Re: [asa] The Assault on Reason' in America

From: PvM <pvm.pandas@gmail.com>
Date: Sat May 26 2007 - 16:51:22 EDT

When confronted with uncomfortable data, it is often tempting to
change the direction of the argument.

So let's focus on the Singer v. Lancaster in the issue of Veep and
Revelle and Janice's assertions of manipulation and intimidation by
the Veep of science and scientists:

Double checking the statements and claims can be helpful as is shown
in http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2006/09/andrew_bolt_gets_a_perfect_sco.php

<quote>
 Singer says: "Moreover, Dr. Revelle's daughter wrote a letter in
response to George Will's column, published in the Washington Post,
that affirmed Dr. Revelle's coauthorship and restated many points made
in the Cosmos article. [C. R. Hufbauer, "Global Warming: What My
Father Really Said," Washington Post, op-ed, September 13, 1992.]"

I just spent the $3.95 at the Washington Post archive site to buy that
op-ed that Revelle's daughter wrote and, while it may have indirectly
affirmed Revelle's authorship on that paper, it certainly did not have
nearly the spin that Singer tries to on it. Here are a few quotes from
the op-ed:

Contrary to George Will's "Al Gore's Green Guilt" {op-ed, Sept. 3}
Roger Revelle - our father and the "father" of the greenhouse effect -
remained deeply concerned about global warming until his death in July
1991. That same year he wrote: "The scientific base for a greenhouse
warming is too uncertain to justify drastic action at this time." Will
and other critics of Sen. Al Gore have seized these words to suggest
that Revelle, who was also Gore's professor and mentor, renounced his
belief in global warming.

Nothing could be farther from the truth.

When Revelle inveighed against "drastic" action, he was using that
adjective in its literal sense - measures that would cost trillions of
dollars. Up until his death, he thought that extreme measures were
premature. But he continued to recommend immediate prudent steps to
mitigate and delay climatic warming. Some of those steps go well
beyond anything Gore or other national politicians have yet to
advocate.

...

In private, he often spoke of a $1.00 a gallon tax as eminently
reasonable, not "drastic."

...

All of us remember our father's frustration at the White House award
ceremony in November 1990, when he received the National Medal of
Science. Told he would sit next to John Sununu, a well known advocate
of the "wait and see" approach, he was delighted at the prospect of
bending Sununu's ear. When Sununu failed to appear, Revelle was
disappointed, saying, "I had hoped to tell him what a dim view I take
of the administration's environmental policies."

Roger Revelle proposed a range of approaches to address global
warming. Inaction was not one of them. He agreed with the adage "look
before you leap," but he never said "sit on your hands."

I encourage you to spend the money to read the whole op-ed and then
see what you think about how Singer is portraying it. I haven't quoted
here as extensively as I'd like to hear so as not to go over "fair
use" copyright boundaries.

If Revelle thought a $1.00 per gallon tax on gas was reasonable 15
years ago, just imagine what he would think now that the science has
gotten more certain. Don't you think you libertarian types are being a
bit disingenious claiming him to be on your side?
</quote>

On 5/26/07, Janice Matchett <janmatch@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> At 04:09 PM 5/26/2007, PvM wrote:
>
>
> A bit of a stretch but I understand where you are coming from. It's
> unfortunate that some make libelous statements and have to retract
> them. However I am not sure how this addresses the issue raised by Gore.
> ...Read an excerpt [of Gore's book] at
> http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=10440121#10376463
> Do we have 'free will' or are we indeed a victim of manipulation.?" ~ Pim
> @ Talk about liars making lying/libelous statements:
>
> "...Despite the absence of proof, Iraq was said to be working hand in hand
> with al-Qaeda and to be on the verge of a nuclear weapons capability.
> Defeating Saddam was conflated with bringing war to the terrorists, even
> though it really meant diverting attention and resources from those who
> actually attacked us.

Seems quite accurate

> When the president of the United States stood before the people of this
> nation and invited us to "imagine" a terrorist attack with a nuclear weapon,
> he was referring to terrorists who actually had no connection to Iraq. But
> because our nation had been subjected to the horrors of 9/11, when our
> president said "imagine with me this new fear," it was easy enough to bypass
> the reasoning process that might otherwise have led people to ask, "Wait a
> minute, Mr. President, where's your evidence?" .." ~ AlGore (of the three
> stooges of the stage act: Hanson, Chopak & Gore)

Again this seems to be quite accurate. Seems a clear example of us
being manipulated with images of fear. Why not images of hope? All the
opportunity existed after 9/11 for the US to lead a role of hope, We
all know what sadly happened.

Certainly nothing close to 'a lie' let alone libelous (on the part of the Veep)

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Sat May 26 16:51:54 2007

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Sat May 26 2007 - 16:51:54 EDT