Biologist to Trump: "Kill Yourself Immediately"*

*UPDATE/CORRECTION: This post was based on an article in the Independent, which has since been changed. This is the original headline:


It is only available on the wayback machine:

Now it reads:


Many other outlets, including Yahoo News picked up the story.

This has come about because the biologist in question made a joke, and the reporter used the quote verbatim. The blog “On Second Thought” delved into the details:


Wiens confirmed that he did, in fact, say Trump should kill himself, but noted the statement was made as joke:

“On Thursday, December 8, I was contacted by Ian Johnston from The Independent, ostensibly to talk about my paper on climate change and extinction that was being published in PLoS Biology (the paper actually received serious reporting by Brandie Wiekle from CBC News and others).

“Unfortunately, Mr. Johnston admitted that he had not read my paper, and apparently had little interest in talking about it.  It turned out that he only wanted to talk about Donald Trump.  I did not.  He asked me what I would say to Donald Trump.  I said that I really did not think that Donald Trump cared at all what I thought.  

“Obviously, I hoped that this would be the end of the topic.  He persisted.  I did therefore say that Trump should “kill himself immediately” (i.e., his doing this seems about as likely as him following any recommendation from an obscure scientist like myself about stopping climate change).  I then made sure that it was clear that it was a joke.”

Johnston’s original story did note it was a joke, but Wiens was nonetheless surprised it got into print:

“I also assumed, wrongly, that it (the joke) would not be reported, since the statement was meant to be ridiculous.  He did NOT report my preceding statement that I did not think Trump cared what I thought.  He then kept persisting with the same question about Trump.  

“Next, to further indicate that I wanted to change the subject, I suggested that the UK should make its former colonies switch leaders, so that the U.S. gets Justin Trudeau and Canada gets Donald Trump (as in, to make both the U.S. and Donald Trump nicer after a few years).”

In a subsequent email, Wiens told me that he and Johnston are in disagreement over what was on or off the record.


So for those confused by the headline, Weins did in fact say that, intended it as a joke, and thought he was in the clear. This illustrates the perils of making jokes while talking to a reporter. President Ronald Reagan learned the hard way back in the 80’s with his famous bombing quote. From the Wikipedia account:

On August 11, 1984, United StatesPresidentRonald Reagan, while running for re-election, was preparing to make his weekly Saturday radio address on National Public Radio. During a sound check before the address, Reagan made the following joke to the radio technicians: “My fellow Americans, I’m pleased to tell you today that I’ve signed legislation that will outlaw Russia forever. We begin bombing in five minutes.” The joke was a parody of the opening line of that day’s speech: “My fellow Americans, I’m pleased to tell you that today I signed legislation that will allow student religious groups to begin enjoying a right they’ve too long been denied — the freedom to meet in public high schools during nonschool hours, just as other student groups are allowed to do.”[1]

Contrary to popular misconception, this microphone gaffe was not broadcast over the air, but rather leaked later to the general populace.

So for all those people who got their panties in a twist over this (Brandon S. for example), that’s the clarification.

-Anthony Watts

University of Arizona

University of Arizona. By Source, Fair use, Link

Guest essay by Eric Worrall

Yahoo reports on another outbreak of green peace and love, this time from Arizona Professor John Wiens.

‘Kill yourself immediately’: Biologist takes aim at climate change denier Donald Trump

An evolutionary biologist who says all animal life could be wiped out in as little as 50 years has instructed Donald Trump to “kill yourself immediately”.

Professor John Wiens took aim at the controversial president elect, who refutes the existence of climate change, while describing the “global disaster” taking hold of our planet.

The Arizona University scientist found that 47 per cent of almost 1000 species had suffered local extinctions linked to climate change, according to the Independent.

Professor Wiens joked that if he ever got to meet Trump he would instruct him to “kill himself”, but when questioned again he gave a more serious answer.

“I guess I would tell him ‘what would you think if there was a country on the other side of the world that was releasing gas that was going to cause extinctions in our country, to hurt our crops and make people starve?’

“He would say, ‘tell me where it is and we’ll bomb them tomorrow’. Then I’d say, ‘this is what we’re doing to other countries because we are the big polluters’.”

Read more:

You might think Professor Wiens has eaten one field trip mushroom too many, but in terms of Arizona academics he’s actually an optimist. WUWT reported in November this year that according to Arizona colleague Professor-emeritus Guy McPherson we don’t have to worry about climate change, because the 6th mass extinction will kill us all off in the next ten years, regardless of what we do.

