Gore gets oceanography prize

From KFMB San Diego

Scripps Institution of Oceanography is awarding its first-even Roger Revelle Prize to former Vice President Al Gore.

Gore will be in La Jolla Friday evening to receive the award.

The award will be given out during a dinner marking the 100th birthday of the institution’s late former director.

UCSD said Gore was selected for his efforts to raise awareness of global warming.

Read the comments in the article, it appears that the idea is not well received locally.

Advertisements

75 thoughts on “Gore gets oceanography prize

  1. Hrumph.
    Making the rounds of the award circuit seems to be a better gig than the Vice Presidency ever was.
    What climate-related award is he scheduled to get next month (and the following month, and the following…)?

  2. From the Environmental Capital blog in the Wall Street Journal:
    … The Nobel-prize winner declined to take any questions from reporters, but he did receive a couple of challenges from attendees, including Bjorn Lomborg.

    But he [Gore] was challenged by Mr. Lomborg, the Danish skeptical environmentalist who thinks the world would be better off spending more money on health and education issues than curbing carbon emissions.
    “I don’t mean to corner you, or maybe I do mean to corner you, but would you be willing to have a debate with me on that point?” asked the polo-shirt wearing Dane.
    “I want to be polite to you,” Mr. Gore responded. But, no.

    http://blogs.wsj.com/environmentalcapital/2009/03/05/a-heated-exchange-al-gore-confronts-his-critics/

  3. But Revelle did not believe in catastrophic global warming, as much as Gore wishes us to believe he did.
    First ever prize….hmmm….was this Institution and award created solely to give Al Gore a prize????

  4. That must be awesome, to have spent a career in a field, doing good, honest science, and then when an award is created to reward that hard work, it’s given to a bloated politician who has spent his recent years peddling a dangerous fiction. Bravo, Scripps.

  5. “it appears that the idea is not well received locally”
    Worried about “The Gore Effect” probably!
    Good way of Scripps (Whoever they are) to publicise themselves.

  6. The good people at Scripps should look out their window when they get a chance: According to the U. of Colorado’s Sea Level website, Southern California is one of the many areas of the world where sea level has been dropping over the last 2-3 years.
    With less ocean to get in the way, they now have more room for their party!

  7. A terrible slap in the face for oceanographers from this once prestigious institution!
    It may be worthwhile to review Roger Revelle’s complete contribution to the CO2 story…

  8. The link in the article [click] shows the public’s perception of the Scripps oceanography prize.
    Let them know what you think. You can make a comment below the article without registering. There is also the option of clicking yes/no below each comment, on whether you agree or disagree with the poster.

  9. Not surprising, given that Al Gore has helped bring funding and awareness to their cause. People don’t normally bite the hand that feeds them.

  10. Al used to look dapper and once wrote a very interesting book. But he’s got fatter and debauched-looking, gone downhill like our King Henry VIII did after doing away with half his wives and using his brownshirt minister Thomas Cromwell to close the monasteries with violence, to pocket their wealth.
    “Debate Is Over” – sound familiar?

  11. Until now, I had a lot of respect for Scripps.
    And the comments on newspaper articles have been enlightening. Look at the comments in your nearest newspaper with a “liberal” reputation and observe how more of their commenters express conservative viewpoints. The papers’ staff seem disconnected from readers.

  12. ” UCSD said Gore was selected for his efforts to raise awareness of global warming”
    I think one can interpret that as “Gore was selected for is valuable contribution to keeping the funding flowing”

  13. We’re only asking for a two hour live televised debate with the Oceanographer of the Year Al Gore or anyone of his choosing but he’s saying there is no time left because the world is going to end in two hours and 1 second. Or some lame excuse like that.
    Each day there are 16 waking hours. During those waking hours at least 14 can be freed for debate. We ask for only two.

