate sources for many of the points that he makes. And this list of 400 includes many names that are new to the DeSmogBlog - people whose qualifications and true positions are difficult to ascertain four days before Christmas.
But given the quality and credibility of Morano's previous work, it seems fair to assume that this, too, is an ideologically driven document with no merit whatsoever, either as a piece of research of, even more laughably, a reliable comment on science.
Ian Forrester replied on Permalink
Read the report
Paul S/G, you have obviously not read the North Report, only the cherry picked parts available on CA and other right wing sites.
Your statements are completely wrong.
Here are some pertinent passages from the report which show that both M&M and Wegman were wrong in their conclusions and arguments.
"As part of their statistical methods, Mann et al. used a type of principal component analysis that tends to bias the shape of the reconstructions. A description of this effect is given in Chapter 9. In practice, this method, though not recommended, does not appear to unduly influence reconstructions of hemispheric mean temperature; reconstructions performed without using principal component analysis are qualitatively similar to the original curves presented by Mann et al. (Crowley and Lowery 2000, Huybers 2005, D'Arrigo et al. 2006, Hegerl et al. 2006, Wahl and Ammann in press)".
"The basic conclusion of Mann et al. (1998, 1999) was that the late 20th century warmth in the Northern Hemisphere was unprecedented during at least the last 1,000 years. This conclusion has subsequently been supported by an array of evidence that includes the additional large-scale surface temperature reconstructions and documentation of the spatial coherence of recent warming described above (Cook et al. 2004, Moberg et al. 2005b, Rutherford et al. 2005, D'Arrigo et al. 2006, Osborn and Briffa 2006, Wahl and Ammann in press) and also the pronounced changes in a variety of local proxy indicators described in previous chapters (e.g., Thompson et al. in press).
Less confidence can be placed in large-scale surface temperature reconstructions for the period from A.D. 900 to 1600. Presently available proxy evidence indicates that temperatures at many, but not all, individual locations were higher during the past 25 years than during any period of comparable length since A.D. 900".
References can be found on the North Report web page.
Here is a quote which says that to make the best selection of which statistical method to use requires some knowledge of the underlying science, which neither M&M nor Wegman possessed:
"However, the higher-variance variables tend to make correspondingly higher contributions to the principal components, so the decision whether to equalize variances or not should be based on the scientific considerations of the climate information represented in each of the proxies".
Note that the method MBH used has been used since at least 1971 to generate paleoclimate data.
Here are further references which support the North Report and disagree with Wegman:
"However, CE is not the only measure of skill; Mann et al. (1998) used the more traditional "RE" score, which, unlike CE, accounts for the fact that time series change their mean value over time. The statistically significant reconstruction skill in the Mann et al. reconstruction is independently supported in the peer-reviewed literature (P. Huybers: Geophysical Research Letters, Volume 32, Issue 20, L20705, Wahl and Ammann: Climatic Change, Volume 85, 33-69, 2007)
So Paul, I have no disagreement with the North Report and it supports all of MBH's conclusions and methods except for their statement that "the 1990s are likely the warmest decade, and 1998 the warmest year, in at least a millennium." The reason (from the North Report) "because the uncertainties inherent in temperature reconstructions for individual years and decades are larger than those for longer time periods, and because not all of the available proxies record temperature information on such short timescales".
Note: this does not mean that 1998 was cooler than in the MWP, only that the data for that period could not be resolved on a yearly or decadal basis.
Ian Forrester
Paul S replied on Permalink
LOL. That's the biggest
LOL. That's the biggest claim of MBH, that the 1990's are likely the warmest in a millenium. Both North and Wegman state that claim can not be supported.
As Dr. North was quoted as saying when asked if he disputed the findings of Dr. Wegman:
"We don't disagree with their criticism. In fact, pretty much the same thing is said in our report."
The "Warmest in a 1000 Years!!" claim was the main propaganda value of MBH's work and both Wegman and North state the data doesn't support it.
That the IPCC did not independently verify MBH before featuring it so prominently in IPCC reports confirms that peer review is not enought to determine the integrity of a study.
Ian Forrester replied on Permalink
Get a life
Troll Paul S/G is once again showing his stupidity and is trying to gain more denier points. Is there a prize at the end of the year for idiots who accumulate the most denier points, maybe a pair of Hummers?
Ian Forrester
Global Warming Sceptic Bingo
He's playing Global Warming Sceptic Bingo. http://timlambert.org/2005/04/gwsbingo/
Paul S replied on Permalink
Do you consider Dr. Wegman,
Do you consider Dr. Wegman, Dr. North and the National Academy of Sciences to be deniers also Ian? I'm just curious how deep this denier paranoia of yours goes.
Why are you making the same
Why are you making the same arguments that you make at Rabett Run and Deltoid? Don't they destroy your arguments enough over there?
Paul S replied on Permalink
Not sure what you are
Not sure what you are getting at VJ, except to avoid any discussion of the relevant points. Does Mann's original claim that it is "likely" that the 1990's were the warmest decade in a millenium stand or not? It's a rather straightforward question.
Or, do you consider Dr. Wegman, Dr. North and the National Academy of Sciences to be deniers also?
Ian Forrester replied on Permalink
You are a very confused person
If you are able to read the various reports with a critical and unbiased mind (some how I doubt you can do either of these) you will see that North and the NAS support the majority of the MBH results. Wegman, on the other hand is a denier since it is "his opinion" that the method that they used was wrong. An opinion which has now been shown to be not only wrong but biased.
You deniers must be in dire straights if you are still trying to convince intelligent people that "the hockey stick is broken".
There are a multitude of "papers" put out by the deniers which are in need of critical "auditing", why do you and the CA crowd not spend some time auditing them? The letter by Carter, endorsed by Wegman, would be a great place to start since it is based on fraudulent statistics.
Ian Forrester
Paul S replied on Permalink
The only claim of Mann's
The only claim of Mann's that the zealots touted was the "Warmest in a 1000 Years!" one. And that is the one that Dr. North, Dr. Wegman and the National Academy of Sciences refuted since the data was not strong enough to make that claim.
Keep the hockey stick if you like Ian, but you can't use it to make scientifically unsupportable claims anymore.
Ian Forrester replied on Permalink
Read the report
As I said before read the report.
"The basic conclusion of Mann et al. (1998, 1999) was that the late 20th century warmth in the Northern Hemisphere was unprecedented during at least the last 1,000 years. This conclusion has subsequently been supported by an array of evidence that includes the additional large-scale surface temperature reconstructions and documentation of the spatial coherence of recent warming described above (Cook et al. 2004, Moberg et al. 2005b, Rutherford et al. 2005, D'Arrigo et al. 2006, Osborn and Briffa 2006, Wahl and Ammann in press) and also the pronounced changes in a variety of local proxy indicators described in previous chapters (e.g., Thompson et al. in press)".
Do you understand what this says? I don't care what you thought "zealots" thought that has got nothing to do with what North says about the MBH papers, which he basically agree with.
To quote JB over on Deltoid: "Arguing science with libertarians is like fighting over bananas with monkeys".
Why don't you pick up your bananas and go home?
Ian Forrester
Happy New Year, Ian!
Paul S replied on Permalink
Oh, I understand what the
Oh, I understand what the North Report says. It says, in regard to all the temperature reconstructions:
It can be said with a high level of confidence that global mean surface temperature was higher during the last few decades of the 20th century than during any comparable period during the preceding four centuries.