327 thoughts on “Biologist to Trump: "Kill Yourself Immediately"*

    • Sadly, they are not airheads. Their heads are full of the stuff that animals eject from the output ends of their digestive systems. That makes them _ _ _ _ heads.

      • “””””….. The Arizona University scientist found that 47 per cent of almost 1000 species had suffered local extinctions linked to climate change, according to the Independent. …..”””””
        ” Local Extinction ” occurs when the only buck deer the bow hunter has seen all week, finally comes within range of his blind, and goes down quickly to his well aimed broadhead. A lull in the persistent drizzle finally led to success.
        Yeah we really need to be concerned with local extinctions, caused by climate change.

      • George, congrats on your local extinction. Thats always an accomplishment with a bow. I would bet that the average how hunter knows a heck of a lot more about the environment than the average professor.

      • If you ask me, any “University Professor” who spouts out Any specific person should kill themselves based on that person exercising their rights to free speech on any given subject, that Professor should be subjected to immediate disciplinary action beginning with censure, followed by unpaid leave and a through psychological evaluation with the potential for involuntary hospitalization and possibly loss of their teaching credentials

      • Yes Ron, he should have the right to say so but it shouldn’t be without disciplinary action on the part of the school. Anyone who is educated to the point of becoming a university professor should also have sufficient wisdom to realize a statement like that could have repercussions that could negatively impact their career. Especially when that statement could be construed ad a Presidential Death Threat. And yes, telling a man to kill himself is the same as wishing him dead which, in the case of a President (elect) is the same thing as a death threat

      • I would expect better of those whom society deems wise enough to place thoughts and ideas into the heads of the next generation on a paid professional basis

      • Ronald P Ginzler, December 9, 2016 at 8:32 pm
        “Bryan A, doesn’t the University Professor also have a right to free speech?” Sure he does and Brian has the right to feel the Professor should be held accountable in a certain manner. The professor can be called to account by any citizen.

      • It would be safe to assume that honest discussion of this topic is not happening in this professor’s classes and that students who espoused an alternate view on the environment would likewise be told to kill themselves.
        This is what education is today? The Socratic ideal of university education is dead today.

    • Selection bias. Doctoral degree students are trained by professors, then selected for employment by professors. There’s little or no external input to the process, except possibly with the for-profit institutions where the business people who run them select faculty.

    • if there was a country on the other side of the world that was releasing gas that was going to cause extinctions in our country……China
      ‘this is what they are doing to other countries because they are the big polluters’.”
      ….this guy’s a total idiot

    • They go to school, go to university, then go back to school. Never lived in the real World, never left the government teat.

      • Exactly – and you only have to talk to them to realise that they tend to treat people in the way that someone used to lecturing a captive audience of children/students “expects to be able to”.
        The secondary trait of these teat dependents is that when confronted with facts that they cannot dispute they resort to Ad Hom’s.
        Foot stamping and dummy spitting is their norm.
        The silly outburst reported here is a classic example.

      • That’s the definition of a specialist — one who knows more and more about less and less until he knows absolutely everything about absolutely nothing. Is it possible, then, to have any kind of thought if there is nothing to think about? Can these vampires of the mind even have a real thought of their own, let alone something insightful, creative or of value?
        “I’ll be more enthusiastic about encouraging thinking outside the box when there’s evidence of any thinking going on inside it.” — Terry Pratchett

    • Parents have to start voting with their checkbooks and refuse to let their children attend institutions where they indoctrinate people into this ridiculous garbage. Hit ’em in the pocketbook!

    • They get to be professors by years of study, research, and the acquiring of knowledge in their particular field, plus repeated peer reviews. It is the furthest thing from being an airhead. If you dont agree with his theories or conclusions, fine, but don’t denigrate the hard work or intellegence it takes to get to be in Dr, Wiens’s position.I doubt you are anywhere nearly as well respected in your field or as educated or done as much travel and hands on research. And what exactly do you have as proof that he is wrong in his conclusions? Or what are your credentials to back up your proofs?
      You have every right to disagre with Dr Wiens, but you can show a little respect for the years of hard work he’s undertaken to get to the position he’s in.

  1. As I noted at the WSJ
    The folk who are “sure” that our kids shall never get off Lifeboat Earth
    …to Mars, Jupiter moons, Alpha Centauri, the rest of the galaxy, etc
    think we should not “even try” and hunker down consuming less.
    This lets China/Jinping, Putin/Russia, and their sock puppets N. Korea and Iran
    run the table.
    That is, in my view, very suboptimal, greedy behaviors by the “less than stellar” “bellybucking boys” and their indoctrinated minions,
    …..demonstrating their blinkered vision, their myopia, and their lack of ability.