  14. My comment to KFMB TV on their announcement of the Scripps prize for Gore:
    I am utterly aghast at the mendacity exhibited by this award. I believe history will judge Scripps harshly on this one. Can they possibly be unaware that global temperature peaked in 1998 and that sea level rise possibly (too soon to be sure) peaked in 2006? See http://sealevel.colorado.edu/

  15. Al Gore is the best ambassador for non science there is, so I hereby propose he is given the first of what will be a much sought after annual prize;
    “The WUWT services for sceptics award.”
    TonyB

  16. 1) Another scientific institution fatally “Gored.”
    2) Does the Pope debate every heretic that comes along?
    3) One must be polite to “nuncios.”
    Or, all 3.

  17. Can you just imagine how would things be if Galileo would have said; I am telling you people that the earth is round and that it revolves around the sun. Now this is not opened to debate and you can’t ask me questions about it. Listen, the science is settled and anyone against this idea should be excommunicated.
    Just imagine…

  18. Speed (04:50:30) :
    Did they screw up that video? I tried playing it on 3 different browsers and it always stops and crash the browsers!!!
    I guess they don’t want the critiques to see that video… that would be inconvenient.

  19. The University of Calgary (Alberta, Canada) under the impulse of its outgoing president gave Al Gore a Honoris Causa doctorate a year or two ago… If this continues, Al Gore official portraits will have to extend his left shoulder to include all medals -just like Brezhnev’s-…

  20. I think it is no coincidence that Scripps was first the research center given the task of developing the “GoreSat”, Gore’s idea during the Clinton administration to have a satellite that did nothing other than to sit out in space and take pictures of the front side of the earth from the perspective of the sun. What a waste of money that would have been. Yet it gave a whole lot of money to Scripps. Of course, this boondoggle was killed by the Bush administration. Maybe Scripps thinks they will cash in big again now that the Obama administration is in charge and this is their way of ingratiating themselves with it.

  21. The PARADE OF FOOLS continues. What a cosmic JOKE!
    More anecdotal evidence of what will go down as the most egregious BREACH OF SCIENTIFIC TRUST since the days of the Spanish Inquisition.
    Perhaps the current extraordinarily INACTIVE SUN is contributing to DIMMER INDIVIDUALS who lack the correct judgement to do the right thing.
    It used to only permeate individuals. Now it corrupts whole institutions.
    I ask the good people out there…WHICH of the following…is the worse of the two??
    The individual who could, with a straight face, give that prize to Gore…or the fact that Gore had the audacity to accept??

  22. rm3 – Justin Lancaster disputes Fred Singer’s version of how Revelle’s name came to be on the Cosmos article, including an affadavit from Revelle’s secretary stating the Revelle did not in fact work on the piece, being in recovery from major surgery at the time of the alleged collaboration (in Singer’s version they go out for cocktails) and concluding This shameful manipulation and exploitation of the life and teaching of a great scientist and humanitarian cannot stand. For my friend and colleague, for all those who have been misled by this Cosmos myth, and for the honor of a courageous and committed politician and journalist, it is important that I hereby fully rescind and repudiate my 1994 retraction and make available the evidence that supports my statements.
    Revelle was a fine scientist, and here in his own words, are his views on climate change, published posthumously.

  23. I did watch the video some of you are talking about it this thread, “A Heated Exchange: Al Gore Confronts His Critic(s)”. There is no heated exchange in it. It’s just Al Gore talking and T. Boone Pickens asks a question. Their Q & A seems (IMO) to have been rehearsed.
    In the video Al Gore talks about the Civil Rights movement and how people had fire hoses turned on them sometimes. He does not realize that it is he who is now turning a fire hose, a verbal fire hose, on the people who know the real science of climate by calling them deniers, and flat earthers.
    He is the one holding the fire hose now.

  24. As a 10 year old boy, my father took me down to Scripps to
    meet a real oceanographer. My eyes were wide open and
    I reveled in every word he spoke. That experience guided me
    into science, and finally research engineering. I’m watching
    one of the foundational pillars of my life crumble right in
    front of me. This is truly a sad day for Scripps and all the people
    there who still believe in the purity of science. Science itself
    is being hijacked by half-wits!

