youcanhandlethetruth

This is a very important piece relating to the death of a most prominent scientist in 1991 who after being Gore's saviour, quickly was found to be in direct opposition to the global warming agenda.

This is in response to the post:
ABC Smears Scientist For Questioning Global Warming “Consensus”

Oh really Akria ?

Well rather than anyone believing you, Clippo or even myself Akria, let's see what the Telegraph and The Financial Post have to say about it with regards to Revelle, rather than some hit piece blog....

After all if it's me that's spouting rubbish then let's see the sources I point to based on this "rubbish".

Telegraph | The deceit behind global warming
Gore's guru disagreed

Unless you completely dismissing both the Telegraph and Financial Post reports, that is ?

"Not the least of his efforts was his bid to suppress an article co-authored by Dr Revelle just before his death. Gore didn't want it to be known that his guru had urged that the global warming thesis should be viewed with more caution."

Anyone just has to view Clippo's absurdity of a website to see there is nothing in the testimony that proves Revelle didn't support or put his name to the article.

The Cosmos Myth

"The Cosmos Myth" tries to argue "Singer may urge that Revelle was a co-author only "technically" of the article “What to do about Greenhouse Warming: Look Before You Leap”, simply because he allowed his name to be used, when he didn't really want to.....

Well you could argue that that is the most damning evidence to suggest he definitely did believe it, according to the Telegraph and Financial Post, and himself.

If we examine the story in the Financial post we realize how very very important and highly respected this man was and what a danger to Gore and the political global warming agenda he was.

The Financial Post writes:

Calling him "a wonderful, visionary professor" who was "one of the first people in the academic community to sound the alarm on global warming," Gore thought of Dr. Revelle as his mentor and referred to him frequently, relaying his experiences as a student in his book Earth in the Balance, published in 1992. Gore's warmth for Dr. Revelle cooled, however, when it became clear that he had misunderstood his former professor:
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 ... .

Then in 1991, Dr. Revelle wrote an article for Cosmos, a scientific journal, with two illustrious colleagues, Chauncey Starr, founding director of the Electric Power Research Institute and Fred Singer, the first director of the U.S. Weather Satellite.
Entitled "What to do about greenhouse warming: Look before you leap," the article argued that decades of research could be required for the consequences of increased carbon dioxide to be understood, and laid out the harm that could come of acting recklessly: "Drastic, precipitous and, especially, unilateral steps to delay the putative greenhouse impacts can cost jobs and prosperity and increase the human costs of global poverty, without being effective. Stringent controls enacted now would be economically devastating, particularly for developing countries for whom reduced energy consumption would mean slower rates of economic growth without being able to delay greatly the growth of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. Yale economist William Nordhaus, one of the few who have been trying to deal quantitatively with the economics of the greenhouse effect, has pointed out that '... those who argue for strong measures to slow greenhouse warming have reached their conclusion without any discernible analysis of the costs and benefits ... . ' It would be prudent to complete the ongoing and recently expanded research so that we will know what we are doing before we act. 'Look before you leap' may still be good advice."

3 months after the Cosmos article appeared, Dr. Revelle died of a heart attack.
1 year later, with Al Gore running for vice-president in the 1992 presidential election, the inconsistency between Gore's pronouncements - he claimed that the "science was settled" then, too - and those of his mentor became national news.
Gore responded with a withering attack, leading to claims that Dr. Revelle had become senile before his death, that Dr. Singer had duped Dr. Revelle into coauthoring the article, and that Dr. Singer had listed Dr. Revelle as a co-author over his objections. The sordid accusations ended in a defamation suit and an abject public apology in 1994 from Gore's academic hit man, a prominent Harvard scientist,who revealed his unsavory role and that of Gore in the fabrications against Dr.Singer and Dr. Revelle.

That was then. Would Dr. Revelle, if he were still alive, believe that global warming now demands urgent action? We can never know. We do know, however, that Dr.Revelle had no time for the alarmist views of Al Gore in the 1980s. We also know that those whose views Dr. Revelle respected continue to caution us against precipitous action: Dr. Revelle's colleague and friend, Fred Singer, is among the most prominent of Al Gore's critics, and economist William Nordhaus, generally considered the leading expert in the field, continue to warn of the economic danger of climate alarmism.