And goes on to say:
Less confidence can be placed in large-scale surface temperature reconstructions for the period from A.D. 900 to 1600.
This means that none of the temperature reconstructions you listed can be used to make the claim "Warmest in 1000 years!!!" with any degree of certainty.
The weakness in the data prior to AD 1600 in Mann's study applies to all the other temperature reconstructions.
Have a banana Ian.
Ian Forrester replied on Permalink
I am finished arguing with you
You are an arrogant, anti science creep. Get lost and get a life. Arguing with you is just a waste of time.
You are completely ignorant on the science of global warming but pretend to know all about it. You are the worst kind of greedy, arrogant, narcissist and hypocritical person who is happy screwing up the planet. Why don't you find a deserted island somewhere that you can pollute to your heart's content?
People with attitudes like yours disgust me.
Ian Forrester
Put him on the spaceship
Ian, one of my favourite bits of the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy is when Arthur Dent (the hero) encounters a group of settlers who have been "sent ahead" to establish a beachhead on a new world because their own is about to explode (or something). The truth is, back at home folks got fed up with the useless people (I won't list the occupations, in case I hurt someone's feelings, but you know the type) so they told them the world was coming to an end and that they were needed to lead the way to a new home. They put them all on a spaceship, waved goodbye, and went on with their lives. It's a bit like Gilbert & Sullivan ("you can put them on the list/They never will be missed …").
I vote Rob, Paul S/G & Zog onto the spaceship. Any other nominations?
Here's a possible
Here's a possible explanation for some of the denialists' behaviour:
The Dunning-Kruger effect is the phenomenon wherein people who have little knowledge think that they know more than others who have much more knowledge…
And they have four characteristics including:
…1. Incompetent individuals tend to overestimate their own level of skill.
2. Incompetent individuals fail to recognize genuine skill in others…
Hat tip to Dave at http://thegallopingbeaver.blogspot.com/ (from a post by him on a different topic)
Ian Forrester replied on Permalink
3. They are repetitive
3. Incompetent individuals keep on repeating the same false information, even after it has been shown to be wrong.
Ian Forrester
Paul S replied on Permalink
=Ian:= ="Incompetent
="Incompetent individuals keep on repeating the same false information, even after it has been shown to be wrong."=
So now Dr. North, Dr. Wegman and the National Academy of Sciences are all wrong for reaching the same conclusions about MBH and other temperature reconstructions pre-1600AD. Right.
Ian Forrester replied on Permalink
No reply
I don't respond to idiots anymore.
Ian Forrester
Paul S replied on Permalink
Since you responded to me, I
Since you responded to me, I must be in a different category. :)
Heh. That's not really
Heh. Ian's suggestion is not really number 3, but it should be in there somewhere. Actually they do hold out hope that the incompetent people can learn. But I think these guys would need a full time Socrates apiece to teach them to admit their own ignorance.
Paul S replied on Permalink
LOL Ian. You don't appear to
LOL Ian. You don't appear to like me quoting from the same North Report which you like so much. So when the facts go against you, you revert to ad homs. Don't slip on a banana peel on the way out.
Ian Forrester replied on Permalink
No reply
I don't reply to idiots anymore. However, if you come up with other lies, distortions, misrepresentations and dissemination of fraud I will call you on it.
Did I mention before that I hate with a passion anyone who denigrates science and scientists?
Ian Forrester
Paul S replied on Permalink
No need to respect bad
No need to respect bad science, or sloppy science or science that has never been independently verified; instead only given a cursory peer-review.
A "cursory peer-review"?
A "cursory peer-review"? Wow way to show your ignorance of what the words "peer review" mean.
Paul S replied on Permalink
Peer review certainly wasn't
Peer review certainly wasn't sufficient for MBH.
roconnell replied on Permalink
Guilty of what you charge the so called deniers
You are as guilty as the so called deniers in misquoteing people. This is the full quote you should have used from Dr. Eigil Friis-Christensen, not exactly a ringing endorement of AGW
"Climatologists are more concerned whether the observations fit their preconceived model and prefer to describe solar activity by one single parameter. But solar activity can not be described by a single number. There are many different manifestations of the turbulent and 3-dimensional distribution of energy release from the Sun, and for a physicist the real challenge is to find those parameters of solar activity that best correlate with climate in order to provide a clue regarding the exact physical mechanism that could be responsible for a cause and effect relationship. The present case illustrates how science works. In 1997 the results of a parallel line of research indicated a more direct physical link between solar activity and climate (Svensmark and Friis-Christensen, 1997 [Journ. Atm. Sol. Terr. Phys., 59:1225-32]). This result was later refined with more and better observations and documented that during the last two solar cycles there is a very good correlation between the solar modulation of the cosmic rays and the low altitude cloud cover (Marsh and Svensmark, 2000 [Space Science Review, 94: 215-30]). So therefore, and in spite of the fact that the solar cycle length seemed not to explain the most recent temperature increase after 1985, solar variations still do have direct effect on important climate parameters. How large this effect may be on the global temperature is currently being investigated, and is outside the scope of this comment. But there is no reason to neglect a contribution from man made greenhouse gases. The question is how much. Only increased understanding of the physical processes can give us the answer. "
Chris Crawford replied on Permalink
What the quote means
I think that you misunderstand the logical role played by this quote. Remember, it was originally used as support for denial of AGW. The entire quote is clearly NOT supportive of denial of AGW. It raises some interesting complications, but does not serve as a denial of the basic AGW hypothesis. Thus, it has been misquoted. The short quote presented in the article above does not misrepresent the thrust of the quote. The usage of this quote to support AGW denial DOES misrepresent the thrust of the quote.
mark maleska replied on Permalink
hey, there is a viable
hey, there is a viable Democratic opponent to Inhofe in the 2008 election.
Andrew Rice
I'm surprised you did not even think to mention him.
Michael Floyd replied on Permalink
Most of your disagreement
Most of your disagreement with the Senate report seems simply to level ad hominem attacks. It is more interesting to me, and it ought to be to every thinking person, that there are some serious scientists with peer-reviewed research that gives genuine doubt to the MMGW consensus, which implies that 'consensus' is a misleading term.
Chris Crawford replied on Permalink
One starling does not a summer make
Michael, it's important to realize that the existence of a few scientists who disagree with the mainstream does not substantially reduce the reliability of the mainstream view. Remember, there are literally thousands of scientists working on this subject. If you polled thousands of experts on ANY issue, do you really think that every last one would say the same thing? Of course not! The important thing is to look at the big picture. The vast majority of climatologists are in basic agreement on the AGW hypothesis.
But let's take these 400 scientists at face value. Let's assume that we were to consider them a sample from a set of scientists meeting the following criteria:
1. Any college degree on any subject.
2. Has spent some time reading the technical literature.
I think that if you were to broaden these criteria in any way, you'd end up ruling out some of the 400 scientists on this list. So, how many people meet this definition? Surely you'd agree that there are millions of people who have a college degree and have read something of the technical literature about climatology. So, if only 400 out of millions can be found who reject the basic AGW hypothesis, then surely you'd agree that they do not constitute a large enough group to justify skepticism – right?
