Stay in the loop as you can stay connected with the tour itineraries and band information at:
The examples in this blog entry of the alleged plagiarism are probably worse than the examples in the original article. This seems to run deep and is - as commenters below have said - is disturbing.
Good review of the show, but I couldn't disagree more with the comment about Marr's versions of The Smiths' songs: " It’s like hearing a beloved story told by a foreign narrator." The songs Marr chose to do from The Smiths' catalog are great songs, period. Marr's versions of them are outstanding in their own right, albeit with slightly different shadings. They are no more lacking than Morrissey's live versions without Marr's distinctive instrumental style.
No comment from the Board yet apparently. Just brush off fluff from district. They need to address this seriously. Show me a school district that had a principal plagiarize and not do anything about it. if she stays, what is the message to our students?
As a resident of Chapel HIll and one who pays a hefty school tax and also as a former educator, I find Ms. Jackson's behavior disturbing. The people who lead our schools and influence our children should uphold the highest of ethical standards. The fact that she is splitting hairs on the definition of plagiarism is unfortunate and a form of denial. She should have the courage to resign.
Thank you for posting this blog. I wish more people were commenting on it as it dispels this "form letter" red herring that Jackson's supporters are clinging onto. Please, tweet this blog.
Did anyone notice the typo in the .pdf letter?
One of the best rock n roll shows I have seen in a very long time. From the moment they came onstage, they rocked!!!! What a phenomenal guitar player and I thought he was a great singer as well. "New Town Velocity" had me levitating!!!!
Had my car towed from a lot with no clear signage. "T-Roy" from T-Roy's Towing had me go to a fenced in field next to a gas station (not even the address listed for the company online), demanded $125 in cash, no paperwork, no receipt, just told me that he was doing me a favor because "the other guy woulda charged you $180."
Perhaps it would also be prudent to examine her resume, degrees, transcripts, etc., to insure that they are credible.
Wouldn't be the first time some administrator has misrepresented him/herself.
Ms. Jackson's definition of plagiarism is not the one by which my writing was ever judged, nor one which I have ever used to define this act of intellectual piracy. Any piece of writing submitted to anyone for any reason whether compensated or not which contains the unattributed words of another author must be cited for source and attribution. To do otherwise is to present those words as your own and that is plagiarism.
No, Denis, you are mistaken. Quoting from the third paragraph of that paper:
"To reconcile the nearly factor of 2 difference in the tide gauge and altimeter global rates, reconstructions of global sea level from tide gauges have been made using empirical orthogonal functions (EOFs) obtained from satellite altimeter data...
Do you see the 3rd to last word? It is "satellite."
You say that there's no difference between the tide gauge measurements and the satellite numbers. But the paper says that there's "nearly a factor of 2 difference."
If you just look at tide gauge data, there's been no acceleration in over 80 years, unless you constrain your examination to specific regions, where well-known oscillation patterns cause alternating periods of apparent acceleration and deceleration (like Sallenger did).
Ashley IMHO Kat Was The PIZZAZZ Of The Voice. She Brought Excitement & Color To The Stage With EVERY PERFORMANCE. She Will Be Missed 4 Sure
I am really going to miss kat. I'm probably going to buy her band's albums.
KAT is no more than a average Bar singer wanna be...In Hollywood they know who are the Stars and she is NOT one...The voters are right..KAT is a mere Marilyn Manson look alike wanna be singer...stay in the Bar KAT...remember people do remember the Loozers...and KAT Lost...
I don't care what anyone says. I loved Kat and was so sad to see her go.
Dear Dave Burton (aka sealevelinfo ):
No, you are wrong. I was not comparing apples and oranges. The numbers, 1.7 mm/year for sea level rise before 1993 and 3.2 mm/year for sea level rise after 1993 are supported by the following study (see link below), which used ocean gauges for both time periods. The ocean gauges post 1990 in this case, agreed with the satellite measurements.
You might disclose that you are a member of NC-20, a group well-known for its interest in avoiding any restrictions on coastal development. I would trust the scientists who grew up professionally learning to objectively learn how the oceans work, rather than a computer software engineer like Mr. Burton who clearly has an interest in the debate turning out one way rather than the other (that would not be considered being objective).
P.S. - Benjamin, regarding the links that you suggested for the www.sealevel.info site:
1. There's long been a link to the U. Colorado material on the "Resources" page of the sealevel.info web site, along with a link to an article & discussion that will help you understand it.
2. You accidentally omitted the link to this paper, but I googled the title and found it:
It's paywalled (if you have a copy please send it to me). But the abstract indicates that the article provides more evidence that anthropogenic GHGs have NOT caused increased sea level rise increase. (Based on NC salt-marsh "proxies," the authors conclude that the rate of sea level rise in NC last increased prior to 1915.)
Benjamin, you say I "[refuse] to acknowledge the validity of sea level rise data from the past twenty years [which] clearly demonstrates your agenda." But I'm not the one who's ignoring the data. That's you.
For instance, you link to a graph just Topex/Poseidon, Jason-2, and just half of the Jason-1 satellite data. Why do you suppose that graph omits ERS2, Envisat, and the rest of the Jason-1 data?
