Talk:Roger Revelle

message: William, why don't you trust www.sepp.org ? Is it only because they find sources which contradict what you believe?
If Fred Singer interprets things differently from you, that means he has a different point of view. --Uncle Ed 14:29, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: SEPP is a propaganda organisation that happens to fit your POV. Over at ozone hole we had a long discussion of this, pointing out the errors in SEPPs view. Notice how you have (correctly) conflated SEPP and Singer, since SEPP is just a thin cover for Singer's POV pushing William M. Connolley 15:20, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Top

message: Dr. Lancaster,
Perhaps we should say that your friend Roger let his name be used but contributed nothing to the article other than a galley review.
*"he allowed his name to be used" 
Moreover, if he was unable to concentrate well, and especially if edits made in what you personally recognize was his handwriting were ignored, readers should know this. --Uncle Ed 18:09, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Uncle Ed,   First, Roger would want us to face forward and get the current observations formed into a solid current science, rather than wallow in muck-raking.    Second, for the level of the current history of Roger Revelle in this wiki page, I think the audience is best served simply not even mentioning this awkward, constroversial blemish in Roger's list of hundreds of important reputable publications.  Roger's career spanned almost 70 years, in which every month of every one of those years was filled with more significance and achievement than is represented by the Cosmos article or issue.  For Roger's scientific contribution, and for his life and career, the Cosmos article is simply NOT NOTABLE.       For global warming politics, for the seemy underbelly of the energy industry obfuscation campaign, this is very notable, and I believe the discussion therefore belongs on the global warming controversy pages, and on Fred Singer's pages, and Pat Michael's pages, and Robert Balling's pages.  They are all still alive.  But let us allow Roger to speak for himself by having his Wiki page address his life, his own papers, and solid contributions pre-February 1991, without tilting it so immensely askew by itemizing and emphasizing something that overtook him three months before he died.       Third, if you feel you must make mention of the Cosmos article, then certainly it would be appropriate to annotate the full measure of the controversy, with links to the direct documentary evidence I've provided.  Again, I think it better to do this through the skeptics' pages. 65.107.104.210 21:19, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: All of that seems reasonable. I would like to see the article mention moved to the Fred Singer page, (1) crediting Singer as the primary author and (2) mentioning that Roger Revelle allowed his name to be used as a co-author. --Uncle Ed 13:53, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Seems fairish ("primary"? The point seems to be S was essentially sole author), if you add a link to the "myth" page William M. Connolley 15:57, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Authorship dispute

message: Myasuda, I know of no known connection here.  Can you explain, or give source? Jlancaster 01:21, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I added the category of "Seattleite" as meaning "born in Seattle" rather than living and working in Seattle: see http://www.agu.org/inside/awards/revelle2.html for support for this assertion.  Per the Roger Revelle Wikipedia article, the Seattleite category is redundant, as this fact is mentioned in the text of the article.  It does, however, allow him to be listed on the list of Seattleites (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Seattleites).  As to whether this is adequate justification for inclusion, I'll let you and other caretakers for this article make the call.  Myasuda 02:10, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Sorry for missing the obvious link.  Seattle should be proud.  Reverted to your prior editJlancaster 07:14, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Seattle-ites 

message: inspired al gore's interest in global warming and the making of his documentary. could be mentioned in legacy? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tejas81 (talk • contribs) 19:04, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  al gore and an inconvenient truth? 

message: It might be informative to add an link to the predecessors mentioned in WIKI to Revelle and Suess in the global warming part. These would be, at last Svante Arrhenius and G.S. Callendar, and of his contemporaries, at least Gilbert Plass.  Vastarannankiiski 13:20, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  predecessors 

message: I have a problem with this sentence just before the section UC San Diego.  This might be a typo, a half edited sentence so maybe some of it should be saved:
Geology, geochemistry, atmospheric chemistry, ocean chemistry ... this amounted to one of the earliest examples of "integrated assessment", which 50 years later became an entire branch of global warming science.
As for the last half about the "entire branch", a reliable reference will be needed for that to stay. --Knowsetfree (talk) 05:36, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sentence proposed for deletion 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Roger Revelle. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added  tag to http://www.physicstoday.org/resource/1/phtoad/v45/i2/p119_s1?bypassSSO=1
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100827144400/http://www.sepp.org/key%20issues/glwarm/cosmos.html to http://www.sepp.org/key%20issues/glwarm/cosmos.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:58, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified