Gore gets oceanography prize

first-even or first-ever?

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.

“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.

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…

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.

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?

” 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”

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.

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

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.

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.

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-…

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??

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!

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.

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?

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.

“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.

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?

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!

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

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.

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.

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.

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?

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…

I feel so sorry for the late Prof. Revelle and his family. Truly shameful!

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?”

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.

Revelle was ill, very ill and weak, recovering from a heart attack. Throughout the entire period. He was not senile but if you have ever been dog tired, you can imagine how Revelle was. You can get that from the affadavit of his secretary, Christa Burns.
Second, suing costs money. Lancaster didn’t have much and was not represented through most of the proceedings. Singer was represented without cost to him by Joseph Blute. A think tank supported the suit for Singer (Eli would have to dig out the paperwork but it was one of the “Free Speech in the Title” ones as the despicable Rabett recalls).
Since Lancaster settled, he is not allowed to reopen the case. Singer could, by seeking to enforce the settlement, bring the thing back to court.

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