Gore's guru disagreed

In the history of the global-warming movement, no scientist is more revered than Roger Revelle of Scripps Institution of Oceanography, Harvard University and University of California San Diego.

[RayOne]

Global Warming is being uncovered as a fraud, some people call it the internationalists wealth redistribution.
The telling issue is that negative growth is supported by the wealthy, that includes Congress.

[Mr Giblets]

oh dear! see what this chap says about rising CO2 levels , especially.

[LessHypeMoreFact]

Funny story. There is nothing about his 'guru' disagreeing. He sounded a cautionary note in 1991 when only a slight majority of climate scientists were convinces of the seriousness of GW. At no time did he disagree with the science or with Al Gore who didn't publish on GW until after the 2001 IPCC report which was the first confimation of a 'consensus' on GW theory.

[Cthulhu]

Would Dr. Revelle, if he were still alive, believe that global warming now demands urgent action? We can never know.

"So what's your new article going to be about? You know we need more readers."

"Well I thought how about something controversial like What Would A Dead Person Think Now If They Were Not Dead?"

"Sounds interesting. So what's the answer?"

"The answer will be that we don't know"

"Great. Print it"

And the FinancialPost was born

[The Respected Doofinator]

LessHypeMoreFact wrote:

Funny story. There is nothing about his 'guru' disagreeing. He sounded a cautionary note in 1991 when only a slight majority of climate scientists were convinces of the seriousness of GW. At no time did he disagree with the science or with Al Gore who didn't publish on GW until after the 2001 IPCC report which was the first confimation of a 'consensus' on GW theory.

Ignorant and stupid.

Gore and his buttlicks tried to smear Revelle as aging and sick, and as a victim of manipulation by his co-author Fred Singer.

http://media.hoover.org/documents/0817939326_...

Singer sued, won, and received a retraction and an apology.

From Christopher Horner's book:

'In the process, Singer got his hands on documents quite embarrassing to the Gore team exposing the ugly, yet little reported, side of Gore's Revelle discipleship, which he fully discusses in a chapter he contributed to the 2003 book "Politicizing Science".'

The Respected Doofinator

[The Respected Doofinator]

Cthulhu wrote:

<quoted text>
"So what's your new article going to be about? You know we need more readers."
"Well I thought how about something controversial like What Would A Dead Person Think Now If They Were Not Dead?"
"Sounds interesting. So what's the answer?"
"The answer will be that we don't know"
"Great. Print it"
And the FinancialPost was born

Here, educated yourself, ignoramus.

"World Renowned Atmospheric Physicist Wins Libel Suit Against Smarmy, Failed Divinity Student and Corrupt Politician."

http://www.americanthinker.com/2006/06/gores_...

http://media.hoover.org/documents/0817939326_...

The Respected Doofinator

[RayOne]

On the desk of Nobel Prize Committee with Al's Global Warming fraud, was a woman who saved Jewish children during the Holocaust, and Rush Limbaugh for a reason I don't understand. One of them made a movie and had the support of Hollywood. There is a credibility issue.

[Mr Giblets]

RayOne wrote:

On the desk of Nobel Prize Committee with Al's Global Warming fraud, was a woman who saved Jewish children during the Holocaust, and Rush Limbaugh for a reason I don't understand. One of them made a movie and had the support of Hollywood. There is a credibility issue.

the peace Prize was degraded when it became clear that to win it, you became a terrorist and murderer, then said you had stopped killing, and wanted "peace" (=freedom from any prosecution,+ lots of money). Since Arafat and some IRA killer won it, how can anyone take it seriously ?

[LessHypeMoreFact]

The Respected Doofinator wrote:

<quoted text>
..his co-author Fred Singer.
The Retarded Doofus

You are posting an 'opinion' by a political hack that had nothing to do with the issue?? What kind of argument is that?? I can post weblogs from other people that 'sued and won' and you know what? Who wins in a legal dispute almost never depends on facts. In fact, come to mind, you must be a lawyer...

Nowhere does Reveill say that he disagreed with Gore. He had a cautionary position when the science supported doubts.

[JRS]

LessHypeMoreFact wrote:

<quoted text>
You are posting an 'opinion' by a political hack that had nothing to do with the issue?? What kind of argument is that?? I can post weblogs from other people that 'sued and won' and you know what? Who wins in a legal dispute almost never depends on facts. In fact, come to mind, you must be a lawyer...
Nowhere does Reveill say that he disagreed with Gore. He had a cautionary position when the science supported doubts.

"You are posting an 'opinion' by a political hack that had nothing to do with the issue"

AGW crisis peddlers just declare anyone who does not sing the crisis song to be unworthy blah, blah, blah. AGW crisis peddlers are just simpleton idiots.

In the 1940s and 50s Singer designed the first instruments used in satellites to measure cosmic radiation and ozone.

Previous government and academic positions:
Director of the Center for Atmospheric and Space Physics, University of Maryland (1953-62)

Special advisor to President Eisenhower on space developments (1960)

First Director of the National Weather Satellite Service (1962-64)

Founding Dean of the School of Environmental and Planetary Sciences, University of Miami (1964-67)
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Water Quality and Research, U.S. Department of the Interior (1967- 70)

Deputy Assistant Administrator for Policy, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (1970-71)

Professor of Environmental Sciences, University of Virginia (1971-94)

Chief Scientist, U.S. Department of Transportation (1987- 89)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Singer

AGW crisis peddlers just declare anyone who does not sing the crisis song to be unworthy blah, blah, blah. AGW crisis peddlers are just simpleton idiots.