John Mashey replied on Permalink
Re: disagreement
Michael Floyd:
"there are some serious scientists with peer-reviewed research that gives genuine doubt to the MMGW consensus, which implies that 'consensus' is a misleading term."
1) In any case, as Naomi Oreskes has correctly said many a time, consensus does not require unanimity. Peer-reviewed is not a guarantee for correctness, but rather a bare minimum to keep out most of the junk.
2) But since you say there are *serious* scientists with *peer-reviewed* research that gives genuine doubts to the MMGW (more commonly called AGW) consensus, could you please cite some (maybe 5) so I could look at them.
and just to avoid waste of time, I assume:
"serious scientists" means climate scientists who do original research and at least occasionally publish some in credible peer-reviewed journals?
"peer-reviewed" means peer-reviewed in the usual sense, not E&E?
"genuine doubts" means that the published results hold up for a few years, and probably get cited positively (as opposed to being cited for refutation)?
Are those fair? If it turns out that it is difficult to find such things, would your opinion change?
Regarding consensus, we just went through that a few months ago, and the consensus wasn't even touched, although Morano tried hard with Monckton & Schulte. If for some reason you want to see how crazy the political anti-consensus efforts get, see my writeup at: http://www.zerocarbonnow.org/wordpress//uploads/monckton_schulte_oreskes1.pdf
Michael Floyd, can you name the serious scientists and their peer-reviewed publications which cast doubt upon AGW? The names listed include a number of dishonest denialists; which makes the rest look less credible.
Bob Burk replied on Permalink
Scientists and Global Warming
Please show me a statement signed by IPCC contributors who agree with IPCC's assessment human contribution to global warming.
Chris Crawford replied on Permalink
Why bother?
Bob, I doubt that such a statement exists because I doubt that anybody sees any need for it. The IPCC hammers out its reports based on the input from a large number of scientists. I think it safe to apply a presumption that those scientists who participate in the process are in basic agreement with the overall conclusions. I know that there are a few cases in which scientists who disagreed sharply with the conclusions have withdrawn from the IPCC process. If there were a significant minority of scientists who resigned for such a reason, it would be cause for concern. However, the tiny number of scientists doing so suggests that there is little cause for concern as to the overall reliability of the IPCC reports.
rtwngr replied on Permalink
I hate to make a bunch of
I hate to make a bunch of retards cry but I cant help my self.
Merry Christmas!
You're all heart, RTWNGR.
You're all heart, RTWNGR.
Chris Crawford replied on Permalink
Perhaps you misunderstand
The denigratory tone of your note suggests that a reply is futile, but I'll point out two things about the stories you link to (which, for others, are both stories about the increasing amount of CO2 that China's burgeoning economy is putting into the atmosphere).
First, this only underlines how serious the problem is. We're not the only emitters on the planet. Emissions are increasing at a time when we need them to decrease. In other words, we're heading for trouble and pushing down hard on the gas. Which in turn gives even greater import to our efforts to do something about it.
Second, note how weak our position is. Had we signed onto Kyoto and used our influence to get everybody else on the bandwagon, then we'd be in a much better political position to twist China's arm to agree to some restrictions starting with Kyoto II in 2012. That's not going to happen because China will laugh in our faces and call us hypocrites if we try to get them to reduce emissions.
On a side note, I wonder if the global warming deniers have thought about what happens if they're wrong. The deniers are all ardently insisting that there's no problem, and the evidence of the problem just keeps mounting. The loss of summer ice in the Arctic is one of the most obvious consequences of global warming, and it won't be long before there's no sea ice in the Arctic Ocean. When that happens, the global warming deniers are going to be exposed as flat out liars, and they'll lose all credibility. Afterwards, whenever an environmental issue is raised, and you guys start making a stink about it, the environmentalists will just say, "Yeah, and you told us that global warming was a fraud!" at which point everybody will laugh you out of the room. Have you considered that you're setting yourselves up for disaster down the road?
Steve L replied on Permalink
Singer, cigarettes, ozone
WRT your last statement, it seems to me that the amount of credibility they have is not important. Singer argued for cigarettes not affecting health; others argued (and still do) that ozone isn't depleted by CFC's. Somehow, these people still have their op-eds printed and people visit their websites. It's amazing. A parallel but quite independent issue I'm aware of is the farming of Atlantic salmon in Pacific waters. First the industry said that Atlantics that escape nets won't survive, then after findings far from the nets said they won't go to rivers, then when found in rivers said they won't spawn, and when found spawning asserted (on the basis of no evidence) that they wouldn't harm native species. Their comments throughout that process of discovery were taken at face value (in the media at least). More recently the cycle has begun and almost come to completion again, this time with respect to disease & parasite transfer from farms to wild fish. Presently there is falling resistance to evidence that salmon farms increase sea lice abundance along migratory pathways for young wild salmon, and that young wild salmon are killed by sea lice. But there is still a lot of resistance to the conclusion that this negatively affects the populations of wild salmon (example of argument used: wild pink salmon populations have always fluctuated greatly, so you can't show recent declines are due to farmed salmon).
Bob B replied on Permalink
What happens if they're Wrong
Chris said "On a side note, I wonder if the global warming deniers have thought about what happens if they're wrong." Hum, that is the same argument I heard from Christians when I told them that I didn't believe in their religion. More evidence that Global Warming is a religion. As for the Arctic ice, the Northern passage has been open in the summer in at least two prior recorded events. The big problem with this argument is that satellite observations did not begin until 1979, do I need to tell you that in geologic time this does not mean much, if not anything. There are newspaper reports of arctic melting and the pending doom of polar bears from the 1930s. I might add that since Antarctic temperatures have been measured in the 1950s, the vast majority of the continent has cooled (read NASA records.) Nothing that has been observed is out of the ordinary, in fact the observed warming is within the margin of error for the calculation of the average global temperature (if you took stats you will know that a mean may or may not be significant.)
Chris Crawford replied on Permalink
big difference
Bob, perhaps you didn't understand my point, which was that the scientific question will likely be resolved in ten or, at most, twenty years (unlike the religious question). And if it turns out that you're wrong on this one, the political credibility of "anti-environmentalists" will fall in direct proportion to the vehemence with which they now deny the AGW hypothesis. If I as an atheist turn out to be wrong, nobody will ever know, and my credibility will not be shot to hell (even though I myself will ;-) ).
So, no, acceptance of the conclusions of the IPCC report does not comprise a religion. If anything, the dogged insistence on denying AGW in the teeth of ever-increasing evidence in support of it, plus the refusal to actually read the IPCC reports and understand what they say, is strong evidence that AGW denial is not based on rational thinking.
As for the Arctic ice, the Northern passage has been open in the summer in at least two prior recorded events.
I had earlier explained that the problem here was not the opening of the Northwest Passage but the disappearance of summer sea ice over the ENTIRE Arctic Ocean. Sadly, that post was lost by a software bug.
The big problem with this argument is that satellite observations did not begin until 1979, do I need to tell you that in geologic time this does not mean much, if not anything.
Yes, it's true that, in terms of geologic time, twenty years is nothing. But we don't live in geologic time; in our time scale, twenty years is a long time. If the Arctic Ocean is ice-free in the summertime within 20 years, that's a very serious event. If the Greenland ice pack melts in 100 years, that's a REALLY serious event. And we have tons and tons of data supporting the overall conclusion that temperatures are increasing.