The answer to that question is pretty obvious when you look at what it shows. We have 20 years of satellite altimetry data for sea-level in the open ocean. It is of dubious quality, but, for what it is worth, it shows a clear decrease in the rate of sea-level rise over that period. Here's a graph, with all six satellites shown:
Note that Aviso graphs the Envisat data in light yellow, and starts it way above the baseline, to obfuscate the fact that it measured much lower SLR than the earlier Tpoex/Poseidon & ERS2 satellites did. Even so, the deceleration is obvious.
We also have over a century of tide-gauge data, from many reliable gauges, measuring coastal sea-levels. They also show that there's been no increase in the rate of sea-level rise in the last 80 years. In fact, the most careful and thorough studies of tide gauge data show a slight DECREASE in the rate of sea-level rise (though that slight decrease might be due to cyclical factors).
Only by conflating measurements from different locations is it possible to create the ILLUSION of accelerated sea-level rise.
Why is this hard for some people to understand?
Contrary to what you wrote, I do not deny that retreating glaciers, and probably Greenland, are contributing meltwater that is raising the oceans. (Studies of ICESat and GRACE measurements differ in whether Antarctica is contributing meltwater.) But the rate of that rise is not increasing.
Globally averaged coastal sea-levels are rising more than 1 mm/year, despite a calculated post-glacial sinking of the ocean floor that Peltier estimates should cause about 0.3 mm/yr decline in sea-level. If Peltier's estimate is right, and actual average coastal sea-level change plus the Peltier adjustment come to about 1.5 mm/yr, that's equivalent to over 140 cubic miles(!!!) of melted ice! Even if some of the water is coming from groundwater depletion, or other factors, it is still a LOT of melted ice, probably more than 100 cubic miles of it.
But that's not the issue. The question is what effect have humanity's CO2 (and CH4) emissions had? And the answer is "none that we can detect."
That rate of ice melt clearly has not increased in more than 80 years. The oceans are rising no faster now than they were 80+ years ago. Yet the great preponderance of anthropogenic GHG emissions have occurred since the 1940s. That means there's no evidence in the sea-level measurements that anthropogenic GHG emissions have increased the rate of sea-level rise at all.
Do you deny that fact, Benjamin?
I also ask that you not make up "straw men" that I've never said. You referred to, "the 'mysterious' stop in sea level rise you like to talk about." But I never mentioned any "stop" in sea level rise. You just made that up.
As for the www.sealevel.info site, to see the spreadsheets with NOAA's tide gauge analyses, click on the "data" link at the top of the main page, then view any of the spreadsheets.
NC has only one GLOSS Long Term Tide gauge. It's the Wilmington gauge. Over it's 78.5 year history, sea-level rise averaged 2.0 mm/year (of which Peltier estimates that 0.88 mm/year is due to local subsidence), with no sign of acceleration. (In fact, sea level hasn't risen at all at Wilmington in the last 20 years, presumably due to cyclical factors.) Click on the station name ("Wilmington, NC, USA") to view the graph.
Over the last 78.5 years, the rate of sea-level rise at Wilmington has averaged only 2 mm/yr, with no sign of acceleration. Extrapolating that for the next 87 years adds up to less than 7 inches by 2100. That's hardly "rising precipitously."
So Dave Burton where's the water going? We know that the earth's temperature is warming and that water expands as it warms. Secondly we know that vast quantities of water are pouring into the oceans from melting glaciers and the ice sheets found in Antarctica and Greenland, that water simply hasn't disappeared.
Your refusal to acknowledge the validity of sea level rise data from the past twenty years clearly demonstrates your agenda. Will you also deny the data concerning the melting of the glaciers or the warming of the oceans having increased during the past twenty years?
Here's three more articles/ webpages to add your website sealevel,info
What Goes Down Must Come Back Up - Explaining the "mysterious" stop in sea level rise you like to talk about can be attributed to a very strong La Nina weather event. http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/Grace/news/earth20121119.html#.UowZcSfKe-A
Global Mean Sea Level Time Series (seasonal signals removed) - Shows the global sea level has increased to levels higher than previously mentioned. http://sealevel.colorado.edu/
Timing and magnitude of recent accelerated sea-level rise (North Carolina, United States) - Demonstrates that the increasing rate of sea level rise can be shown in changes to the peat in North Carolina's Salt Marsh show the same unprecedented sea level rise as shown by the GRACE Satellites and tidal gauges.
Your presentation before the John Locke foundation was correct on several points however. Some environmentalist have taken the opportunity to advance other environmental agendas which would benefit from aggressive sea level policy.
Secondly that a straight line 39 inch measurement would greatly impact coastal development. I'm sure we can both agree however that private individuals and groups should not be expecting the taxpayers to bail them out of ill conceived coastal developments and that an end to subsidized flood insurance would alleviate this problem.
As for others comments regarding the appropriateness of the facility from a viewing stand point, I agree that it would of been less than ideal. Lydia's suggestion of the Carolina Theater in Durham is a much better suggestion and the large stage would easily allow for a panel discussion afterwards.
On sealevel.info it fails to give a link (at least I didn't find one) to the NOAA tidal gauges for NC. Here's the site. http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends_states.shtml?region=nc Anyone will easily notice that sea level is rising precipitously in many parts of the North Carolina Coast.
Indy Week • 201 W. Main St., Suite 101, Durham, NC 27701 • phone 919-286-1972 • fax 919-286-4274
RSS Feeds | Powered by Foundation