Let Roger Revelle Speak for Himself
Blame the Lab Lemming for the title change (see comments)
Stoat has stumbled back across the S. Fred Singer malloying of Roger Revelle and the associated SLAPP suit against Justin Lancaster by Singer. What we have to add to the tale is a link to the letter that Revelle's collaborator Walter Munk and the director of Scripps sent to the Oceanographic Society, Edward Frieman commented on Singer's Cosmos club article and the attaching of Revelle's name to it. After Revelle's death, Munk and Frieman write
"One year later, in a discussion of Senator Gore's book Earth In Balance, Gregg Easterbrook notes that Senator Gore failed to mention that "'before his death last year, Revelle published a paper that concludes, 'The scientific basis for greenhouse warming is too uncertain to justify drastic' action at this time.' "
from which Easterbrook concluded that CO2 emissions were "far less hazardous than originally feared". As usual, you can RTFR, but for the link shy, they point out
The key is the use of the word drastic. Roger's last written statement on the subject was "What Can We Do About Climate." presented at the AAAS (American Association for the Advancement of Science) session, Climate Change: Scientific Uncertainties and Policy Responses in New Orleans on 16 February 1990. It outlines a possible set of actions designed to mitigate or delay climatic warming. It includes attempts to modify society's use and mix of fuels. While these may not be viewed as drastic, there is also no evidence that he believed that "emissions... are far less hazardous than initially feared."We have already blogged on Revelle's non drastic recommendations in Roger and Jim, pointing out that they were not so far from what Jim Hansen is recommending today. Thus it is revealing that Singer, in a letter to Lancaster wrote:
P.S. The editor of Cosmos has kindly sent me a copy of a short note received from Walter Munk and Ed Frieman. Apparently, they are concerned that an article written by Newsweek journalist Gregg Easterbrook, distors some of Roger's views, and I believe they wish to put their concerns on the record. We do not defend Easterbrook's interpretations or extrapolations, and frankly we feel that theirs [Munk and Frieman] would be a much more positive step than the one you [Easterbrook] suggest.Which, if Singer is to be believed (don't bet on this), means that he accepted Revelle's 6 points.