A pointer to The Real Truth About the Revelle-Gore Story because I came across refs to this just recently… where?
Oops, sorry, Eli did it ages ago. Good.
Yeah, the issue has been hashed and rehashed, but it doesn’t hurt to keep the issue in plain sight. These kinds of hoaxes tend to pop up again and again. We need to whack them again and again.
speaking of hoaxes…
Various doubters of climate change have been hoaxed:
“The study says bacteria naturally living in sediments of the Atlantic and Pacific oceans emit 300 times more carbon dioxide than industrial activity — one of very few reports to challenge findings by the U.N. climate panel that human activities, led by burning fossil fuels, are “very likely” to be the main cause of warming.”
Something that may interest you on this: Walter Munk and Edward Frieman’s letter about the Cosmos Club paper.
By 1984 Dr. Revelle was already off the Al Gore reservation: “Although Dr. Revelle recognized potential harm from global warming, he also saw potential benefits and was by no means alarmed, as seen in this 1984 interview in Omni magazine: Omni: A problem that has occupied your attention for many years is the increasing levels of CO2 in the atmosphere, which could cause the earth’s climate to become warmer. Is this actually happening? Revelle: I estimate that the total increase [in CO2] over the past hundred years has been about 21%. But whether the increase will lead to a significant rise in global temperature, we can’t absolutely say. Omni: What will the warming of the earth mean to us? Revelle: There may be lots of effects. Increased CO2 in the air acts like a fertilizer for plants … you get more plant growth. Increasing CO2 levels also affect water transpiration, causing plants to close their pores and sweat less. That means plants will be able to grow in drier climates. Omni: Does the increase in CO2 have anything to do with people saying the weather is getting worse? Revelle: People are always saying the weather’s getting worse. Actually, the CO2 increase is predicted to temper weather extremes…”
Justin Lancaster made the following statement to settle the libel suit brought against him by Dr. Singer. Lancaster withdrew this statement much later, saying lack of funds caused him to do it, although his defense was pro bono:
Statement by Justin Lancaster
The late Professor Roger Revelle was a true and voluntary coauthor
of the article entitled “What To Do About Greenhouse Warming:
Look Before You Leap,” along with Professor S. Fred Singer
and Chauncey Starr, Ph.D. The article was published in April 1991
in the inaugural issue of Cosmos, the journal of the Cosmos Club
of Washington, D.C.
I retract as being unwarranted any and all statements, oral or
written, I have made which state or imply that Professor Revelle
was not a true and voluntary coauthor of the Cosmos article, or
which in any other way impugn or malign the conduct or motives
of Professor Singer with regard to the Cosmos article (including
but not limited to its drafting, editing, publication, republication,
and circulation). I agree not to make any such statements in future.
I fully and unequivocally retract and disclaim those statements
and their implications about the conduct, character, and
ethics of Professor Singer, and I apologize to Professor Singer for
the pain my conduct has caused him and for any damage that I
may have caused to his reputation. To the extent that others,
including Anthony D. Socci, Ph.D., Edward A. Frieman, Ph.D., and
Walter H. Munk, Ph.D., relied on my statements to make similar
statements and insinuations, I also apologize to Professor Singer.
I also regret that I have caused Professor Singer to incur litigation
costs to resolve this matter.
/s/ Justin Lancaster
Dated April 29th, 1994.
Lancaster got some help at the very end, but was on his own for all of the depositions and more, the substantial expenses of which he paid. S Fred didn’t have to front a cent, and he had the most expensive legal talent in Boston, Joseph Blute
Major Mike has either been fooled, or is trying to fool readers here. Perhaps both. He could look this up:
“… 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. I had hoped, in settling, that the other side would honorably let the Cosmos paper and this issue slide into obscurity. This did not happen. In 2003, Singer published a book chapter, titled The Revelle-Gore Story: Attempted Political Suppression of Science, that presented the story the way he’d like it to be known. His story villifies both me and Al Gore. The editor of that book swallows the story and echoes the condemnations in his own introductory chapter. And the objectionable use of this Cosmos article by the very participants in its creation has not ceased (see Balling, SEPP, May 2006).
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.
J. Justin Lancaster
Last updated 7/6/06.”
All the evidence is at the link. It’s easy to find.
You’d have to be wilfully blind not to have found it.
> wilfully blind
Or an automatic posting bot, perhaps?
The ‘Major Mike’ userid posted the same misleading quote
The site is currently under maintenance. New comments have been disabled during this time, please check back soon.
…says carbonbrief. In turn, I think that’s based on IPCC PRESS RELEASE / 27 February…
I can’t see anything ever beating that. Source: Indy.
Alas, I missed Caius retaking the Men’s headship on Thursday, mostly because I didn’t think it…
Or so says Representative Raúl M. Grijalva, an Arizona Democrat in the colonies. In which…
We interrupt your regular diet of Willie Soon for a brief break (the S+B controversy,…