tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post528743856660019682..comments2024-03-19T03:14:04.172-04:00Comments on Rabett Run: Who framed Roger? RabettEliRabetthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07957002964638398767noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-20705177627976929052010-09-10T08:52:16.686-04:002010-09-10T08:52:16.686-04:00the Cosmos muth link is broken
http://www.ossfoun...the Cosmos muth link is broken<br /><br />http://www.ossfoundation.us/projects/environment/global-warming/myths/revelle-gore-singer-lindzenMagnushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01617272924116099306noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-91554534975869315132008-11-24T09:09:00.000-05:002008-11-24T09:09:00.000-05:00Mike, you might want to look at some of the facts ...Mike, you might want to look at some of the facts associated with Lancaster's statement, namely the SLAPP suit that Singer brought against Lancaster with the support of one of the local lawyers for lies and injustice groups in DC. Lancaster <A HREF="http://home.att.net/~espi/Cosmos_myth.html" REL="nofollow"> tells the story here</A> The sum of which is<BR/><BR/>"Revelle’s actual, participatory, authorship cannot be demonstrated beyond a single review of the galley proof, a lengthy session for Roger at a time when his physical ability to pay attention for many minutes was severely eroded. About the article and this session, Revelle's long-time secretary, Ms. Christa Beran, remembers in a 1993 sworn affidavit: "[…] Roger had been very reluctant to be involved in this enterprise. […] I know it was not one of Roger's priorities. [...] I do not remember seeing any review by Roger of any text by Dr. Singer before a day in February 1991 when he came to Roger's office. [...] I am sure that Roger and I together never worked on the article [...] After a series of unsuccessful attempts to get Roger to work on this document, Dr. Singer must have decided that the only way he was going to get this thing done was to come in person.” <BR/><BR/>and Lancaster further adds<BR/>"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. "<BR/><BR/>FWIW, Singer has never challenged what Lancaster says on his site<BR/><BR/>Eli is interested in how you got into thisEliRabetthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07957002964638398767noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-34296449194480014932008-11-24T03:34:00.000-05:002008-11-24T03:34:00.000-05:00Statement by Justin LancasterThe late Professor Ro...Statement by Justin Lancaster<BR/>The late Professor Roger Revelle was a true and voluntary coauthor<BR/>of the article entitled “What To Do About Greenhouse Warming:<BR/>Look Before You Leap,” along with Professor S. Fred Singer<BR/>and Chauncey Starr, Ph.D. The article was published in April 1991<BR/>in the inaugural issue of Cosmos, the journal of the Cosmos Club<BR/>of Washington, D.C. <BR/>I retract as being unwarranted any and all statements, oral or<BR/>written, I have made which state or imply that Professor Revelle<BR/>was not a true and voluntary coauthor of the Cosmos article, or<BR/>which in any other way impugn or malign the conduct or motives<BR/>of Professor Singer with regard to the Cosmos article (including<BR/>but not limited to its drafting, editing, publication, republication,<BR/>and circulation). I agree not to make any such statements in future.<BR/>I fully and unequivocally retract and disclaim those statements<BR/>and their implications about the conduct, character, and<BR/>ethics of Professor Singer, and I apologize to Professor Singer for<BR/>the pain my conduct has caused him and for any damage that I<BR/>may have caused to his reputation. To the extent that others,<BR/>including Anthony D. Socci, Ph.D., Edward A. Frieman, Ph.D., and<BR/>Walter H. Munk, Ph.D., relied on my statements to make similar<BR/>statements and insinuations, I also apologize to Professor Singer.<BR/>I also regret that I have caused Professor Singer to incur litigation<BR/>costs to resolve this matter.<BR/>/s/ Justin Lancaster<BR/>Dated April 29th, 1994.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-10673663321634787502007-11-16T21:54:00.000-05:002007-11-16T21:54:00.000-05:00Come on now, if the ideas listed in Revelle's 6 po...Come on now, if the ideas listed in Revelle's 6 points may match what Hansen said on the level of implementation, it doesn't mean they match in ideology as to why. <BR/><BR/>As discussed in the 6 point thread, simply talking about CO2 sells everything short as to the deeper issues involved in policy matters such as this. Quibbling about the details is like trying to milk a bull.<BR/><BR/>-- MAAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-75155360305568243322007-11-12T09:09:00.000-05:002007-11-12T09:09:00.000-05:00So who framed Roger, Rabett?So who framed Roger, Rabett?Dr. Lemminghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06283138709890438772noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-73395375043238045452007-11-10T13:33:00.000-05:002007-11-10T13:33:00.000-05:00Easterbrook "distorts some of Roger's views"?What ...Easterbrook "distorts some of Roger's views"?<BR/><BR/>What a surprise.<BR/><BR/>Easterbrook has reached the pinnacle of "SOP" -- "Science Opinion" (more of the latter than the former) -- journalism. <BR/><BR/>What a view he must have from the top!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com