There are newspaper reports of arctic melting and the pending doom of polar bears from the 1930s.
Yes, and the National Enquirer publishes reports of UFO sightings all the time, but I don't put much weight on them. Let's confine our discussion to scientific data, OK?
I might add that since Antarctic temperatures have been measured in the 1950s, the vast majority of the continent has cooled (read NASA records.)
I don't think that's true. Do you have a link to that data?
Nothing that has been observed is out of the ordinary, in fact the observed warming is within the margin of error for the calculation of the average global temperature
There are a great many observations that are definitely out of the ordinary. The most extraordinary data involve the rate of change of temperatures in a number of areas. Another very out-of-the-ordinary set of data comes from the recession of glaciers all over the globe. Yes, glaciers always advance and retreat – but the rate of change we are seeing now is most definitely NOT ordinary.
And your statement regarding "average global temperature" is misleading. How does one define "average global temperature"? There are ways to define it that could well justify your statement. But remember, we have long expected that the greatest effects would be experienced at the highest latitudes, and that in fact is definitely happening in the Arctic as well as the Antarctic. The temperature changes we are observing there are way above the margin of error for the observations.
Lastly, I'd like to ask you a question: have you read the IPCC reports? The AAAS report? The NAS report? Do you know anything about even the basic physics at work here? For example, if solar radiation were to increase by 1%, how much would the earth's temperature increase by (in the simplest calculation)? My point here is that I have never met an AGW denier who actually understood the science at work. I know that there are some AGW deniers who DO understand the science, but they are very few and I have never interacted with any of them. I have challenged scores of AGW deniers and never have I found one who has even read the IPCC reports. Can you break this losing streak for AGW deniers?
And BTW
"Retards" is a word that has been out of use in polite company for several decades now.
John Mashey replied on Permalink
List of 100 NOT list of 400
Just as a reminder:
1) A list of actual signatures is one thing, and one can fairly comment on someone's placing themself on that list, if they did.
2) On the other hand, having someone *place* you a list is a different thing, and I suspect some of the 400 will be surprised to find themselves there.
Tom Keefe replied on Permalink
U.S. Senate Report: Over 400 Prominent Scientists Disputed Man-M
Here is the beginning of the list of your so called unqualified experts. You liberal pea brains are enough to make one puke!!!!!
The following are signatories to the Dec. 13th letter to the Ban Ki-moon, Secretary-General of the United Nations on the UN Climate conference in Bali [Link to List of signatories]:
Ian D. Clark, PhD, Professor, isotope hydrogeology and paleoclimatology, Dept. of Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa
Richard S. Courtney, PhD, climate and atmospheric science consultant, IPCC expert reviewer, U.K.
Willem de Lange, PhD, Dept. of Earth and Ocean Sciences, School of Science and Engineering, Waikato University, New Zealand
David Deming, PhD (Geophysics), Associate Professor, College of Arts and Sciences, University of Oklahoma
Freeman J. Dyson, PhD, Emeritus Professor of Physics, Institute for Advanced Studies, Princeton, N.J.
Don J. Easterbrook, PhD, Emeritus Professor of Geology, Western Washington University
Lance Endersbee, Emeritus Professor, former dean of Engineering and Pro-Vice Chancellor of Monasy University, Australia
Hans Erren, Doctorandus, geophysicist and climate specialist, Sittard, The Netherlands
Robert H. Essenhigh, PhD, E.G. Bailey Professor of Energy Conversion, Dept. of Mechanical Engineering, The Ohio State University
Christopher Essex, PhD, Professor of Applied Mathematics and Associate Director of the Program in Theoretical Physics, University of Western Ontario
David Evans, PhD, mathematician, carbon accountant, computer and electrical engineer and head of 'Science Speak,' Australia
William Evans, PhD, editor, American Midland Naturalist; Dept. of Biological Sciences, University of Notre Dame
Stewart Franks, PhD, Professor, Hydroclimatologist, University of Newcastle, Australia
R. W. Gauldie, PhD, Research Professor, Hawai'i Institute of Geophysics and Planetology, School of Ocean Earth Sciences and Technology, University of Hawai'i at Manoa
Lee C. Gerhard, PhD, Senior Scientist Emeritus, University of Kansas; former director and state geologist, Kansas Geological Survey
Gerhard Gerlich, Professor for Mathematical and Theoretical Physics, Institut für Mathematische Physik der TU Braunschweig, Germany
Albrecht Glatzle, PhD, sc.agr., Agro-Biologist and Gerente ejecutivo, INTTAS, Paraguay
Fred Goldberg, PhD, Adjunct Professor, Royal Institute of Technology, Mechanical Engineering, Stockholm, Sweden
Vincent Gray, PhD, expert reviewer for the IPCC and author of The Greenhouse Delusion: A Critique of 'Climate Change 2001, Wellington, New Zealand
William M. Gray, Professor Emeritus, Dept. of Atmospheric Science, Colorado State University and Head of the Tropical Meteorology Project
Howard Hayden, PhD, Emeritus Professor of Physics, University of Connecticut
Louis Hissink MSc, M.A.I.G., editor, AIG News, and consulting geologist, Perth, Western Australia
Craig D. Idso, PhD, Chairman, Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, Arizona
Sherwood B. Idso, PhD, President, Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, AZ, USA
Andrei Illarionov, PhD, Senior Fellow, Center for Global Liberty and Prosperity; founder and director of the Institute of Economic Analysis
Zbigniew Jaworowski, PhD, physicist, Chairman - Scientific Council of Central Laboratory for Radiological Protection, Warsaw, Poland
Jon Jenkins, PhD, MD, computer modelling - virology, NSW, Australia
Wibjorn Karlen, PhD, Emeritus Professor, Dept. of Physical Geography and Quaternary Geology, Stockholm University, Sweden
Olavi Kärner, Ph.D., Research Associate, Dept. of Atmospheric Physics, Institute of Astrophysics and Atmospheric Physics, Toravere, Estonia
Joel M. Kauffman, PhD, Emeritus Professor of Chemistry, University of the Sciences in Philadelphia
David Kear, PhD, FRSNZ, CMG, geologist, former Director-General of NZ Dept. of Scientific & Industrial Research, New Zealand
Madhav Khandekar, PhD, former research scientist, Environment Canada; editor, Climate Research (2003-05); editorial board member, Natural Hazards; IPCC expert reviewer 2007
William Kininmonth M.Sc., M.Admin., former head of Australia's National Climate Centre and a consultant to the World Meteorological organization's Commission for Climatology
Jan J.H. Kop, MSc Ceng FICE (Civil Engineer Fellow of the Institution of Civil Engineers), Emeritus Prof. of Public Health Engineering, Technical University Delft, The Netherlands
Prof. R.W.J. Kouffeld, Emeritus Professor, Energy Conversion, Delft University of Technology, The Netherlands
Salomon Kroonenberg, PhD, Professor, Dept. of Geotechnology, Delft University of Technology, The Netherlands
Hans H.J. Labohm, PhD, economist, former advisor to the executive board, Clingendael Institute (The Netherlands Institute of International Relations), The Netherlands
The Rt. Hon. Lord Lawson of Blaby, economist; Chairman of the Central Europe Trust; former Chancellor of the Exchequer, U.K.