  25. Hopefully this will inspire thousands of children to not do well in the sciences, to drop out of college or make mediocre grades, and to become politicians and lobbyists, rather than wasting time with research, as that is clearly the best way to become a world-renowned and universally-respected scientist.

  26. If the only way to get money for research is to politicize science, lots of scientific whores will sleep with the bitch that has the money.

  27. I understand the dismay of those who have ties to Scripps.
    As for the rest of us, please do not worry so.
    Scripps has not hurt me with this award, nor have they hurt you.
    They have only hurt themselves.
    No sensible person will take them seriously now, Post Scripps.

  28. Why is it that when someone loses a debate against George ‘Simple Jack’ Bush they suddenly think they are an eminent scientist? Will John Kerry be the next to win an Oscar, Nobel Prize and Oceanographer of the Year Award?

  29. Perhaps whoever made the decision to give the award to Al gets to spend weekends in the latter’s SF waterside luxury retreat.

  30. How sad it is to see Scripps leave it’s objectivity behind and move wholesale into advocacy with both the award and the person it was awarded to.
    The political environment vis a vis CO2 as the driver on warming is pretty much akin to the McCarthy era – which Revelle stood against. How far they have moved from those days. At least Revelle didn’t rail aginst the “trains of death” and was fairly dispassionate in some of his printed works, including the possibility that he was wrong.

  31. So Al Gore gets a prize named after the person he defamed? It’s worrying to me that I’m getting desensitized to this sort of insanity.

  32. Vaguely related due to the doomster nature, the frequent flyer and climate activist Prince Charles is reported in the London Telegraph as claiming there are 100 months to save the world.
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/theroyalfamily/4952918/Prince-Charles-we-have-100-months-to-save-the-world.html
    March 2009: “In Thursday’s speech, the Prince will warn that a failure to act in the next eight years will have catastrophic effects for the planet. ”
    The page includes links to related stories and this one caught my eye.
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/theroyalfamily/1961719/Prince-Charles-Eighteen-months-to-stop-climate-change-disaster.html
    May 2008: “The Prince of Wales has warned that the world faces a series of natural disasters within 18 months unless urgent action is taken to save the rainforests. ”
    An adjustment from 18 months to 100 months in less than a year. An element of caution being introduced into the rhetoric?

  33. “Prince Charles is reported in the London Telegraph as claiming there are 100 months to save the world”.
    The next US elections are in 20 months, but who’s counting.

  34. John Philip – Singer sues Lancaster for libel, Lancaster makes a retraction (and apology) to settle the suit and then years later changes his mind to ” fully rescind and repudiate” the retraction. You don’t find this odd?

  35. This is an insult to Revelle who was one of the founders of the CO2-as-an-anthropogenic-greenhouse gas idea, but became very concerned in his later years when he seen the progaganda bandwagon that is AGW Alarmism gain momentum…
    Some of his quotes during this period sound familiar to many on this site…
    “As you very well know, climate is highly variable from year to year, and the causes of these variations are not at all well understood. My own personal belief is that we should wait another ten or twenty years to really be convinced that the greenhouse effect is going to be important for human beings, in both positive and negative ways.”
    In the premiere issue of Cosmos, in 1991, Revelle and coauthors S.F. Singer and C. Starr contributed a brief essay, “What to do about greenhouse warming: Look before you leap.” The three write: “Drastic, precipitous and, especially, unilateral steps to delay the putative greenhouse impacts can cost jobs and prosperity and increase the human costs of global poverty, without being effective.”
    Revelle died in 1991 from complications after a Cardiac Arrest.
    Al Gore famously called Revelle senile because of him urging extreme caution on the surge to demonize CO2 and base policy on (to him) unproven science.
    Nice guy that Al Gore…
    To Revelle, the science was far from settled.
    Now Gore is being given an award in Revelles name – this is just sick at some level.
    I just don’t understand how a reputable scientific establishment like Scripps can handout a prize to this clown – it seriously dents their credibility as a center of science.

