lI can't understand why, knowing that there are thousands and thousands of species that have already gone extinct, anyone would question the fact that more are soon to follow. I get a little giggly when I think about it. There's no denying that some species are hardier than others to anyone with a real science background. Look at how long cockroaches have been around.

On the other hand, some are just not as adaptable to change, including, but not limited to climate change and changes in the food chain.

Wilhelm, I cannot understand how you can only be a year younger than I and so adverse to acceptin...

lI can't understand why, knowing that there are thousands and thousands of species that have already gone extinct, anyone would question the fact that more are soon to follow. I get a little giggly when I think about it. There's no denying that some species are hardier than others to anyone with a real science background. Look at how long cockroaches have been around.

On the other hand, some are just not as adaptable to change, including, but not limited to climate change and changes in the food chain.

Wilhelm, I cannot understand how you can only be a year younger than I and so adverse to accepting that changes do, indeed, occur, whether we like it or not..
You have already attested to the fact that global warming IS occurring though you refuse to accept that humans can affect it even in the slightest way, yet you don't think that climate change, and thus habitat loss will cause extinction? I suggest you look up endangered and extinct animals.

There have been five or six mass extinctions already.
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/planetearth/extinction_sidebar_000907.html

That was a rant? You have a strange concept of what a rant is, Wil. Plus, that was not entirely directed at you. I know exactly what your views are on global warming from your past posts. I also know that you are unwilling to consider any position which disagrees with your firmly-rooted views when the facts dispute your 'theories'. You get terribly upset and defensive and start with the insults.

Your 'reality' is, indeed different than mine. Mine is based on science and facts, I don't cite political organizations like businessandmediafacts.org and heartland.org or consider anything more than exactly what they are. Political rags. I do not mean to insult you, I just think you enjoy slanti...

That was a rant? You have a strange concept of what a rant is, Wil. Plus, that was not entirely directed at you. I know exactly what your views are on global warming from your past posts. I also know that you are unwilling to consider any position which disagrees with your firmly-rooted views when the facts dispute your 'theories'. You get terribly upset and defensive and start with the insults.

Your 'reality' is, indeed different than mine. Mine is based on science and facts, I don't cite political organizations like businessandmediafacts.org and heartland.org or consider anything more than exactly what they are. Political rags. I do not mean to insult you, I just think you enjoy slanting the truth to fit your needs. I just feel the need to limit the BS factor.

I just feel the need to limit the BS factor.

How about this as a BS factor. You are suggesting that if man limits it's CO2 output, we wiil prevent global warming. The suggestion is that we cut our contribution 50% (which is impossible). That means we will go from contributing 4% of CO2 to 2% of CO2. Where CO2 is a small percentage of greenhouse gas ( water vapor being the largest (over 70%) and which we cannot control). At the same time you ignore the innumerable feedback loops and the fact that natural variance in CO2 dwarfs mans output. So, if we cut 50% and natural variation increases 1%, then our cuts are worthless. It is pure silliness and those that propose otherwise a...

I just feel the need to limit the BS factor.

How about this as a BS factor. You are suggesting that if man limits it's CO2 output, we wiil prevent global warming. The suggestion is that we cut our contribution 50% (which is impossible). That means we will go from contributing 4% of CO2 to 2% of CO2. Where CO2 is a small percentage of greenhouse gas ( water vapor being the largest (over 70%) and which we cannot control). At the same time you ignore the innumerable feedback loops and the fact that natural variance in CO2 dwarfs mans output. So, if we cut 50% and natural variation increases 1%, then our cuts are worthless. It is pure silliness and those that propose otherwise are driven by billions in funding and the creation of a fearmongering industry. It is simple lunacy. That is why you refuse to propose science, facts, and evidence and instead rely on politicllay motivated propaganda.

Hudgal, please tell me why me and these scientists are wrong.