Douglas Leahey, PhD, meteorologist and air-quality consultant, Calgary
David R. Legates, PhD, Director, Center for Climatic Research, University of Delaware
Marcel Leroux, PhD, Professor Emeritus of Climatology, University of Lyon, France; former director of Laboratory of Climatology, Risks and Environment, CNRS
Bryan Leyland, International Climate Science Coalition, consultant and power engineer, Auckland, New Zealand
William Lindqvist, PhD, independent consulting geologist, Calif.
Richard S. Lindzen, PhD, Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology, Dept. of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
A.J. Tom van Loon, PhD, Professor of Geology (Quaternary Geology), Adam Mickiewicz University, Poznan, Poland; former President of the European Association of Science Editors
Anthony R. Lupo, PhD, Associate Professor of Atmospheric Science, Dept. of Soil, Environmental, and Atmospheric Science, University of Missouri-Columbia
Richard Mackey, PhD, Statistician, Australia
Horst Malberg, PhD, Professor for Meteorology and Climatology, Institut für Meteorologie, Berlin, Germany
John Maunder, PhD, Climatologist, former President of the Commission for Climatology of the World Meteorological Organization (89-97), New Zealand
Alister McFarquhar, PhD, international economy, Downing College, Cambridge, U.K.
Ross McKitrick, PhD, Associate Professor, Dept. of Economics, University of Guelph
John McLean, PhD, climate data analyst, computer scientist, Australia
Owen McShane, PhD, economist, head of the International Climate Science Coalition; Director, Centre for Resource Management Studies, New Zealand
Fred Michel, PhD, Director, Institute of Environmental Sciences and Associate Professor of Earth Sciences, Carleton University
Frank Milne, PhD, Professor, Dept. of Economics, Queen's University
Asmunn Moene, PhD, former head of the Forecasting Centre, Meteorological Institute, Norway
Alan Moran, PhD, Energy Economist, Director of the IPA's Deregulation Unit, Australia
Nils-Axel Morner, PhD, Emeritus Professor of Paleogeophysics & Geodynamics, Stockholm University, Sweden
Lubos Motl, PhD, Physicist, former Harvard string theorist, Charles University, Prague, Czech Republic
John Nicol, PhD, Professor Emeritus of Physics, James Cook University, Australia
David Nowell, M.Sc., Fellow of the Royal Meteorological Society, former chairman of the NATO Meteorological Group, Ottawa
James J. O'Brien, PhD, Professor Emeritus, Meteorology and Oceanography, Florida State University
Cliff Ollier, PhD, Professor Emeritus (Geology), Research Fellow, University of Western Australia
Garth W. Paltridge, PhD, atmospheric physicist, Emeritus Professor and former Director of the Institute of Antarctic and Southern Ocean Studies, University of Tasmania, Australia
R. Timothy Patterson, PhD, Professor, Dept. of Earth Sciences (paleoclimatology), Carleton University
Al Pekarek, PhD, Associate Professor of Geology, Earth and Atmospheric Sciences Dept., St. Cloud State University, Minnesota
Ian Plimer, PhD, Professor of Geology, School of Earth and Environmental Sciences, University of Adelaide and Emeritus Professor of Earth Sciences, University of Melbourne, Australia
Brian Pratt, PhD, Professor of Geology, Sedimentology, University of Saskatchewan
Harry N.A. Priem, PhD, Emeritus Professor of Planetary Geology and Isotope Geophysics, Utrecht University; former director of the Netherlands Institute for Isotope Geosciences
Alex Robson, PhD, Economics, Australian National University Colonel F.P.M. Rombouts, Branch Chief - Safety, Quality and Environment, Royal Netherland Air Force
R.G. Roper, PhD, Professor Emeritus of Atmospheric Sciences, School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences, Georgia Institute of Technology
Arthur Rorsch, PhD, Emeritus Professor, Molecular Genetics, Leiden University, The Netherlands
Rob Scagel, M.Sc., forest microclimate specialist, principal consultant, Pacific Phytometric Consultants, B.C.
Tom V. Segalstad, PhD, (Geology/Geochemistry), Head of the Geological Museum and Associate Professor of Resource and Environmental Geology, University of Oslo, Norway
Gary D. Sharp, PhD, Center for Climate/Ocean Resources Study, Salinas, CA
S. Fred Singer, PhD, Professor Emeritus of Environmental Sciences, University of Virginia and former director Weather Satellite Service
L. Graham Smith, PhD, Associate Professor, Dept. of Geography, University of Western Ontario
Roy W. Spencer, PhD, climatologist, Principal Research Scientist, Earth System Science Center, The University of Alabama, Huntsville
Peter Stilbs, TeknD, Professor of Physical Chemistry, Research Leader, School of Chemical Science and Engineering, KTH (Royal Institute of Technology), Stockholm, Sweden
Hendrik Tennekes, PhD, former director of research, Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute
Dick Thoenes, PhD, Emeritus Professor of Chemical Engineering, Eindhoven University of Technology, The Netherlands
Brian G Valentine, PhD, PE (Chem.), Technology Manager - Industrial Energy Efficiency, Adjunct Associate Professor of Engineering Science, University of Maryland at College Park; Dept of Energy, Washington, DC
Gerrit J. van der Lingen, PhD, geologist and paleoclimatologist, climate change consultant, Geoscience Research and Investigations, New Zealand
Len Walker, PhD, Power Engineering, Australia
Edward J. Wegman, PhD, Department of Computational and Data Sciences, George Mason University, Virginia
Stephan Wilksch, PhD, Professor for Innovation and Technology Management, Production Management and Logistics, University of Technolgy and Economics Berlin, Germany
Boris Winterhalter, PhD, senior marine researcher (retired), Geological Survey of Finland, former professor in marine geology, University of Helsinki, Finland
David E. Wojick, PhD, P.Eng., energy consultant, Virginia
Raphael Wust, PhD, Lecturer, Marine Geology/Sedimentology, James Cook University, Australia
A. Zichichi, PhD, President of the World Federation of Scientists, Geneva, Switzerland; Emeritus Professor of Advanced Physics, University of Bologna, Italy
And to continue>
And If you have a mind click on the link at the end of this list to read about induvidual experties of these men & women. But im expecting you won't.
The letter was signed by renowned scientists such as Dr. Antonio Zichichi, president of the World Federation of Scientists; Dr. Reid Bryson, dubbed one of the "Fathers of Meteorology"; Atmospheric pioneer Dr. Hendrik Tennekes, formerly of the Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute; Award winning physicist Dr. Syun-Ichi Akasofu of the International Arctic Research Center, who has twice named one of the "1000 Most Cited Scientists"; Award winning MIT atmospheric scientist Dr. Richard Lindzen; UN IPCC scientist Dr. Vincent Gray of New Zealand; French climatologist Dr. Marcel Leroux of the University Jean Moulin; World authority on sea level Dr. Nils-Axel Morner of Stockholm University; Physicist Dr. Freeman Dyson of Princeton University; Physicist Dr. Zbigniew Jaworowski, chairman of the Scientific Council of Central Laboratory for Radiological Protection in Poland; Paleoclimatologist Dr. Robert M. Carter of Australia; Former UN IPCC reviewer Geologist/Geochemist Dr. Tom V. Segalstad, head of the Geological Museum in Norway; and Dr. Edward J. Wegman, of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences. Other scientists (not already included in this report) who signed the letter include: Don Aitkin, PhD, Professor, social scientist, retired Vice-Chancellor and President, University of Canberra, Australia; Geoff L. Austin, PhD, FNZIP, FRSNZ, Professor, Dept. of Physics, University of Auckland, New Zealand; Chris C. Borel, PhD, remote sensing scientist, U.S.; Dan Carruthers, M.Sc., wildlife biology consultant specializing in animal ecology in Arctic and Subarctic regions, Alberta, Canada; Hans Erren, Doctorandus, geophysicist and climate specialist, Sittard, The Netherlands; William Evans, PhD, Editor, American Midland Naturalist; Dept. of Biological Sciences, University of Notre Dame, U.S.; R. W. Gauldie, PhD, Research Professor, Hawai'i Institute of Geophysics and Planetology, School of Ocean Earth Sciences and Technology, University of Hawai'i at Manoa; Albrecht Glatzle, PhD, sc.agr., Agro-Biologist and Gerente ejecutivo, INTTAS, Paraguay; Fred Goldberg, PhD, Adj Professor, Royal Institute of Technology, Mechanical Engineering, Stockholm, Sweden; Louis Hissink M.Sc. M.A.I.G., Editor AIG News and Consulting Geologist, Perth, Western Australia; Andrei Illarionov, PhD, Senior Fellow, Center for Global Liberty and Prosperity, U.S.; founder and director of the Institute of Economic Analysis, Russia; Jon Jenkins, PhD, MD, computer modelling - virology, Sydney, NSW, Australia; Olavi Kärner, Ph.D., Research Associate, Dept. of Atmospheric Physics, Institute of Astrophysics and Atmospheric Physics, Toravere, Estonia; Jan J.H. Kop, M.Sc. Ceng FICE (Civil Engineer Fellow of the Institution of Civil Engineers), Emeritus Professor of Public Health Engineering, Technical University Delft, The Netherlands; Professor R.W.J. Kouffeld, Emeritus Professor, Energy Conversion, Delft University of Technology, The Netherlands; Salomon Kroonenberg, PhD, Professor, Dept. of Geotechnology, Delft University of Technology, The Netherlands; The Rt. Hon. Lord Lawson of Blaby, economist; Chairman of the Central Europe Trust; former Chancellor of the Exchequer, U.K.; Douglas Leahey, PhD, meteorologist and air-quality consultant, Calgary, Canada; William Lindqvist, PhD, consulting geologist and company director, Tiburon, California, U.S.; A.J. Tom van Loon, PhD, Professor of Geology (Quaternary Geology), Adam Mickiewicz University, Poznan, Poland; former President of the European Association of Science Editors; Horst Malberg, PhD, Professor for Meteorology and Climatology, Institut für Meteorologie, Berlin, Germany; Alister McFarquhar, PhD, international economist, Downing College, Cambridge, U.K.; Frank Milne, PhD, Professor, Dept. of Economics, Queen's University, Canada; Asmunn Moene, PhD, former head of the Forecasting Centre, Meteorological Institute, Norway; Alan Moran, PhD, Energy Economist, Director of the IPA's Deregulation Unit, Australia; John Nicol, PhD, physicist, James Cook University, Australia; Mr. David Nowell, M.Sc., Fellow of the Royal Meteorological Society, former chairman of the NATO Meteorological Group, Ottawa, Canada; Brian Pratt, PhD, Professor of Geology, Sedimentology, University of Saskatchewan, Canada; Harry N.A. Priem, PhD, Emeritus Professor of Planetary Geology and Isotope Geophysics, Utrecht University; former director of the Netherlands Institute for Isotope Geosciences; Colonel F.P.M. Rombouts, Branch Chief - Safety, Quality and Environment, Royal Netherlands Air Force; R.G. Roper, PhD, Professor Emeritus of Atmospheric Sciences, School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences, Georgia Institute of Technology, U.S.; Arthur Rorsch, PhD, Emeritus Professor, Molecular Genetics, Leiden University, The Netherlands; Rob Scagel, M.Sc., forest microclimate specialist, principal consultant, Pacific Phytometric Consultants, B.C., Canada; Gary D. Sharp, PhD, Center for Climate/Ocean Resources Study, Salinas, CA, U.S.; L. Graham Smith, PhD, Associate Professor, Dept. of Geography, University of Western Ontario, Canada; Peter Stilbs, TeknD, Professor of Physical Chemistry, Research Leader, School of Chemical Science and Engineering, KTH (Royal Institute of Technology), Stockholm, Sweden; Len Walker, PhD, power engineering, Pict Energy, Melbourne, Australia; Stephan Wilksch, PhD, Professor for Innovation and Technology Management, Production Management and Logistics, University of Technology and Economics Berlin, Germany; and Raphael Wust, PhD, Lecturer, Marine Geology/Sedimentology, James Cook University, Australia. Also, "Other professional persons knowledgeable about climate change who expressed support for the open letter to the UN Secretary General" included meteorological researcher and spotter for the National Weather Service Allan Cortese; Water resources engineer Don Farley; Dr. David A. Gray of Messiah College, a former researcher in electromagnetic waves in the atmosphere; Barrie Jackson, associate professor of Chemical Engineering at Queen's University, Kingston, Ontario, Canada; Raymond J. Jones, PhD, FATSE, OAM. retired, Agronomist, Townsville, Australia; J.A.L. Robertson, M.A. (Cantab.), F.R.S.C., nuclear-energy consultant, Deep River, ON, Canada; J.T.Rogers, PhD, FCAE, nuclear engineer; energy analyst, Ottawa, Canada; John K. Sutherland, PhD in Geology (Manchester University), New Brunswick, Canada; Noor van Andel, PhD Energy Physics, Burgemeester Stroinkstraat, The Netherlands; Arthur M. Patterson, P.Eng, Geological Engineer. Extensive experience in the Canadian Arctic; Agronomist Pat Palmer of New Zealand; and Alois Haas emeritus Prof. PhD, nuclear chemistry. http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=d4b5fd23-802a-23ad-4565-3dce4095c360&Issue_id=
Stephen Berg replied on Permalink
Yup, and few of them have
Yup, and few of them have anything on climate change published in peer-reviewed scientific journals, and if they do, they fold their hand and indicate that the planet on a whole is warming and is likely the result of greenhouse gas emissions due to human activity.
They may have signed this document, but their work clearly has not refuted AGW.
Chris Crawford replied on Permalink
I have read the letter
Tom, I have read the letter and looked over the list of signatories.
I think that the letter makes some reasonable points, although I do not accept those points. In particular, I think it makes a solid point about the differences between the executive summaries and the technical content. This is why I always suggest that people start off with the executive summaries, and then proceed to reading the entire report. And certainly the entire report does not quail from presenting a strong case for the existence of AGW.
As to the specific points they make:
1. They argue that the observations so far fall inside the range of known natural variation. While this is true, it fails to note that these observations all fall at the extreme end of the range of natural variation. For example, the observed rate of temperature change that they quote (which is, by the way, one of the more conservative measures) is believed to match a quick spurt in temperatures about 10,000 years ago. However, there is nothing else in the geological record to suggest anything so quick at any other time, and the magnitude of that spurt is still uncertain. Here's a fair analogy for non-scientists: they're claiming that the body on the floor with the knife in its back might not be a murder because there was a case a few years back where a knife was accidentally bounced into somebody's back, killing them.