We also know that the science is still not settled, and that in the years since Dr.Revelle's death, new research from many of the world's most respected scientists bears out the cautions that Dr. Revelle bequeathed us."

So...

Are we really to believe that Dr Revelle didn't want any involvement in the project that he put his name to because he was unwilling to say "No" to Singer ?!

It's obviously as simple as that - if he had wanted nothing to do with it, why couldn't he just say, "No - I don't want to be involved, count me out." ?
It is a false argument, without any credibility whatsoever.

In fact, in the statement she actually admits:
"Just before he died during May and June of 1991, he seemed a lot stronger. He could come in there and spend a full day working in the office without taking a nap"

Again, if Revelle did not support it when he was feeling well, why couldn't he simply say ?

What is does do is not only put enormous doubt on the validity of the secretary's testimony(who admits she was suffering from cancer, loss of hair) but naturally makes one ask:

1) Why did Revelle amazingly die of a "heart attack" at about the same time that a document damning global warming was coming into public view ?
2) Why is this subsequent statement so vehement in it's denial of Revelle's involvement ?

The question is more about why the U.S government required Christine Beran to make a sworn affidavit in the first place.

Obviously someone wanted to discredit Revelle and they needed a way to do it through the supposed validity of law, but made after the death of a man who couldn't defend himself.

What chance his death was too important for a government that could not afford the bad publicity for Gore who had had until then, reveered this prominent scientist, only to see him, turn his back on him ?

In summary, like Clippo and Akria are spouting complete misinformation about MMGW on this forum, the article Clippo points to that apparently discredits Revelles involvement is no more than an unfounded hit-piece which not only proves nothing, but highlights the mysterious death of a prominent scientist who Gore shockingly discovered was not willing to go along with the illegitimate hype of man made global warming.

In all likelihood, he had to be "eliminated", no doubt to push the wicked agenda of an elite hell bent on pushing humanity back into the dark ages.

If anyone is in any doubt as the credibility of Akria and Clippo(or Al Gore for that matter), they need only examine the contents of these 2 important articles, and the mysterious and co-incidental turnaround in events.
Another JFK - equally important to a global agenda but on a smaller scale......

So it's not me, who talking rubbish Akria - it's you.
Shame on you and eveyone who is party to the scam !
You and Clippo deserve to be thrown off this forum (in my opinion)

__________________
Before tyranny and television, "conspiracy theorists" never existed.

cointelpro/halfwits: Akria,Clippo,Besoeker,Bear,Eurosceptic Antlantacist,MikeUK

youcanhandlethetruth

So in summary......

"The sordid accusations ended in a defamation suit and an abject public apology in 1994 from Gore's academic hit man, a prominent Harvard scientist,who revealed his unsavory role and that of Gore in the fabrications against Dr.Singer and Dr. Revelle."

It is proven that Gore and his enterage have admitted that their attacks made against Revelle are unfounded but Akria is apparently accusing me of "spouting rubbish"......

Akria, Clippo......

Not only should you apologize to me for your innacurate and accusatory remarks but you should also concede your MMGW scam is over.....

I do hope no-one will entertain you about any MMGW propaganda you attempt to put out ever again....

__________________
Before tyranny and television, "conspiracy theorists" never existed.

cointelpro/halfwits: Akria,Clippo,Besoeker,Bear,Eurosceptic Antlantacist,MikeUK

Hartlepool

YCHTT,were can I find the clipo webshite?

Unionist

No, it's an overhyped and hysterical post. You are too convinced of the importance of your own posts.

People do die of heart attacks, you know, and not only at a time of their own choosing. In fact, Dr Revelle had previously had a heart attack in 1990. That he should die a year later at the age of 82 is hardly a shock. And the article was not 'damning global warming' but calling for more research and assessment of the costs and benefits, something that academics always do.

Your points are totally discredited by these amazing leaps into fantasy. There is no evidence that Revelle's death was anything other than natural causes following a period of ill-health. Moreover, your claim that there is a "wicked aganda of an elite hell bent on pushing humanity back into the dark ages" is absurd - there is zero evidence of any such conspiracy, whatever your frequent links to infowars and prisonplanet may say. I suggest that in future you 'look before you leap', to coin a phrase.

youcanhandlethetruth

Hi Hartlepool,

This originated from Clippo's link -

ABC Smears Scientist For Questioning Global Warming “Consensus”

__________________
Before tyranny and television, "conspiracy theorists" never existed.

cointelpro/halfwits: Akria,Clippo,Besoeker,Bear,Eurosceptic Antlantacist,MikeUK

youcanhandlethetruth

Unionist,

I said "This is a very important piece relating to the death of a most prominent scientist in 1991 who after being Gore's saviour, quickly was found to be in direct opposition to the global warming agenda."