[The Respected Doofinator]

LessHypeMoreFact wrote:

<quoted text>
You are posting an 'opinion' by a political hack that had nothing to do with the issue?? What kind of argument is that?? I can post weblogs from other people that 'sued and won' and you know what? Who wins in a legal dispute almost never depends on facts. In fact, come to mind, you must be a lawyer...
Nowhere does Reveill say that he disagreed with Gore. He had a cautionary position when the science supported doubts.

You're wrong.

You both generally wrong and specifically wrong.

You're also impervious to accurate information.

Revelle may not have said: "I disagree with Al Gore".

What he did do was offer a science based judgement that was at odds with claims being made by Al Gore.

Sometimes, you just have to use brains and common sense and conclude: "His statement disagrees with Al Gore's claims".

Why is this so hard for you?

Is it because all your talking points arrive in simple ten word declarative sentences and you think that compound sentences can't possibly be true?

The Respected Doofinator

[LessHypeMoreFact]

JRS wrote:

<quoted text>
In the 1940s and 50s Singer designed the first instruments used in satellites to measure cosmic radiation and ozone."

Yup. He built it as an electrical engineer. Since there were no scientists familiar with the technology and limitations of the device he built, he also made a paper on the results from the device.

And while he has had honorary titles since, mostly from political friends trying to give him more 'credentials', his science career flopped at that point due to his limitations which is why he has tried to use them to back a political lobby organisation (SEPP).

[JRS]

LessHypeMoreFact wrote:

<quoted text>
Yup. He built it as an electrical engineer. Since there were no scientists familiar with the technology and limitations of the device he built, he also made a paper on the results from the device.
And while he has had honorary titles since, mostly from political friends trying to give him more 'credentials', his science career flopped at that point due to his limitations which is why he has tried to use them to back a political lobby organisation (SEPP).

Yea, yea, we know. Al Gore and the AGW crisis peddlers are unquestionable and pure as the wind driven snow. Anyone else is simply an unworthy nobody.

[LessHypeMoreFact]

JRS wrote:

<quoted text>
Anyone else is simply an unworthy nobody.

On the contrary. He is an accomplished political lobbyist. He may even be a worthy electrical engineer. He is clearly a somebody in the political arena which he has pursued.Like 'you are what you eat', your accomplishments tend to reflect what path you taken in your career. In this case lobbying.

It is in the field of climate science that he has no credibility.

[JRS]

LessHypeMoreFact wrote:

<quoted text>
On the contrary. He is an accomplished political lobbyist. He may even be a worthy electrical engineer. He is clearly a somebody in the political arena which he has pursued.Like 'you are what you eat', your accomplishments tend to reflect what path you taken in your career. In this case lobbying.
It is in the field of climate science that he has no credibility.

Quite correct - Al Gore:

"On the contrary. He is an accomplished political lobbyist.... He is clearly a somebody in the political arena which he has pursued. Like 'you are what you eat', your accomplishments tend to reflect what path you taken in your career. In this case lobbying.
It is in the field of climate science that he has no credibility."

"It is in the field of climate science that he has no credibility"

Quite correct - Al Gore

[The Respected Doofinator]

LessHypeMoreFact wrote:

<quoted text>
It is in the field of climate science that he has no credibility.

For the umpteen thousandth time, what is the basis of YOUR credibility to arbitrate who does or does not have credibility in the field or climate science?

Is it necessary for me to remind you once again that you are a mere engineer?

Engineers read data sheets prepared by scientists. Engineers don't have the CREDENTIALS to do subject matter or competency appraisals of scientists.

The Respected Doofinator

[LessHypeMoreFact]

The Respected Doofinator wrote:

<quoted text>
For the umpteen thousandth time, what is the basis of YOUR credibility to arbitrate who does or does not have credibility in the field or climate science?
The Respected Doofinator

Oh, so you are attacking the credentials of peer reviewed science by ad-hominem about me??

That is got to be the silliest nonsense I've heard in years. The credibility of science is NOT under debate.

[LessHypeMoreFact]

JRS wrote:

<quoted text>
Quite correct - Al Gore:
"It is in the field of climate science that he has no credibility"
Quite correct - Al Gore

Neither I nor Al-Gore are the basis for scientific credibility. The messenger is neither the recipient or sender of the message. For the crediblity and resonsibility you have to examine the scientists that created the message. "Shooting the messenger" or even using ad-hominem and sneers on him is no mindless even a fool should realise his error.

But then, you are no ordinary fool..

[Sad Times]

A lot of people have become very rich pushing the global warming scam. Finally the truth is coming out. A clean enviroment is one thing but the bull that Gore and his buddies push is a total fraud.

[The Respected Doofinator]

LessHypeMoreFact wrote:

<quoted text>
The credibility of science is NOT under debate.

Yes it is.

"Science" has to earn it's credibility every day.

When Big Science abandons the principles of the scientific method and becomes just another institutional pig slopping at the government trough it's credibility is very much open to question.

Science has credibility NOT because government funded scientists give it credibility but because the scientific method gives it credibility.

The Respected Doofinator