2. They assert that "leading scientists, including some IPCC senior representatives, acknowledge that today's computer models cannot predict climate." That's a statement so vague as to be suspicious. What does "predict" mean? I can made a climate prediction right here and now, and I don't even need a computer to make it. I predict that the average global temperature 100 years from now will be within 20 degrees Fahrenheit of its current value. See how easy that was? Of course, it's not very useful. The real question is, what's the uncertainty bounds for the predictions? The computer models in use provide those uncertainty bounds, and we can be confident that the reality will fall within those uncertainty bounds.
3. They state that " there has been no net global warming since 1998". This is absolutely correct. Yet it is also meaningless. You can cherry-pick your numbers any way you want. There's lots of other ways of expressing the data, the great majority of which show a clear warming trend. And if 2007 turns out to be cooler than 2006, that doesn't mean that global cooling is descending upon us. There are always fluctuations.
I looked over the list of 100 signatories and found a great many who are not, in my opinion, qualified to offer judgements on the IPCC reports. These include economists, geographers, and geologists. None of these advanced skills are relevant to the IPCC reports. There are also quite a few persons whose degrees are not specified other than "PhD". I ruled them out as well. I accepted anybody with a PhD in physics, climatology, or meteorology, who was a member of a university faculty, either practicing or emeritus. I found that only 36 out of the 100 signatories met my criteria.
Now, consider the number of people in the world who meet my criteria: current or emeritus faculty members with PhDs in physics, climatology, or meteorology. There are tens of thousands of such people. And the sponsors of this letter could drum up only 36 people out of tens of thousands? Doesn't that clearly demonstrate just how tiny the opposition to AGW is?
But let's suppose that you think my standards too narrow. You think that I should include economists, biologists, and geologists as well. Very well, let's accept all one hundred signatories. There are literally hundreds of thousands of scientists meeting the broader criteria for this set of 100 signatories. Which means that the scientific community appears to be divided a thousand to one in favor of AGW. I'd call that a consensus.
John Mashey replied on Permalink
Inhofe & Morano
One more time:
"Just as a reminder:
1) A list of actual signatures is one thing, and one can fairly comment on someone's placing themself on that list, if they did.
2) On the other hand, having someone *place* you a list is a different thing, and I suspect some of the 400 will be surprised to find themselves there."
The list of 100 people on letter to UN appear to be actual signatories; the list of 400 includes anyone that Marc Morano ever thought said anything that might be cherry-picked or interpreted. If you think that Marc's list *signed* anything, show it to us. Some of us are very familiar with Morano tactics.
Tom Keefe:
If you take Morano and Inhofe on faith:
that makes sense if:
a) You work in the fossil fuels industry, in which case your short-term motivation is clear.
b) You're rich, have plenty of investments in fossil fuels, and that is clear motivation.
but if you're an average working person, they are setting *you* up to go over a cliff.
Look up "peak oil".
Inhofe pushes PlanA: burn as much fossil fuels as as fast as possible, it's good for us …
or at least for Inhofe's contributors (oil&gas, #1, electric utilities, #2 (keen to build new coal power plants).
Well, when oil&gas start getting *really* expensive, just who do you think is going to get hurt?
- average people in places that have worked very hard to improve their energy efficiencies and maximize their alternate energy supplies?
- average people in places where they haven't…
When fuel prices go up, prices of basics rise, which hurts average people a lot more than it hurts rich ones.
Do you remember the oil crisis of the 1970s? When energy costs rise fast, it takes a long time for the installed base to improve. It's not just the price at the pump (I'm planning on seeing $10/gallon within 10 years), it's the energy cost embedded in food (farming, transport, fertilizer (natural gas)), manufactured products, etc.
Inhofe has done a great job suckering average people into heading for a cliff, but that's OK, because his rich fossil backers will get even richer in the short term, and he can keep getting elected.
When Oklahoma's part of the Ogallala Aquifer is useless, and OK turns into a dustbowl again from climate change, it won't be Inhofe and friends that suffer, will it?
Let's hope Andrew Rice, http://www.andrewforoklahoma.com/, can beat Inhofe in 2008. On first glance, he at least looks reasonable.
Bob Burk replied on Permalink
Politics of Personal Destruction
Richard Littlemore, said "Stephen McIntyre, the one-time mining promoter and amateur statistician who has earned unending fame by constantly attacking the same…" Isn't Stephen the person who pointed out statistical errors in Dr. "CO2 causes global cooling in the 1970s" Hanson's calculations of mean US temperatures and forced NASA to correct its numbers? It appears that you learned from Bill Clinton's strategy of "politics of personal destruction" just as the AWG blogs have found to be a method of silencing the thinking people. Stalin and Mao, just eliminated us, thank god I live in the good old USA.
Chris Crawford replied on Permalink
Could you expand?
Bob, could you expand on this statement:
Isn't Stephen the person who pointed out statistical errors in Dr. "CO2 causes global cooling in the 1970s" Hanson's calculations of mean US temperatures and forced NASA to correct its numbers?
I know something of the myth that 'scientists predicted global cooling in the 1970s', and you seem to be referring to it, but I'd like to know precisely what event you're talking about.
John Mashey replied on Permalink
Global cooling prediction in 1970s:
that's #7 [ice70s] in http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php
Chris Crawford replied on Permalink
John, thanks for the link. I had seen a few other explanations of the issue, including the NAS report from the 70s, but this is the most complete collection I've yet seen. Thanks.
And BTW, I notice that the deniers have a penchant for swooping in with long posts, and then disappearing, or at least failing to respond to my rejoinders. While this is the best possible evidence of their insincerity, it is a bit frustrating to prepare careful responses and then have them ignored. Is this common practice at this blog?


text:
First | Previous | Next
By the beginning of the twentieth century, America and its institutions had matured. At
its sesquicentennial in 1896, the College of New Jersey changed its name to Princeton
University, signaling its intention to develop beyond a liberal arts college into a
research university. The Seminary had grown into a school with 12 professors and about
150 regular and advanced students. To create a more efficient administration of the
Seminary, Francis L. Patton, who had just retired from the presidency of Princeton
University, was called as the Seminary's first president. As a suitable home for its
president, the Seminary purchased Springdale, which had been built around 1850. Patton,
in an argument with Harvard president Charles Eliot in the 1880s over the nature of
theological education, had argued that theological seminaries were not merely concerned
with theological education and research but with ministerial education for the church.
Whatever changes would occur in American academic culture, the Seminary's first loyalty
would be to the church.
Charles Hodge's most gifted student and successor, Benjamin B. Warfield, died in 1921.
Warfield's death marked the end of what has been called Old Princeton and the Princeton
Theology, which was characterized by a biblical Calvinism, Reformed piety, and
evidentialist apologetics. In 1929, after much internal turmoil, the governing structure
of Seminary was reorganized and a group of dissatisfied professors and students, led by
J. Gresham Machen, left to establish Westminster Theological Seminary.During
this tumultuous period at the Seminary, which reflected broader changes occurring in the
Presbyterian Church and American culture, the Seminary campus remained largely
unchanged. One notable exception was the construction of Payne Hall, which was built in
1922 with funds from the Payne family. The first student group organized at the Seminary
was the Society of Inquiry on Missions, which was formed to cultivate student interest
in missions. Payne Hall, representing the Seminary's support of global missions,
provided housing for missionaries on furlough.