  36. John Philip, thank you for pointing out this masterpiece:
    Sentences such as “Revelle appears not to have had full information ”
    or “As far as it appears, Revelle did not work on the paper prior to the final review session of February 6, 1991 at Scripps”
    or “Did Roger entered into co-authorship fairly and fully informed?”
    or “So, in this context, how is one to look at attribution of authorship to Revelle for that same material? Were these co-drafted, co-written, and/or co-authored sections? Where does Revelle’s authorship begin?”
    or ” My understanding, from conversations with Roger …”
    or “Revelle was hoodwinked, in my view. Perhaps more severe terms are deserved. My personal conversation with Roger shortly after the publication of the Cosmos article gave me the very strong sense that he was intensely embarrassed that his name was associated.”
    Well appearences are just what they are: personal conviction, his view are hardly definitive proofs. But the hypocrisy doesn’t end here:
    “Over ten years ago, I was forced by a SLAPP suit to retract my statements exposing the Cosmos myth described here. Likely to prevail at trial because my statements were true, I regretted deeply that I could not then afford to continue”
    So this guy with the political backing of the Vice-President of the USA could not afford to continue? Who is he kidding with his fairy tale? Lancaster is trying through the backdoor to re-write history – the court would have proved him right… sure…- and re-engraciate himself to Gore through flattery of the lowest level…
    As for this whole story discrediting Al Gore, Lancaster should perhaps be more modest: Gore doesn’t need anyone else but himself to do it!

  37. A story update at AmericanThinker provides a link-
    http://www.kusi.com/weather/colemanscorner/40867912.html?video=YHI&t=a
    to a video here-
    http://www.kusi.com/weather/colemanscorner/40867912.html?video=YHI&t=a
    Perhaps a future story of its own on WUWT could focus on where the truth is on whether Roger Revelle, here mentioned at-
    http://www.theresmytwocents.com/2009/02/amazing-story-behind-global-warming.html
    as the “grandfather of global warming” did indeed speak at Bohemian Grove and “recant” his previous views? Now it seems WUWT needs an investigative reporter. Any takers? Drudge? Roger Revelle’s memory deserves the truth, wherever that leads.

  38. Oh, and thanks to rm3 (07:48:49) : for the pointer to AmericanThinker’s article.

  39. Did anyone ask Revelle’s family what they thought of this debacle? I would be somewhat irritated if someone insulted my late father and then got an award in his name.

  40. It beats trying to run a Coal-fired electric plant shutdown rally in a blinding snowstorm to shut the power off to Congress.
    I keep wondering how well that would go over with the House, Senate, White House and Supreme Court had they suceeded. I can just see the scowls on the faces of the nine as they talked over the toxicity case against CO2.

  41. Gore has done well in what he was training to be, before he flunked out. He studied how to be a Fire-and-Brimstone televangelist, as they made a good living doing so.
    He just recognized that he needed a new religion to peddle and presto, Mother GAIA. Nature worship is a good old time religion godhead that has existed for a long time, it was an intelligent choice, for a pseudo religious [snip. Which reads better, anyway. ~ Evan].
    Gore is successful as a preacherman. He is a a disaster at everything else, and his destruction and perversion of Science is his greatest crime. But we should not crucify him. Tar and Feathers are a great American solution to charlatans. But the irony of receiving the Roger Revelle prize named for someone he sainted and then denounced is amazing.

  42. Mick J said
    “The Prince of Wales has warned that the world faces a series of natural disasters within 18 months unless urgent action is taken to save the rainforests. ”
    An adjustment from 18 months to 100 months in less than a year. An element of caution being introduced into the rhetoric?”
    So we have yet another prediction-anyoner remember the book ‘5000 days to save the world by a leading group of activists. That time expired several years ago.
    Is anyone keeping a web site of these predictions complete with a ticking clock symbol?
    tonyB