You said:

"No, it's an overhyped and hysterical post. You are too convinced of the importance of your own posts."

It's got nothing to do with my opinion.

As I made perfectly clear, The Financial post said:

"Gore responded with a withering attack, leading to claims that Dr. Revelle had become senile before his death, that Dr. Singer had duped Dr. Revelle into coauthoring the article, and that Dr. Singer had listed Dr. Revelle as a co-author over his objections. The sordid accusations ended in a defamation suit and an abject public apology in 1994 from Gore's academic hit man, a prominent Harvard scientist,who revealed his unsavory role and that of Gore in the fabrications against Dr.Singer and Dr. Revelle."

So despite the above statement by the Financial Post you are saying that it is me that is overhyping and hysterical ?

Are you saying the Financial Post are liars ? Yes or No ? Please answer the question......

Truly unbelievable.

I never said the articles in question were "damning global warming".
The articles pointed out that Revelle was never in favour of it, and totally disagreed.

But apparently I am living in fantasy land for pointing to an article, which makes a mockery of Clippo's article that tries to suggest that Singer took advantage of Revelle, despite the clear refutation and by the Financial post about Clippo's assertion and Gore's admisssion ?

You're having a laugh.......

The other comments I made regarding the "mysterious" death were my opinion and a possible scenario of what may well happen based on likelihood and common sense about everything else I have posted about MMGW, The Clinton Body Count etc etc on this forum.

Yes there is no evidence Revelle didn't die of a heart attack - the same that there is no supposed evidence of JFK's or MLK's assaination by the elite.

I never said he was murdered - I said his death and the fact that his secretary has written a sworn statement is suspicious to say the least.
Anyone with any common sense can see that but apparently the pro-MMGW people can't.

If you want to call it a "conspiracy theory" then fine - I suppose it is, but it is yet another incredible co-incidence like so many before like terrorist drills on 9/11, 7/7 occuring on exactly the same time and same location.

I suppose you believe Lee Harvey Oswald killed JFK too with a rifle ?

You say "your claim that there is a "wicked aganda of an elite hell bent on pushing humanity back into the dark ages" is absurd - there is zero evidence of any such conspiracy, whatever your frequent links to infowars and prisonplanet may say."

Zero evidence ?

See my post as one example:
Clear proof global warming is a complete hoax

These statements came from the Club of Rome - a globalist think tank whose members include or have included Al Gore, David Rockefeller, Javier Solana(Secretary General of the Council of the EU), Tony Blair, Henry Kissinger to name but a few. (see article below)

"It would seem that humans need a common motivation, namely a common adversary, to organize and act together in the vacuum; such a motivation must be found to bring the divided nations together to face an outside enemy, either a real one or else one invented for the purpose.

In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill. All these dangers are caused by human intervention, and it is only through changed attitudes and behavior that they can be overcome. The real enemy then, is humanity itself."

I suppose the fact they openly admitted saying this is a conspiracy theory too, no doubt....

Or are you saying they never said it ?

Oh I see - whatever evidence can be presented it doesn't matter, because you've decided the source is not trustworthy or didn't exist. How convenient....

Rather than post your own evidence you've decided to try to attack the credibility of every website and article you supposedly disagree with.
Again so very convenient....

And every valid and proved source that I present is wrong, while you cannot produce a single piece of evidence to disprove any of it.

So the articles in Telegraph and Financial Post are no more than "conspiracy theories" ?
Sure ! How obvious.
Obviously you are the one trying to get people living in fantasy land.

You are either blind, brainwashed, stupid or more likely just another traitor on this forum who says nothing to refute the statements made by the Club of Rome, Telegraph or the Financial Post.

__________________
Before tyranny and television, "conspiracy theorists" never existed.

cointelpro/halfwits: Akria,Clippo,Besoeker,Bear,Eurosceptic Antlantacist,MikeUK

Unionist

YCHTT, you have chosen to argue against things that I have not said. Indeed, you have even had to imagine what I might say about the Club of Rome in order to argue against it.