In 1936, Scotsman John A. Mackay became the Seminary's third president. Under his
leadership the Seminary began grow and change in many significant ways. The General
Assembly of 1941 recommended that graduate schools of Christian Education be established
for women at seminaries. The following year the Tennent College of Christian Education,
which had opened in Philadelphia in 1907 to train women for lay leadership roles in the
church, conveyed its assets to the Seminary in exchange for the Seminary's pledge to
carry on the work of the school at the graduate level.
To accommodate this expansion of its curriculum, the Seminary acquired in 1943 the campus
of the Hun Preparatory School, now called the Tennent Campus, which included buildings
for classrooms, dormitory rooms, and a gymnasium. Although a few women had matriculated
at the Seminary earlier in the twentieth century, in 1944 women began to regularly
attend the Seminary. (1944 was also the year in which the Seminary awarded its first
doctorate degree, as part of a program that was begun in 1940.) Mackay's next major
project was the development of a Campus Center. The Mackay Campus Center opened in 1952
to replace Seminary eating clubs, which had supplanted the Seminary's apparently
inadequate refectory. Mackay's intention was to create a stronger sense of community at
the Seminary by providing a common space where an increasingly diverse student body
could meet and dine together.
The two Lenox Libraries were razed to make room for the Robert E. Speer Library, which
opened in 1957. Mackay named the building after his close friend Robert E. Speer, former
Seminary trustee and General Secretary of the Presbyterian Church's Board of Foreign
Missions. When it opened, Speer Library was a model research facility. It provided ample
space for library resources and services and contained a number of seminar rooms. Over
the main entrance of Speer Library were two columns of seals symbolizing important
Christian truths. The first image, at the top of the left column, is the creative hand
of God, signifying the divine initiative; the last image, at the bottom of the right
column, is John Calvin's dedicated heart, signifying the human response to God.
In 1959, James I. McCord became the Seminary's fourth president. McCord was committed to
the advancement of theological education and research. One outcome of this commitment
was the establishment of the Center of Continuing
Education. The first continuing education seminars were held in Adams House
(named after Dean Arthur M. Adams), which was purchased by the Seminary in 1962. Erdman
Hall, the former site of the home of Professor Charles Erdman, was built as a dormitory
in 1981 and then renovated in 2000 to provide state-of-the art facilities for continuing
education programs.McCord also established the Center of Theological Inquiry, in 1978, to support advanced
research in theology. The CTI was modeled on the Institute for Advanced Study, which
was founded in Princeton in 1930 as the first residential research institute for
scholars in United States. Luce Hall was built for the CTI in 1984.
As early as the 1950s, the Seminary had been seeking better accommodations for married
students. In 1965, McCord purchased an apartment development on what is now the
Seminary's West Windsor Campus. In 1979, the Seminary received a $16 million bequest and
the mortgage on the property was paid off. The apartments are now named after the
philanthropist's mother, Charlotte Rachel Wilson, and the philanthropist's name was
given to the adjacent Charlotte Newcombe Social and Study Center, which opened in 1982.
Also located at the West Windsor Campus are the Seminary Pool (which opened in 1991),
the Witherspoon Apartments (which opened in 1998), and the Dupree Center for Children (a
child care center, which opened in 1995 at the CN Center).
In 1983, Thomas Gillespie became the fifth president of the Seminary. Under his
leadership, the Seminary continued to grow. Templeton Hall was completed in 1989 and
contains administrative offices, preaching labs, and state-of-the-art media facilities.
It is named after Sir John Templeton, who established the Templeton Fund and the
Templeton Prize in Religion. Templeton became a trustee of the Seminary in 1951, and
under his guidance the Seminary's endowment grew substantially. The Henry Luce III
Library, named after a former Seminary trustee and chairman of the Luce Foundation,
opened in 1994 to further support research at the Seminary. Luce Library houses a
repository for the archives of the Seminary and for manuscripts, rare books, and special
research collections.
During his tenure, president Gillespie raised over $30 million for the renovation of
older campus buildings. In 2000 Miller Chapel was renovated for the fourth time. Scheide
Hall, a new building which opened in the same year, is named after a generous trustee
emeritus of the Seminary, William H. Scheide. Scheide Hall houses the offices of the
chapel staff and provides rehearsal space for the Seminary choirs.
In 2004, Princeton Seminary called Iain Torrance, former Moderator of the General
Assembly of the Church of Scotland and younger son of the noted Scottish theologian,
Thomas F. Torrance, as its sixth President. Accomplishments during his administration
included a thorough review of the Seminary's programs and expanded emphasis on the
mission of the Seminary in the face of ongoing changes in global Christianity and
interfaith relations. Major physical changes on the campus included a renovation of the
Seminary Library and of the student housing in the Charlotte Rachel Wilson Complex.
For a brief narrative history of Princeton Seminary from its beginnings through 1992,
William K. Selden, Princeton Theological Seminary: A Narrative
History, available in the Theological Commons.
Click here for details about hours
and exceptions.Please visit the PTS Alert System for emergency delay/closure information.


text:
"There are a few things I learned while being in the TASC Program. I met wonderful people who believed in me, and believe in second chances (sometimes 3rd). I learned that in life no matter how bad you screw up there is always a way to make things right and, 99% of the time, there is a second chance. When I was sitting in jail, kicking heroin, facing a bunch of charges, some felonies, TASC gave me a second chance. They took me out of jail, put me in a long term rehab where I spent 8 ½ months; which I really needed. They were there with me when I got out, they guided me in the right direction and they supervised me to make sure I didn't slip back into old habits. They helped me become the young man I am today. I am so thankful for TASC – they literally saved my life. I learned it is possible to kick a drug habit. You just need help sometimes. The staff truly does believe in each and every one of their clients. They take pride in what they do and they help change lives every day. I thank them for that. I'll never forget what you guys helped me accomplish. I don't know where I would be today without TASC. Thanks again." – W.D., a client of Suffolk TASC
The Suffolk TASC Program includes assessment of an offender's addiction, a determination of the most appropriate treatment placement, referral to treatment and monitoring for the courts. Offenders with a history of violent crimes or who are currently charged with a violent crime are ineligible to participate in TASC. TASC does not accept offenders with a history of inappropriate or illegal sexual acts, arson, or severe mental illness. Offenders must have a current history of substance abuse and be willing to enter treatment for a minimum of 12 months.
Potential participants are identified by referral from the Court, a Defense Attorney, the District Attorney, Probation, or Parole. A treatment plan is developed by TASC staff and presented to the Court for its approval. TASC clients are monitored by staff with an expertise in substance abuse, and regular reports are presented to the Court outlining client progress. Persons not in compliance with all conditions of the TASC treatment plan are returned to the Court for criminal processing.
Suffolk TASC staff is comprised of dedicated professionals delivering screening, assessment, referral and case management services. In recent years, there has been increasing awareness of the value of Treatment Alternatives for Safer Communities (TASC) program services as a means to identify suitable offenders with substance abuse problems for diversion. TASC services positively influence numerous offenders to acknowledge their substance abuse problems, undergo treatment and counseling, and comply with terms and conditions of their release. TASC programs provide essential support and coordination of service delivery to achieve successful reintegration of participants to their respective communities.
Download our brochure: Suffolk TASC Brochure