Eli Rabett has the sordid tale of how S Fred Singer took advantage of Roger Revelle to put his name on a paper which expressed skepticism about global warming. Justin Lancaster has a web page with all the supporting documents and evidence.
More like this
The Nation Post's Lawrence Solomon has been writing a series of articles falsely casting scientists such as Nigel Weiss and Sam
The drive to distract us from reality continues.
John Mashey points me to a video of Naomi Oreskes' talk on "The American Denial of Global Warming":
So, Obama will be Prez. Congratulations to him. The last upsurge of enthusiasm like this I recall was Blur in 1997. I remember that well; we drove down to Cornwall overnight and listened to the reports and went to sleep in a gorgeous pink dawn. And look how Blur turned out.
Fred Singer is truly a despicable human being for what he did to Revelle and for suing Lancaster when he was only a grad student. Singer would screw a snake if he could get that low to the ground.
Not to be confused with Fred Sanger, who won two Nobel prizes.
I have to come back one more time to note: if you are the type of person who takes advantage of someone on their death bed, then you are a truly horrific excuse for a human being.
Fred Singer should hang his head in public. This is behavior that is inexcusable.
if you are the type of person who takes advantage of someone on their death bed
So Singer here takes his place amongst luminaries like Derek Freeman and Newt Gingrich. Nice.
Kind of reminds me of the story you posted some time ago about Zhang JianDong and chromium in drinking water.
Good to remind people of this -- because you'll continue to see a partial and misleading quote attributed to Revelle, reposted; check whenever you see anything attrributed to Revelle in a denial/disinformation piece, odds are it's from that Singer article.
The ur-Crank God himself, Emmanuel Velikovsky, pestered Einstein with his Worlds in Collision/Earth in Upheaval (loose congerie of assertions from ancient texts taken as a cosmological and geological) hypothesis. The Velikovskians write that when Einstein died he was reading Worlds in Collision. Not true, but the point is, if one of Emmanuel's acolytes had gotten Einstein to make a marginal note in his copy of WIC just before he died, maybe Velikovsky could have "co-written" an "Einstein paper."
Then you'd have "Sagan's guru was wrong." or "Greatest scientist of all wanted fair treatment for cosmic catastrophism; supported it in final paper."
I'd go a lot further than "don't trust S Fred Singer" - assume anything he says is the diametric opposite of the truth. If he says there is no possibility of the sky falling down, start digging a shelter immediately.
Not logically valid, I know, but it saves a lot of time... If he should, by some strange freak of circumstance, happen to say something that actually is true, you'll hear it from someone else soon enough.