The truth - if you 'can handle it' - is that you string together one or two minor coincidences and present it as a big deal, leaving us all to speculate that there is some fantastic plot going on.

In reality, an old man died of a heart attack. You marked the thread as highly important and said so in your first post; you talked about an "amazing coincidence" and then said:

Now, am I allowed to comment on that theory without being called a traitor, or blind, or stupid, or brainwashed?

My suggestions:

(1) Stop hyping your posts as the most important things ever.
(2) Stop implying that everyone who disagrees with your analysis is stupid or treacherous.
(3) Stop imagining what people might have said in order that you can slap it down and instead deal with what they have actually said.
(4) Stop filling your posts with tiresome distractions like the JFK assassination, clearly designed to drag readers onto a different territory where you can batter them with plenty of videos and links until they are bored rigid.

youcanhandlethetruth

To be totally clear, this article is very important because:

a) It proves Gore was willing to lie about a scientist - so obviously he would be willing to lie about MMGW too.

b) It proves Clippo's absurd hitpiece citing Singer as uncredible is a sham in light of the revelation made by the Financial Post.
Therefore it raises the highest doubts to Clippo's credibility and those who pro-MMGW movement on this forum who seek to attack other peoples credibility.

c) There are suspicious circumstances surrounding the death of Revelle and the subsequent statement made by his secretary.

You said:

"you have even had to imagine what I might say about the Club of Rome in order to argue against it."

What the hell are you talking about ?

You said "there is no evidence", "it's an overhyped and hysterical post" and
"your claim that there is a "wicked aganda of an elite hell bent on pushing humanity back into the dark ages" is absurd - there is zero evidence of any such conspiracy, whatever your frequent links to infowars and prisonplanet may say."

Therefore I pointed to:

1) the Club Of Rome(not infowars or prisonplanet) document admitting:

"In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill. All these dangers are caused by human intervention, and it is only through changed attitudes and behavior that they can be overcome. The real enemy then, is humanity itself."

2) The fact in the Financial Post that Gore was forced to issue an apology in light of a deformation suit with regards to Revelle.

The rest is my opinion of a likely scenario - if you want to call that "hype" that's up to you, but I believe in dealing with reality than pretending everything as the government, the establishment ot the global warming movement claim it to be.

My suggestions to you:

1) Wake up and smell the coffee and stop spouting your pro-MMGW propaganda.

2) Stop implying I "imagined what you might have said".
What did I imagine you might have said out of interest ?

3) Expand your knowledge of other inter-related events in order to undertand the real truth about history and the same things being repeating in world today.

If you are fighting on the side of the real enemy do remember they will not protect you - you will be the worst hit of all since they despise people willing to cheat on their own people.

__________________
Before tyranny and television, "conspiracy theorists" never existed.

cointelpro/halfwits: Akria,Clippo,Besoeker,Bear,Eurosceptic Antlantacist,MikeUK

Unionist

I do call it hype; that was the point of my post. The scenario you cooked up was fiction but you use phrases like "in all likelihood" and "dealing with reality". If you are going to make such claims then at least have the decency to have some evidence rather than sling mud at me.

I might also ask where I have been spouting pro-MMGW propaganda? I criticised what I deemed to be a fantasy theory that an 82-year-old man did not actually die of natural causes. How is that pro-MMGW propaganda?

youcanhandlethetruth

I posted my supporting evidence and explained why I believed it was mysterious. I never said he was murdered but the fact is that can't prove he wasn't any more than I can prove he was.

I've given you the clear facts about Gore's and Clippo's innacuracies but you are saying that I am innacurate ?
Please don't pretend you care about being accurate or facing the truth......

I would argue this post is pro-MMGW propaganda:

Central Plank Of Global Warming Alarmism Discredited

Obviously you believe in MMGW, otherwise you would not support pro-MMGW arguments.

But like a lot of people on this forum you spend your time criticizing people who expose MMGW deception - if that's not supporting MMGW then I'm not sure what is.....

__________________
Before tyranny and television, "conspiracy theorists" never existed.

cointelpro/halfwits: Akria,Clippo,Besoeker,Bear,Eurosceptic Antlantacist,MikeUK