  43. Prince Charles is an enigma. He drives one of the biggest engined Aston Martins [but it uses bio ethanol] so that’s OK then? He likes a boiled egg after a days hunting….quote
    “Charles, who is particularly fond of a boiled egg after a day’s hunting, is so picky that his staff cook seven eggs ranging from runny to rock hard, which the Prince tests before choosing his favourite.” And he throws tauntrums if one of the eggs is not perfect……
    The bio ethanol fuel is made from his surplus [organic of course] grapes that the EU insist the Prince of Wails does not turn into wine. Why grow so many grapes? Ah! Of course! The Aston does 10 miles per gallon so the ethanol cuts down on the Aston Martin’s carbon footprint……….
    Strange that Charles talks to trees and then tries to deny them extra CO2, which any tree/plant would thrive on receiving!
    His eggs should be stamped with “CO2 is Not a poison!”
    But the Walesian philosophy is hard to stomach.

  44. DaveCF (22:07:45) :
    Did anyone ask Revelle’s family what they thought of this debacle? I would be somewhat irritated if someone insulted my late father and then got an award in his name.
    According to the CBS video clip mentioned by Anthony at the article top, “Revelle’s family is quite pleased.” Amazing, just amazing. Maybe someone should tell them what Al really thinks about dear old dad.
    The more you look into this story, the more tangled it gets. While I’m not a “Bohemian Grove conspiracy fan”, the fact that Dr. Revelle might have attended this rather eccentric retreat north of San Francisco and recanted his earlier ways makes it all the more fascinating.

  45. Apparently some dimwits paid $25,000 a plate to hear Mr Gore receive his ‘award’. I just can’t believe it………..
    And I would like to hear Gore explain how he justifies accepting this award and while he is at it how he hoodwinked so many to pick up the other ones?
    He can sell snake oil though.
    Final thought……what if Al had become President of your country??????
    We have G Brown, that is bad enough……and you have B
    Obama and his team of Global Warming know nothings………..
    Anyone do 10 year human hibernation kits?

  46. Antonio and others – I agree that Lancaster changing his story, albeit under the pressure of a SLAPP suit, is unhelpful to his credibility. So only Fred Singer knows what actually happened in that office, and he is demonstrably someone who is willing to spread falsehoods when it suits his agenda.
    But we do also have the sworn evidence of Revelle’s assistant, which corroborates Lancaster and the opinions of his family: here is a reaction by Revelle’s family to similar assertions of a ‘deathbed conversion’ by George Will…
    Contrary to George Will’s “Al Gore’s Green Guilt” {op-ed, Sept. 3} [William Roger Revelle] – our father and the “father” of the greenhouse effect – remained deeply concerned about global warming until his death in July 1991. That same year he wrote: “The scientific base for a greenhouse warming is too uncertain to justify drastic action at this time.” Will and other critics of Sen. Al Gore have seized these words to suggest that Revelle, who was also Gore’s professor and mentor, renounced his belief in global warming.
    Nothing could be farther from the truth.
    When Revelle inveighed against “drastic” action, he was using that adjective in its literal sense – measures that would cost trillions of dollars. Up until his death, he thought that extreme measures were premature. But he continued to recommend immediate prudent steps to mitigate and delay climatic warming. Some of those steps go well beyond anything Gore or other national politicians have yet to advocate.

    and his friend and collaborator Walter Munk thinks we should let Revelle speak for himself.
    Eli has some more background.
    Al Gore praises Revelle in An Inconvenient Truth, to my knowledge he has never described Revelle as ‘senile’, and I would like to see some supporting evidence for this remarkable claim.

  47. John Philip,
    Your references of Prof. Revelle “own words” keep bringing what others thought, understood, appeared to believe etc… of his words. As for the “father” of the greenhouse effect, Fourier 1827 seems a better candidate…
    One can writes volumes about this kind of stuff which you seem bound to do here. What’s next? “He”‘ll be able to cast a vote too…

  48. John Philip:

    I agree that Lancaster changing his story, albeit under the pressure of a SLAPP suit, is unhelpful to his credibility.