Khabibullo Abdusamatov, Scientist, Russian Academy of Sciences
Dr. William J.R. Alexander, Professor Emeritus, University of Pretoria
Dr. Claude Allegre, Geophysicist, Institute of Geophysics
Dr. August H. Auer, Former professor of Atmospheric Science, University of Wyoming
Dennis Avery, Environment economist, Center for Global Food Issues
Dr. Sallie L. Baliunas, Astrophysicist, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics
Dr. Timothy Ball, Canadian Climatologist and Former Professor, University of Winnipeg
Dr. Robert C. Balling, Jr., Climatologist, Arizona State University
Dr. Jack Barrett, Chemist and Spectroscopist, Formerly wi...

Hudgal, please tell me why me and these scientists are wrong.

Khabibullo Abdusamatov, Scientist, Russian Academy of Sciences
Dr. William J.R. Alexander, Professor Emeritus, University of Pretoria
Dr. Claude Allegre, Geophysicist, Institute of Geophysics
Dr. August H. Auer, Former professor of Atmospheric Science, University of Wyoming
Dennis Avery, Environment economist, Center for Global Food Issues
Dr. Sallie L. Baliunas, Astrophysicist, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics
Dr. Timothy Ball, Canadian Climatologist and Former Professor, University of Winnipeg
Dr. Robert C. Balling, Jr., Climatologist, Arizona State University
Dr. Jack Barrett, Chemist and Spectroscopist, Formerly with Imperial College London
Dr. David Bellamy, Honorary Professor for Adult and Continuation Education, Durham University
Dr. Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen, Reader, University of Hull
Dr. Simon Brassell, Geologist, University of Indiana
Dr. Reid Bryson, Meteorologist, University of Wisconsin-Madison
Mr. Nigel Calder, Former Editor, The New Scientist Magazine
Dr. Robert M. Carter, Geologist, James Cook University
Dr. Ian Castles, Fellow, Australian National University
Dr. Petr Chylek, Physics and Atmospheric Science Adjunct Professor, Dalhousie University
Dr. Ian D. Clark, Earth Sciences Professor, University of Ottawa
Dr. Paul Cooper, Professor Emeritus, Laurentian University
Dr. Richard S. Courtney, Climate and Atmospheric Science Consultant, Climate and Atmospheric Science Consultant
Dr. Chris de Freitas, Associate Professor and Climate Scientist, The University of Auckland
Dipl.-Ing. Peter Dietze, Official Reviewer, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
Dr. Freeman J. Dyson, Emeritus Professor of Physics, Institute for Advanced Studies
Dr. Hugh W. Ellsaesser, Physicist/Meteorologist, Formerly with Livermore National Laboratory
Dr. Robert H. Essenhigh, Professor of Energy Conversion, The Ohio State University
Dr. Christopher Essex, Applied Mathematics Professor, University of W

Dr. Marcel Leroux, Climatology Professor Emeritus, University of Lyon
Dr. Dennis Lettenmaier, Hydrology Professor, University of Washington
Dr. Richard Lindzen, Meteorologist, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Dr. Bjorn Lomborg, Associate Statistics Professor, University of Aarhus
Dr. Alister McFarquhar, International Economist, Downing College
Dr. Ross McKitrick, Associate Economics Professor, University of Guelph
Dr. Patrick J. Michaels, Professor of Environmental Sciences, University of Virginia
Dr. Fred Michel, Associate Professor, Carleton University
Dr. M.R. Morgan, Climate Consultant, First Minister of Wales
Dr. Nils-Axel Morner, Emeritus Professor, Stockholm University
Dr. Tad Mu...