    Correct me if I’m wrong, but a SLAPP suit is filed when someone uses the legal system to harass another person. Therefore, Lancaster should file a SLAPP suit if he’s being unfairly prosecuted. The fact that he doesn’t makes it clear, as you point out, that he lacks credibility.
    And your Munk/Friedman link says nothing at all. It only tries to split hairs over the word “drastic,” which remains undefined. Mandating the use of ethanol, for instance, is certainly ‘drastic.’ If that is the best you can do, then John Coleman wins the debate hands down.
    Finally, your link to the truly despicable “Eli Rabett” should never even appear on the “Best Science” site. A sample of Eli Rabett’s brand of ‘science’:

    “This is one of those strange little stories that you find Richard Lindzen crawling about at the bottom of the toilet in… when a Richard Lindzen or S. Fred show up, throw them out the door. They are only their own friends. They are users.”

    If all you’ve got to support the AGW/CO2 hypothesis is a scatological screed by one of the very worst-rated teachers at Howard U. — which is itself at the bottom of the education barrel — written to denigrate the head of M.I.T.’s Atmospheric Studies department, the internationally esteemed Dr. Richard Lindzen, you make it clear that you’ve got nothing.
    If this is the pitiful level of defense that the defenders of the AGW/CO2 hypothesis must resort to, then AGW is truly on the ropes. AGW is getting beaten up badly because there is no solid, empirical evidence to support it. All it’s got left now are references to Lancaster and Rabett.

  49. There is something rather odd about someone who refers to himself in the third person. Of course that does not negate any of his utterences.
    “Eli Rabett (Comment#11160)
    March 4th, 2009 at 5:23 pm
    Lucia, here is something simple about the carbon cycle. Eli would have thought better of you than your sad attempt to belittle Michael based on a deep ignorance about the carbon cycle. OTOH, if you really were not so ignorant about it, Eli would think even worse of you. The nonsense about perturbation from an engineer is offensive. Would you care for a short explanation of what is is?”

  50. Smokey – I shall take Anthony’s recent advice and ignore the ad hominem content of your post and move on. Addressing what remains, the argument that Lancaster’s credibility is undermined because he does not sue Dr Singer cuts both ways. Lancaster has published his account of the affair on the internet and retracted his earlier sworn statement. If his claims are false then Dr Singer has a clear case of defamation, yet he does nothing – from which we conclude ….what? Note I am not saying that I find this a pursuasive argument, I don’t, only that it applies equally to both ‘sides’ of the case.
    You say that I rely solely on Lancaster and Eli which is a good example of a selective memory at work – I have demonstrated that Lancaster is corroborated by sworn testimony from Revelle’s secretary, by the Washington Post article written by members of Revelle’s family, and by Revelle’s colleagues. The Oceanography article written shortly before his death also does not fit into the picture of Revelle’s views in the last months of his life that Singer and Lindzen seek to paint. Lindzen repeats the ‘Cosmos’ myth in his recent diatribe against the climate science discipline but without acknowledging that it is, to say the least, controversial.
    We are in the position of a jury – we have differing accounts of an event and must decide on the truth, by weighing up the balance of the evidence and deciding on the credibility of the various witnesses. You can get a flavour of Dr Singer’s integrity from this article, which retails how he published a claim on his website that most glaciers are advancing. The claim is totally false, and the source paper he cited never existed.
    Another example of confused accounts: Dr Singer edited a paper that was released at last year’s Heartland conference entitled ‘Nature, Not Human Activity,Rules the Climate’. In Chapter 3 the paper describes a solar explanation for climate change, concluding that The demonstration of solar influence on climate is now overwhelming, yet in his address to this year’s conference Dr Lindzen, speaking about solar variability tells us that the notion that climate is one-dimensional — is grotesque in its oversimplification. I must reluctantly add that this error is perpetuated by those attempting to ‘explain’ climate with solar variability. Unlike greenhouse forcing, solar forcing is so vague that one can’t reject it. Acting as though this is the alternative to blaming greenhouse gases is asking for trouble.
    Nice to see views evolving, but which one is correct?
    Realitycheck – that is a secondhand source, just repeating the claim. I was hoping for the actual attributed quote on which the claim is based.

  51. John Philip:

    “I shall take Anthony’s recent advice and ignore the ad hominem content of your post and move on.”

    John, get off your high horse and quit sniveling. It’s unbecoming. I’ve re-read my post twice now, and there was no “ad hominem content” in it — unless you’re so dainty that a straight answer causes you hurt feelings. If so, then maybe you should go join your cronies over at RC. They know all about hurt feelings.
    Now, as I understand it from your last comment, you are joining the team of… a certain Mr. Lancaster, who has published his version of the affair on the internet — and then retracted his earlier sworn statement. There’s a classy guy, eh?
    And you are also taking the side of the truly despicable “Eli Rabett,” who wrote: “This is one of those strange little stories that you find Richard Lindzen crawling about at the bottom of the toilet in.” There’s another really classy guy [/sarcasm] on your side of the fence. It’s sad that you can’t do better than quoting a failed teacher like “Eli Rabett”. But I’m sure if you had a better source than these, you’d use them.
    And the pointless, inconsequential Munk-Friedman link, which is simply a waste of pixels, if anything further negates your side’s weak position.
    Face it, “John”, your baseless attack on M.I.T.’s esteemed director of Atmospheric Studies, Dr. Richard Lindzen, is certainly an act of alarmist desperation. If the Massachusetts Institute of Technology had found Prof. Lindzen’s statements to be over the top or objectionable in any way, it would take the steps necessary to stop him from publicly stating his views on the subject. But it doesn’t — which leaves you in the outsider’s position of yelping about the conclusions of one of the world’s premier climatologists.
    Dr. Lindzen has forgotten more than you [or I] will ever know about climatology, which explains your personal attacks against him; personal attacks are all you’ve got. If they weren’t, you would use your knowledge to refute his science, rather than resorting to making ad hom criticisms.
    There is no ‘jury’ here, this is only an attempt by the alarmist contingent to silence views they can not tolerate. When you say we should decide by ‘weighing up the balance of the evidence and deciding on the credibility of the various witnesses,’ you need to remember that your ‘witnesses’ consist of a failed teacher who only hangs on to his job because of tenure; a secretary who never said anything against Dr. Reville when he was alive, but [no doubt under pressure] caves in and makes an unfounded statement after he’s dead and can not respond with the truth — and a character free, integrity-challenged individual who retracted his sworn statement.
    Since that’s the best you can do, it is no wonder that the gang promoting the failed AGW/CO2 conjecture are on the ropes.

  52. Smokey – Apologies, I should correct an error – S.Fred Singer is actually a Professor Emiritus, not a Dr. as I said. But I see no need to update anything else in my posts; people can see the evidence, some of it under oath, from Revelle himself, his family, his secretary and his colleagues. They can also see that the Professor is willing to spread unsupported falsehoods when it suits, and they can make their own minds up about the plausibility of the various accounts. I have made no personal attacks and I see no point in repeating myself again so I am signing off this thread.
    FYI the parts of your post I ignored were ‘truly despicable “Eli Rabett” ‘ and ‘a scatological screed by one of the very worst-rated teachers at Howard U. — which is itself at the bottom of the education barrel’
    Here is a useful definition of ad hominem.
    REPLY: Phil, if it were anything other than Deltoid you use as link above, I might be inlcined to investigate further. However, Tim Lambert routinely does the nasty things that seem so common in the alarmist crowd, such as calling people names, using coarse language on occasion, and generally acting childish in his approach to people with other points of view. So I tend to ignore him on a wholesale basis and recommend that others do so as well. Feel free to post something from a reference where such tactics and ad homs are not used.
    – Anthony

  53. Anthony – I have some sympathy with your views on Mr Lambert, however the value of that particular post was that it carries the full text of the article by Revelle’s family, which is not available anywhere else to my knowledge and is an important part of the picture – I wasn’t sanguine about copying it wholesale ….

    REPLY:
    Thanks, Anthony

Comments are closed.