Dr. Marcel Leroux, Climatology Professor Emeritus, University of Lyon
Dr. Dennis Lettenmaier, Hydrology Professor, University of Washington
Dr. Richard Lindzen, Meteorologist, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Dr. Bjorn Lomborg, Associate Statistics Professor, University of Aarhus
Dr. Alister McFarquhar, International Economist, Downing College
Dr. Ross McKitrick, Associate Economics Professor, University of Guelph
Dr. Patrick J. Michaels, Professor of Environmental Sciences, University of Virginia
Dr. Fred Michel, Associate Professor, Carleton University
Dr. M.R. Morgan, Climate Consultant, First Minister of Wales
Dr. Nils-Axel Morner, Emeritus Professor, Stockholm University
Dr. Tad Murty, Adjunct Professor, University of Ottawa
Mr. David Nowell, Fellow, Royal Meteorological Society
Dr. Garth W. Paltridge, Director, The Cooperative Research Centre for Antarctica and the Southern Ocean
Dr. Benny Peiser, Professor of Social Anthropology, Liverpool John Moores University
Dr. Al Pekarek, Associate Professor of Geology, St. Cloud State University
Dr. Roger Pielke, Sr., Meteorologist, Cooperative Institute of Research
Dr. Ian Plimer, Professor, University of Adelaide and University of Melbourne
Dr. Harry N.A. Priem, Emeritus Professor, Utrecht University
Dr. Andreas Prokoph, Adjunct Professor, University of Ottawa
Dr. Paul Reiter, Professor, Institut Pasteur
Dr. Art Robinson, Founder, Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine
Dr. Arthur Rorsch, Emeritus Professor of Molecular Genetics, Leiden University
Dr. Rob Scagel, Principal Consultant, Pacific Consultants
Dr. Gary Sharp, Director, Center for Climate/Ocean Resources Study
Dr. Nir J. Shaviv, Astrophysicist, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem
Dr. Fred Singer, Climatologist, The Competitive Enterprise Institute
Dr. Graham Smith, Associate Professor, University of Western Ontario
Dr. Roy Spencer, Principal Research Scientist, The University of Alabama
Dr. Henrik Svensmark, Climate Scientist, Danish Space Research Ins

"Scientists?" Oh, you mean those "Economists", and all the scientists of unspecified specialty.

But, yet again, you presume too much and easily leap to false conclusions. You presume to know my opinion on global warming, yet I've told you you're wrong (when it comes to making any overall judgement on the topic, I'm ephectic). You presume to think that some fucktard publication listing a few "scientists", mostly with unstated qualifications, is of some vast importance, yet I know that the following quote is very true:

"It is hard to convey just how selective you have to be to dismiss the evidence for climate change. You must climb over a mountain of evidence to pick up a crumb: a c...

"Scientists?" Oh, you mean those "Economists", and all the scientists of unspecified specialty.

But, yet again, you presume too much and easily leap to false conclusions. You presume to know my opinion on global warming, yet I've told you you're wrong (when it comes to making any overall judgement on the topic, I'm ephectic). You presume to think that some fucktard publication listing a few "scientists", mostly with unstated qualifications, is of some vast importance, yet I know that the following quote is very true:

"It is hard to convey just how selective you have to be to dismiss the evidence for climate change. You must climb over a mountain of evidence to pick up a crumb: a crumb which then disintegrates in your palm. You must ignore an entire canon of science, the statements of the world's most eminent scientific institutions, and thousands of papers published in the foremost scientific journals."
-- George Monbiot

In a separate ClipMark discussion I even provided you with a reference for something skeptical about global warming, which had some respectability as opposed to what you've been using.

But no, you'd rather pick up a crumb.

Credibility is most definitely important. I wouldn't clip some article from the National Enquirer as proof that aliens landed in Houston to spy on NASA, because I know that the Enquirer will print anything to sell their publication. The source definitely is key to whether a story is based half-truths or actual facts. Real scientific publications take the credibility of each individual scientist into account and don't publish anyone who doesn't have the credentials to back up what he/she says.


I disagree that economist have the interest true science in their heart. As well they shouldn't. Economists have the impact on the economy in mind, while scientists have science in mind. That's why th...

Credibility is most definitely important. I wouldn't clip some article from the National Enquirer as proof that aliens landed in Houston to spy on NASA, because I know that the Enquirer will print anything to sell their publication. The source definitely is key to whether a story is based half-truths or actual facts. Real scientific publications take the credibility of each individual scientist into account and don't publish anyone who doesn't have the credentials to back up what he/she says.


I disagree that economist have the interest true science in their heart. As well they shouldn't. Economists have the impact on the economy in mind, while scientists have science in mind. That's why they became interested in their respective fields. I'm not going to take the time to research every one of the people you listed, but everyone knows that there are at least 100 scientists who put credence to ii, for every one that you listed.

You are suggesting that if man limits it's CO2 output, we wiil prevent
global warming. The suggestion is that we cut our contribution 50%
(which is impossible).

I don't think and have never even suggested that anything mankind does can PREVENT global warming. I belive there are other factors contributing to it, over which we have no control . I have told you over and over. I propose that we are CONTRIBUTING to it, and that yes, we can lessen it's effect by changing our behaviors.

You propose that man's contributions to global warming are no more than 4%. I have never seen a source that puts it that low. Is that from some sort of business journal? In fact, I have seen sources that put it as high as 80%. The truth probably lies somewhere in the middle. I do not think cutting our contribution by half is unreasonable, since nature makes the largest contributons. As I have said, over and over, there's nothing we can do about water vapor in the air, nor would we want to, as it's the driving force behind our entire weather syst

willhelm -

Normally I'm not up to doing someone's research for them. The research I've done in this multi-part comment isn't exhaustive and I'm not suggesting that everyone I've looked at is on the take or unqualified on the subject. Backgrounds can, however, be checked. I've done some of the checking that you should have done. On some of the names you've listed.

You say to hudgal1:

"This comment here shows there is nothing to be gained by debating this issue with you."

That's the way I'm beginning to feel about you.

And you say to me:

"I listed 50 or 60 scientists. Which economists are you talking about."

The three economists you included on your list......

willhelm -

Normally I'm not up to doing someone's research for them. The research I've done in this multi-part comment isn't exhaustive and I'm not suggesting that everyone I've looked at is on the take or unqualified on the subject. Backgrounds can, however, be checked. I've done some of the checking that you should have done. On some of the names you've listed.

You say to hudgal1:

"This comment here shows there is nothing to be gained by debating this issue with you."

That's the way I'm beginning to feel about you.

And you say to me:

"I listed 50 or 60 scientists. Which economists are you talking about."

The three economists you included on your list... You do read what you put through here, don't you?

Let's look closer at just one of them.

Dr. Ross McKitrick, Associate Economics Professor, University of Guelph

A Tech Central Station article said:
* "McKitrick, an economist, was initially piqued by what several climatologists had noted as a curiosity in both the U.N. and satellite records: statistically speaking, the greater the GDP of a nation, the more it warms. The research showed that somewhere around one-half of the warming in the U.N. surface record was explained by economic factors, which can be changes in land use, quality of instrumentation, or upkeep of records. This worldwide study added fuel to a fire started a year earlier by the University of Maryland's Eugenia Kalnay, who calculated a similar 50 percent bias due to economic factors in the U.S. records."

Part two -

This study was shown to contain errors. Computer scientist Tim Lambert observed:

* "His analysis included a variable cosablat, which was supposed to be the cosine of absolute latitude. Trouble is, the software he used expects angles to be measured in radians, his data has latitude in degrees, and he didn’t convert from degrees to radians. Consequently, every single number he calculates is wrong. I corrected the error and reran his regressions. The sizes of the "economic" signals were greatly reduced. They no longer "explain" half of the surface warming trend. Removing the effects of the economic variables now just reduces the warming trend for his sample from 0.27 degr...

Part two -

This study was shown to contain errors. Computer scientist Tim Lambert observed:

* "His analysis included a variable cosablat, which was supposed to be the cosine of absolute latitude. Trouble is, the software he used expects angles to be measured in radians, his data has latitude in degrees, and he didn’t convert from degrees to radians. Consequently, every single number he calculates is wrong. I corrected the error and reran his regressions. The sizes of the "economic" signals were greatly reduced. They no longer "explain" half of the surface warming trend. Removing the effects of the economic variables now just reduces the warming trend for his sample from 0.27 degrees/decade to 0.18 degrees/decade, which is very close to the warming trend for the whole globe.

There's more on Dr. McKitrick, economist. But, hey, I'm not doing all your research for you...

As for the "scientists" whose specialties are curiously omitted from your list, let's look at a few:

Dr. William J.R. Alexander, Professor Emeritus, University of Pretoria

He's degreed in civil engineering.

Dr. David Bellamy, Honorary Professor for Adult and Continuation Education, Durham University

An english professor and botanist.

His 2004 article in the Daily Mail, which lambasted mainstream positions on climate change, prompted environmental writer Mark Lynas to ask "Has David Bellamy gone mad"?. A typographical error in a recent letter he published in the New Scientist (April 16th, 2005) suggested a large percentage (555 of 625!!) of the world's glaciers were advancing, not retreating. This was a gift for global warming deniers, but turned out to be untrue and misleading, after George Monbiot got on the detective trail.

Part three -

Dr. Ian Castles, Fellow, Australian National University

According to his biographical note "he was formerly Australian Statistician (1986-94) and Secretary, Australian Department of Finance (1979-86). After his retirement from the Australian Public Service in 1994 he was successively Executive Director and Vice President of the Academy of the Social Sciences in Australia (1995-2000). He is a former President of the International Association of Official Statistics and was elected a Member of the International Statistical Institute in 1992."

Dr. Paul Cooper, Professor Emeritus, Laurentian University

Paul is listed as an "Allied Expert" for the Natural Reso...

read more»

Part three -

Dr. Ian Castles, Fellow, Australian National University

According to his biographical note "he was formerly Australian Statistician (1986-94) and Secretary, Australian Department of Finance (1979-86). After his retirement from the Australian Public Service in 1994 he was successively Executive Director and Vice President of the Academy of the Social Sciences in Australia (1995-2000). He is a former President of the International Association of Official Statistics and was elected a Member of the International Statistical Institute in 1992."

Dr. Paul Cooper, Professor Emeritus, Laurentian University

Paul is listed as an "Allied Expert" for the Natural Resource Stewardship Project (NRSP), a lobby organisation that refuses to disclose its funding sources. The NRSP is led by Executive Director Tom Harris and Dr. Tim Ball (more on Tim Ball follows in this ClipMark comment; hang loose). The NRSP also has ties to Canadisn energy-sector lobbyists. Cooper is Professor Emeritus at the Laurentian University Earth Sciences department. A search of 22,000 academic journals shows his primary academic topic is palaeobiology.

Dr. Paul Reiter, Professor, Institut Pasteur

Reiter sits on the "Scientific and Economic Advisory Council" of an organization called the "Annapolis Centre for Science-Based Public Policy." The Annapolis Centre is a US think tank that has received $763,500 in funding from ExxonMobil and has been very active in playing down the human contribution to global warming. Those same 22,000 academic journals shows he has published over 30 pieces of original research in peer-reviewed journals mainly on the subject of infectious disease, with some work on the relationship between disease and climate change.

Don't go away, willhelm, we're just getting warm. Now let's look at a few scientists from your list who say they have the right credentials.

Part four (the end...)

Dr. Timothy Ball, Canadian Climatologist and Former Professor, University of Winnipeg

Tim Ball, retired professor at the University of Winnipeg's department of geography, magically turned into "Professor Tim Ball, University of Winnipeg, Department of Climatology." First off, there is no department of climatology at the University of Winnipeg. Secondly, Tim Ball is listed as a paid "consultant" of a Calgary-based global warming skeptic organization called the "Friends of Science" (FOS). FOS has admitted, after being caught, that they receive a major portion of their funding directly from the fossil fuel industry.

Dr. Richard Lindzen, Meteorologist, ...

Part four (the end...)

Dr. Timothy Ball, Canadian Climatologist and Former Professor, University of Winnipeg

Tim Ball, retired professor at the University of Winnipeg's department of geography, magically turned into "Professor Tim Ball, University of Winnipeg, Department of Climatology." First off, there is no department of climatology at the University of Winnipeg. Secondly, Tim Ball is listed as a paid "consultant" of a Calgary-based global warming skeptic organization called the "Friends of Science" (FOS). FOS has admitted, after being caught, that they receive a major portion of their funding directly from the fossil fuel industry.

Dr. Richard Lindzen, Meteorologist, Massachusetts Institute of Technology

Dr. Richard Lindzen from MIT was exposed by Ross Gelbspan, Pulitzer Prize winning journalist, as being a paid "consultant" for the fossil fuel industry. This is an unfortunate trend we see among many of the anti-global-warming scientists. In fact, Mr. Lindzen was paid $2,500 per day by the oil industry in the mid-1990s while he was a member of the previous IPCC, and his report "Global Warming: the Origin and Nature of Alleged Scientific Consensus" was underwritten by OPEC.

Dr. Patrick J. Michaels, Professor of Environmental Sciences, University of Virginia

On 9/16/2006 the Washington Post took an in-depth look at outspoken climate change skeptic Pat Michaels. There was a huge controversy regarding an electric utility industry association memo pointing Michaels out as a scientist willing to sow public doubt for the right price, which was apparently around $100,000 according to the memo.

Even a number of CEOs from major corporations, you know, are now joining together to combat this global crisis, including: Alcoa, BP America, Caterpillar, Duke Energy, Dupont, FPL Group, General Electric, Lehman Brothers, and Pacific Gas & Electric. The CEOs of these corporations have all recently urged the US government to b

Thanks for spelling out the credentials of these fine people. These are the questionable ones?? Wow, I have to say: quite a reach. And your guru, of course, is Al Gore? It seems you apparently do not know the difference between ad hominem (against the individuals you cite ) and actual evidence against them or their claims. But, that's ok. It just continues to make the point.

I, on the other hand have never one single time made an issue of an individual scientist that researches and supports global warming. I confront the issue. You show clearly that is not really important to you.

Again, Thanks for pointing out the credentials and value these people add to the argument against global wa...

Thanks for spelling out the credentials of these fine people. These are the questionable ones?? Wow, I have to say: quite a reach. And your guru, of course, is Al Gore? It seems you apparently do not know the difference between ad hominem (against the individuals you cite ) and actual evidence against them or their claims. But, that's ok. It just continues to make the point.

I, on the other hand have never one single time made an issue of an individual scientist that researches and supports global warming. I confront the issue. You show clearly that is not really important to you.

Again, Thanks for pointing out the credentials and value these people add to the argument against global warming. If only the alarmists could submit an equivalent list.You really don't get it, do you?

These are the questionable ones??

No, just some of the ones which came relatively easily to the top.

It seems you apparently do not know the difference between ad hominem
(against the individuals you cite ) and actual evidence against them or their claims.

As I said: "I'm not suggesting that everyone I've looked at is on the take or unqualified on the subject. Backgrounds can, however, be checked. I've done some of the checking that you should have done. On some of the names you've listed."

I'll guess, of course, your source...wikipedia?

The bit on Ross McKitrick was from Wikipedia, and had the proper citations.

The rest came from a variety of so...

These are the questionable ones??

No, just some of the ones which came relatively easily to the top.

It seems you apparently do not know the difference between ad hominem
(against the individuals you cite ) and actual evidence against them or their claims.

As I said: "I'm not suggesting that everyone I've looked at is on the take or unqualified on the subject. Backgrounds can, however, be checked. I've done some of the checking that you should have done. On some of the names you've listed."

I'll guess, of course, your source...wikipedia?

The bit on Ross McKitrick was from Wikipedia, and had the proper citations.

The rest came from a variety of sources, but quite a fair amount came from Colin Chase's excellent March 2007 analysis of the global warming skeptical position and who all was involved with it.

Colin points out that during 10 years of published studies from 1993-2003, 928 dealt with the topic of global warming and 0% dissented from the consensus view about global warming. But, that probably doesn't impress you, right?

Does it even register?