  2. Wiens is an ecologist. I wonder if he can actually point to any recent extinctions due to “climate change”, as opposed to local extirpations or just relocations, ie species simply changing locales to accommodate whatever climatic parameters actually have changed.

      • Yes, my first thought was to recall Landscapes and Cycles. There could easily be a human element but not climate change.

    • Most of the time, these aren’t actually species going extinct, just minor variations in colouration & patterning being labelled as new species.
      “Look, professor, it has 1% longer legs than the normal ones. I think it’s a new species.”
      “Ah, but there are rigourous tests that have to be followed.”
      “But I was going to name it after you.”
      “… Which I am sure will confirm it is actually a new species.”

      • Hivey
        Nearly lost my monitor!
        Drinking a s m a l l glass of red wine.
        Plus shedloads!!
        Impressed. And watching puppy do figure-of-eight round downstairs . . . .

    • There have actually been exactly zero documented climate extinctions. The Golden Toad of Costa Rica was actually tourism brought chitridiomycisis, a fungal disease. The white lemur od Australia is a variant of the brown and more have been sighted. The 5 striped blue tail skink of Hawaii was extirpation of an invasive species still thriving in its native Southeast Adai Island habitat. Did a full rundown as of 2014 in essay No Bodies. Also exposes deliberate IPCC WG2 deception.

  3. Aaah, the numpty class writ large. We support an equal number of raving loons in Australia, all living large on the public tit.

  4. “The Arizona University scientist found that 47 per cent of almost 1000 species had suffered local extinctions linked to climate change, according to the Independent.” “Local extinctions”? Is that a new term? Is that like if we drain a pond we cause local extinction of all the aquatic life in the pond? People like this are going to have serious withdrawal problems when their AGW induced fantasies are exposed.

    • The correct term for “local extinction” is extirpation, but that applies only if the population dies out, not if it moves north or south, out of its previous range.

    • I wonder if that is a misprint.
      Perhaps he really said, “1000% of 47 species.” If we are talking about ‘local extinctions’, then each locale counts as one. If there were 10 locations where 47 species disappeared that would be 1000% of 47 species. All of those could be nematodes because draining a swamp, for example: Washington, would easily kill off a lot of lower lifeforms once the trough is dry.
      I think we should ask for clarifications.

      • Actually, every time ONE example of a species is killed, there is a local extinction of that species in the precise locality where it previously existed before. If I shoot a fox outside my hen-house, there is a lack of (1) fox at a specific point around the perimeter fence.
        On the plus side, there is now an abundance of meat at that particular point, so a variety of scavenger species are less likely to go extinct…

  5. oh noes – gas warfare on his crops, now?
    this is not fake news- this is real news about real fakes.

    • It is getting harder and harder to tell the real fakes from the artificial ones.
      My sister wrote tonight saying we live in a ‘post-truth world’.
      True, that.

      • ….but only if you listen to those who are nefarious enough to lie to everybody before the election (poster gal is HRC), and complain that there was a bunch of fake news (lies) after their lying didn’t win them the election.
        At least you have to give that bunch (again, cue HRC) kudos for being consistent liars. However, the way they’re relying on propaganda is unprecedented!

      • Sounds like Wiens is a fake who just made some fake news. Where do loony tunes like this come from? And why does anyone listen to a single work he says?

      • RockyRoad
        There’s that quote
        “If the lety didn’y have double standards they’d have none at all”

  6. The Arizona University scientist found that 47 per cent of almost 1000 species had suffered local extinctions linked to climate change…

    Can someone please list those 470 species?
    Then we could consider what could have been done to save those poor named creatures.
    It could help the remaining 530 forms of life.

    • 47% of THESE ‘almost’ 1000 species. OK then, what about the next 10,000 species or the next 100,000 species after that. (just how many species are there anyway?) What percent of this next set are extinct?
      Ant then to the next point and to put it in perspective: How may species have gone extinct [and how certain are we of the number?] in all the time before man even existed (as a percent of the next 1000!) and WHY did they become extinct? And how could that possibly be mankind’s fault?
      Perhaps the correct answer is that it is part of nature’s law (or plan if we like) that ALL species will eventually become extinct. At the end of a very very long period of time, the total percent of all species which ever existed that are still around and alive at that time is bound to be a very small number.
      And, oh by the way – the dear professor doesn’t seem to identify the CAUSE of extinction [whacked on the head, starved, froze] of each of these species (all 470 of them) and even if he COULD do that the uncertainty of the cause has got to be very high.
      My call on the professor’s work – FAKE NEWS!

      • M Courtney
        No need to make a gaia out of nature. A species appears when it’s different enough from the previous generation to be noted, and goes extinct when in no longer reproduces sufficiently. That’s the sole cause. The Human race is probably one of the most likely to go extinct. We are too fragile, we can purposely change our habits, such as not reproducing enough children when we get sufficiently wealthy. Poor people have more kids, usually for economic reasons, whether it’s more help on the farm or more handouts. When people get wealthier the repro rate drops below the replacement level. The dearth applies from the richest down to the bottom of the middle class. Poor people even in wealthy countries are still having more than 2.1 children per mother on average.

    • Unfortunately environmentalism (for most folks) never goes beyond the negative Human impacts on nature. It’s always been about stopping others from messing up “our” world. (No wonder the anti-humanist crowd wrestled greenpeace away from Patrick Moore and took over the Sierra Club too.)
      Once the actual wanton polluters were rounded up, they had to go after an ever increasing expectation of remediation by the general population, so that the movement would not die out.
      I would like to see environmentalism refocus upon the marvelous recuperative and reshaping abilities of nature, despite mankind’s unremarkable subduing of this planet.

  7. I assume that Wiens 470 local extinctions can be provably traced to climate change and that climate change sufficient to kill them can be provably linked to humans. He talks about “local extinctions.” Sounds like local relocations.

    • Could be linked to undocumented humans roasting edible species over mesquite or local watering and asphalt in a desert environment. Both would be anthropogenic.

    • Since there hasn’t been any climate change outside natural variation, it would be interesting to see his list and how the non-changing climate was a factor.

    • What it sounds like is he’s an undisciplined intellectual slob you wouldn’t let wash a fuggin fleet vehicle.
      Like every global warmer. The fact they say it might be real brands them as utter, intellectual failures.
      Look at the reputations of every single human being who keeps insisting it all might be real. People mock them to their dimwit faces.

    • “He talks about “local extinctions.” Sounds like local relocations.”
      With some populations, that could be a single wolf wandering from one mountain valley to another.

    • Bingo. Just more proof that Trump needs to slash Federal ‘science’ funding. That’ll cut billions from the deficit and starve the AGW propaganda machine.

      • Great comment Mark G. Seems like the loony left is awash in far too much money for nonsense projects.

      • It goes much deeper then just science funding.
        The entire secondary education is driven by profit and pensions.
        For example, students can get Pell Grants worth more then $5K per year.
        Even if the student never shows up for class the college gets the money.
        And the student is eligible to do it again the next year.
        Also if a “student” is “going” to college with the Pell Grant they are can keep getting welfare.
        Time to drain the swamp.

  8. Sounds like what we’ve heard before from these homicidal leftists, as:
    “Every time someone dies as a result of floods in Bangladesh, an airline executive should be dragged out of his office and drowned.” -George Monbiot, UK Ecojournalist
    “I’m prepared to keep an open mind and propose another stunt for climate sceptics – put your strong views to the test by exposing yourselves to high concentrations of either carbon dioxide or some other colourless, odourless gas – say, carbon monoxide.” -Jill Singer, Australian Ecojournalist
    “An ecocatastrophe is taking place on earth…..discipline, prohibition, enforcement and oppression are the only solution.” -Pentti Linkola, Finish Ecologist
    “The extinction of the human species may not only be inevitable but a good thing.” -Christopher Manes, Earth First!

    • There is a very long list of these people that subscribe to eliminating the human race. I think they are aliens (real ones ) . I am grateful I’m not on that list. You just have to ask yourself who would benefit ? No human is crying over the elimination of small pox, or polio. Except for for the eco terrorist. Jacque Cousteau said he wished he come back as a virus and kill everybody off. Such nice people. To the professor, you first.

    • Blaming airline executives for floods in Bangladesh is crazy. The entire country is build on a river delta. It already gets flooded every wet season, and that is before any global warming has happened.

    • Linkola (b. 1932) is an interesting case. He’s a retired fisherman and ornithologist, who was much revered and interviewed in 1980’s before the current red-green movement started. He was considered to be a philosopher on ecology and conservation, and later on he’s been a some kind of ugly mascott of green movement, which has been more and more eager to forget him.
      For sure he’s crazy as hell. In addition to being documentedly and seriously depressed, he’s been described by Hänninen & Hänninen as “maybe the only public person in Finland openly supporting fascism and dictatorship”. Numerous details reveal his murderous thinking. Green movement has had difficulties in taking distance to Linkola, and MSM has been very very kind to him given his pro-terrorism attitude.
      If you want to find a person who’d just kill people to “save nature”, Linkola is your choice. If you want to protect environment for your own good, Linkola is not your type.

  9. Just more confirmatory evidence that Progressives suffer from psychoses and other mental illnesses.
    Weins probably baked his brain too much in the Sonoran Desert sun.

    • It may be possible that the good perfesser has spent too much time in Biosphere 2. That greenhouse masquerading as an example of our planet would skew any ones mind.

    • I’m leaning more and more towards the hypothesis that CAGW belief is a side effect of dipsomania.

  10. Professor Wiens is clearly missing the bigger issue, which I shall now reveal below:
    CO2 Global Warming Skeptics Are Sexists
    First, Earth is feminine, as evidenced by numerous belief systems and as demonstrated by the popular characterization, “Mother Earth”. Earth is a celestial body, and the “body” of this planet, thus, is the body of a woman. Moreover, the body of this planet is a pregnant woman constantly bearing the fruits of agriculture, as well as all life now existing or ever known to exist.
    The Earth mother was born from a Big Bang, as science represents it, a time/space tunnel resembling … (well, you know), in which the seed of a singularity was fertilized in a cataclysmic cosmic orgasm. Mother Earth, then, was born of Mother Universe, and the atmosphere surrounding Her is Her skin. We humans, children of the Mother, should respect the boundaries of Her “skin”, and to do otherwise is to force our presence upon Her, committing a micro-raping of the atmosphere with each evil addition of our CO2, which, many times, belches out (how boy-like!) from phallic stacks, thrust into the atmosphere. CLEARLY, this is rape, because I say so, and anyone who thinks otherwise is most certainly (because I say so) an unsuspecting rapist of the Earth Mother, hence a sexist of the worst kind (i.e., a “mother f _ _ _ _ _”)
    Second, as fossil-fuel industrial users of Her (Mother Earth’s) resources, we continually marginalize Her sanctity in the name of fulfilling our hungers, much as we satisfy our carnal urges without giving thought to the consequences or our actions. CO2 that spews from phallic stacks (like unwanted sperm flowing where it is not welcome) aids any and all who pursue this selfish quest. CO2 industrialization is obviously a male embodiment to take advantage of a feminine resource. CO2 global warming skeptics, therefore, are (by their very natures) exploiters of women, NOT caring to be considerate of the cosmic female body upon whose very survival they depend.
    Third, by disabling the cosmic female body from evolving without continual, phallic-stack ravaging of her atmospheric flesh, we enslave Her as we would enslave any race. Consequently, CO2 global warming skeptics are racists, ESPECIALLY if they know that “consensus” science predicts Africa as the continent hardest hit by our phallic-stack, atmospheric-rape, CO2-belching ways.
    So, please, Professor, stop your species-diversity plea, and get with the REAL program!

  11. I guess I would tell him ‘what would you think if there was a country on the other side of the world that was releasing gas that was going to cause extinctions in our country, to hurt our crops and make people starve?’
    “He would say, ‘tell me where it is and we’ll bomb them tomorrow’. Then I’d say, ‘this is what we’re doing to other countries because we are the big polluters’.”
    Can he specify the gas which is causing this pollution? .CO 2 is carbon dioxide, a gas necessary for plant growth . Ecologists know that so he can’t logically mean that. So which gas is hurting crops and making people starve?
    Perhaps he can elucidate this report. Did he actually say any of this or is it just poor ‘science’ reporting.

  12. How do these dimwits get to be “professors”?
    (Sigh.) Try to become a professor while not being like that.
    The trouble with academia as a whole is not the overall concept of academia but that academia itself is startlingly shallow.
    Heck, while attempting determining what truth is they managed (at great cost in time, trouble, and treasure) somehow to forget what true is.

    • That appears to be false, but even it were, compared to the insane public ridicule and shaming that skeptics have suffered at the hands of the Chicken Little activists, there would seem to be little harm in asking someone the simple question of whether they have been involved with the leftist lunacy of climate change as that could impact their ability to work cohesively with the group as a whole whose goals may be different than there own.

    • They just don’t want scientists “singled out” like the scientists that lost their jobs for skeptical views.

      • More accurately they don’t want civil servants singled out for doing their job. If you boss
        asks you to attend a conference then you go. Threatening people for doing their job will
        not lead to better government in the long run. Civil servants need to be protected from such
        witch hunts. They are their to do the bidding of the government of the day irrespective of their
        own personal views.

        • Conversely though, there are activists who are working for the government in order to “save the planet”, and use their enforcement powers to do so. There is the notorious example of the Forest Service emplolyee who planted lynx hair in a study to try to ban logging in that part of forest. More on point with the EPA is enforcement decisions against farmers for having stock ponds and the like, or defining “wetlands” without typical marsh plants and the such.

    • Humanity needs an all-out assault on its enemies. Identifying suspects in the political corruption of science is just one small part of such.

      • And those pseudoscientists, ie the ringleaders of the CACA conspiracy, most responsible for the deaths of millions and squandering of trillions in treasure should go to jail.

      • Chimp, it is all too often those with their hands on the media buttons, whose bosses think like they do (or they would not be there to begin with, would they?) who are, in part, responsible for the stupidity of their gormless listeners. Those mindless twats who believe all the nonsense spouted by “their ABC” are also responsible for their own stupidity.
        Here in Oz, the ABC is the state broadcaster and it is thoroughly, utterly extreme leftist and corrupt in its reporting, and it is a behemoth that nobody knows how to stop. It is an enormous tumor threatening to completely engulf its victim, and succeeding! The numpties who have grown up in this wacko lefty environment do not know any better and think that they have independent thoughts, and all think the same things and fail to realise that it is evidence of a complete lack of their own independent thought processes. This mental laziness leads to mental atrophy and is self-perpetuating. This is the era of pushbutton knowledge, where you do not actually have to know anything because everything you (think) you need to know is just a button-click away. The overwhelming abundance of so-called “information” has led to underwhelming comprehension by the numptie class and a consequent gullibility, a susceptibility to all manner of indoctrination by the thought and language police, the SJW PC class. It is just like the bible describes… deceiving and being deceived.. willingly! They put the maxim, “a little knowledge can be a dangerous thing”, to the test again and again and it turns out to be absolutely true in this case.

    • Yes, Republicans need to get a clue and go on a scientific offensive. After all, science is on their side.
      I blame Republican bumbling and incompetence for allowing these insane exagerrations to get legs

      • “I blame Republican bumbling and incompetence for allowing these insane exagerrations to get legs”
        It’s politics. Every poll puts “Climate Change” either dead last or close, Politicians grease the squeaky wheel. That being said, I blame them as well.

    • What science is done at climate meetings? How is it anti-science to review and audit the activities and expenditures regarding one of the largest political-industrial complexes the world has ever known?

    • Like there is no revolving door or coordination between big green and various government agencies. Like the former head of the EPA’s climate policies is not a convicted con-artist.Like government employees are not accountable to their employer. You don’t speak for this skeptic.

    • People who are alarmed by this do not seem to know how agencies (organizations of any kind really) work. Only a fool would not find out what kind of work employees have been doing at the agency (company, non-profit, etc.) he will soon be running. Anyone who wants to hide what he is doing as a government employee and/or representative knows he is doing something wrong.

  13. ‘this is what we’re doing to other countries because we are the big polluters’.”

    Guess he never heard of China & India. Provincial Lout.

      • George, define ‘pollution’.
        If you were to include moral pollution, well, I could agree, but not so much the regular kind. Things were much worse in the 60’s. The boomers accomplished a lot in only 40 years.

  14. Kill us all off in the next ten years.This idiot must have a brain the size of a pimple in a wrinkle on a money spiders balls.

  15. Evolution is a chaotic process. Fortunately, we exist in a semi-stable environment.
    That said, the climate is evolving. The biologists are, too.

  16. Memo to Professor Wiens: Please stop smoking that stuff. It’s messing with your head
    This article reinforces my general view that a University is a sheltered workshop for the mentally abled

    • Those that can, do: those that can’t, teach: those that can’t teach become professors for those that will teach.

      • His was the higher aim, the broader reach:
        To teach men how to teach men how to teach.
        Sorry, can’t remember who wrote that.

      • Having published a paper many moons ago in the journal Ecology, I accept your apology. The trend has been that the more you talk about diversity the less you believe in it. Wonder what are his conceptual questions. Or even more, does he understand that they are conceptual.

    • What the f is “phylogenetics”? and the research that combines” laboratory, field, bioinformatic (???) and theoretical approaches?
      When somebody tells me he has a “theoretical” approach? To me he hasn’t got a clue what he is talking about or looking for and he/she is asking YOU for an answer so they can take the cradit!!

  17. Did nobody notice the article quoted in this post contradicts its own subhead, and consequently the title of this post? The article of the post says:

    Professor Wiens joked that if he ever got to meet Trump he would instruct him to “kill himself”, but when questioned again he gave a more serious answer.
    “I guess I would tell him ‘what would you think if there was a country on the other side of the world that was releasing gas that was going to cause extinctions in our country, to hurt our crops and make people starve?’
    “He would say, ‘tell me where it is and we’ll bomb them tomorrow’. Then I’d say, ‘this is what we’re doing to other countries because we are the big polluters’.”

    Which is different from the more eye-more catching phrasing:

    ‘Kill yourself immediately’

    Which as millions of people could tell you, is a popular meme on the internet. If you check different news sources, you’ll find contradictory reporting on just what this guy said, when and where he said it, as well as even how you spell the guy’s name. Shouldn’t people take a minute and try to sort of what was actually said before spreading stories? As it stands, it is impossible for anyone here to know what was actually said.

    • I wonder why he has no opprobrium for China? Ah. Maybe it is on the same “side” of the planet he is on.
      Funny. I was under the impression that sphere’s had one side.

      • In all likelihood, he was asked about Donald Trump so he talked about Donald Trump. That’s hardly surprising. Besides which, you have no idea what he might have had to say about China. That no quotes from him about China made it into a news article in no way indicates he said nothing about China.

      • “Funny. I was under the impression that sphere’s had one side.”
        A sphere has two sides, the inside and the outside. 🙂

      • A. Why did the chicken cross the road?
        B. I dunno.
        A. To get the Chinese newspaper. Do you get it?
        B. Well, uh, no.
        A. Neither do I. Neither does the chicken. That’s why he crossed the road.

    • Anybody who so clearly and decisively juxtaposes mass extinctions and human-caused climate change maybe merits having his name modified a bit. But, I digress.
      The phrase, “kill himself” (referring to Trump) was clearly attributed to the Professor, and I trust that the person who relayed this as a direct quote understands the legal consequences of false attribution.
      How the headline embellishes it seems of little consequence, since killing oneself has an immediate effect (death) anyhow. The “immediately” part, then, is redundant. Either way, the person is immediately dead. At worst, therefore, this is poor usage. At best, it is taking artistic license to create a more dramatic effect.
      The theatre of journalism does not always favor the high road of precision [understatement ?].

      • To be clear, your position is this news outlet falsified a quote but you that they only did so to an extent that left the intended meaning intact. Given that trust, you defend the use of a fake quote. I hope you’ll understand why some people might not be so trusting and instead be skeptical of any story which uses fake quotes.
        But even if one isn’t skeptical of this article at all, misquoting people is wrong. Everyone should be able to come together and agree people should be quoted accurately.

      • Brandon, you are correct. I hold that he may have been misquoted. It may have been 1000% of 47 species and provided my mathematical interpretation above.

      • How about just calling up Dr. Wiens on Monday and asking him what he said and under what circumstances?

      • Chimp, by Monday, nobody will care what he said. The story will have come and gone. Even if it turned out he had actually said, “I think the world would be a better place if you killed yourself, though I don’t want you to,” by Monday, it wouldn’t matter. Few people who heard about the story and got upset would even hear about any correction that got made.
        That’s why journalists are supposed to put a lot of effort into verifying the things they write. They know how important getting things right the first time is.

        • Generally Shellenberger, headings and subheadings are written not by the actual authors of the piece but by the subeditors. I’m sure you are well aware of that.
          It is very noticeable that you have written several posts nit-picking the heading, and nothing whatsoever pertaining to the the professor’s actual quotes, so you are clearly making a desperate attempt to direct attention away from that content.
          Why am I not surprised?

      • “How about just calling up Dr. Wiens on Monday and asking him what he said and under what circumstances?”
        I would hope that the US Secret Service, who are responsible for the protection of the President Elect, will do just that. At length.

    • Leaving aside the issue of “contradictory reporting on just what this guy said” on other news sources (not that you provided any news sources or instances of “contradictory reporting,” and not that I can find any “contradictory reporting” at first glance of a google search)…
      It is not impossible at all. The direct quote says he would tell him to “kill himself,” i.e., Wiems said he would direct the words “kill yourself” to Trump. As you noted, “kill yourself immediately” is a popular meme. Not very difficult to inject that into the headline. Makes it far-more light-hearted and makes him look more like a simple douchebag as opposed to a radical whackjob.
      Meme aside…isn’t “immediately” pretty much understood? Does anyone ever say, “kill yourself next Tuesday” or “kill yourself at the next full moon?”

      • Michael Jankowski, (at least) one of the two quotes in the news article used for this post is fake. One could give naive odds the headline of this post uses a falsified quote. That’s not okay. It’s not okay if such a falsified quote is then spread across social media due to things like this site’s Twitter account using it as its hook.
        It’s a simple matter of standards. When fake quotes are promoted in the same fashion as real quotes, it is impossible to tell which quotes are actually real. That’s why everyone should agree to a standard in which quotations must be accurate.
        If I see a news article has used a fake quote, I don’t trust anything it says. If they can’t accurately report what someone says, why should I believe they are reporting anything accurately?

      • I have no doubt he said what he said. My only doubts are that what he said has been reported accurately. Comparing the quotations provided in the news article for this post shows at least one is fake. If somebody can direct us to actual documentation of what he said, such as a recording (if spoken) or printed copy (if written), then we can know what he said.
        Otherwise all we have is somebody’s reporting of what he said. If that reporting is not credible, then how can we be sure what was actually said?

    • The headline could be the result of sloppy editing with an unintended result. The original statement may have been

      Professor Wiens joked that if he ever got to meet Trump he would immediately instruct him to “kill himself”,
      but when questioned again he gave a more serious answer.

      i.e. his more serious answer would not be immediate, it would be after some reflection.

    • Brandon,
      It’s a good point that “kill yourself immediately” appears to be an embellishment of “kill yourself”, based on the quote contained in the article. An embellishment isn’t the same as a contradiction, but certainly should be avoided. I was curious by your mention of different accounts, though. The first one I found through google was an account by the Independent. All the words contained in the yahoo quotes you gave were found in this article, and given that the yahoo article states “according to the Independent” for the local extinctions, I assume that the yahoo article is drawn directly from it. (The Independent gives considerably more detail on this subject, and attributes it to the professor’s PLOS biology article.)
      While the words in the quotes you gave are found in the Independent article, there are more words in the quote in the Independent article. The bad-country-hypothetical part of the quote has two additional paragraphs, displaying the same absurd certainty and ludicrous conclusions the hypothetical already displayed:
      “People are already having serious problems with food security. People are going to die and it’s going to be the fault of our country and other big polluters.
      “There is no question he would militarily intervene against a country that was doing to us what we are doing to other countries.”
      But what of the first quote, to “kill yourself”, wickedly embellished by yahoo’s headline and subheading when they reprocessed the Independent original article? That’s just one word longer, and you can just guess what the missing word is:
      “Kill yourself immediately.”
      The Independent gives that as “joked grimly”, and also attributes “jokingly suggested” to the UK invading the US or the USA and Canada switching leaders. The question that prompted the bad-country-hypothetical is given as asking what he would really say. That his sentiment is a joke can’t be drawn from his words, nor does the Independent give us any reason to think Wiens himself described his sentiment as a joke. At most, by giving a different answer to what he’d “really say” he acknowledges that he wouldn’t *say* it to trump. But given the tenor of his remarks I would be very, very surprised if he didn’t want Trump to do it.
      I’ll admit that there may be errors, even misquotes, in the Independent article–I’ve never read a media account of a meeting I’ve personally attended that managed to get everything right. The Independent article is attributed to Ian Johnston, environmental correspondent and dated 9 Dec. But aside from the ever-present possibility of media incompetence, is there any reason to believe that the “kill yourself immediately” quote Ian gave is incorrect? Looking through the first few pages of google results I found a number of papers that repeated, word-for-word, an unattributed copy of Ian Johnston’s article. IBT has a shorter article by Hannah Osborne with the same date, she gives the quote as “kill yourself immediately”. She also says that Weims was speaking to the “Independent News & Media”, which again points directly back to the Independent. That’s where I stopped looking. Do you have any reason to believe the Independent article is not the original?
      In short — the yahoo article is a rehash, and does not contain the “kill yourself immediately” it used in the headline (and was consequently used in the article here). But the Independent article which seems to be the original *does* contain that line.

      • Who died and left this professor in charge ? I suppose if he had his way, he’d appoint whoever agreed with his views. Forbid that anyone should think anything different. Naturally, Trump isn’t on the the same page or in the the book. Evidently, this professor is not in possession of his facilities, who in their right mind would advocate or try to stir up a war, based bluntly on lies ? ( thankfully I proof read, and still miss some, instead of Who died, it somehow became you died… it’s Who died)

      • Dale S:

        I was curious by your mention of different accounts, though. The first one I found through google was an account by the Independent. All the words contained in the yahoo quotes you gave were found in this article, and given that the yahoo article states “according to the Independent” for the local extinctions, I assume that the yahoo article is drawn directly from it. (The Independent gives considerably more detail on this subject, and attributes it to the professor’s PLOS biology article.)

        If you had asked me yesterday, I’d have been able to give you a list of examples of how this matter has been reported in a number of different ways. Unfortunately, I don’t have the time to go back through the articles I Had open yesterday because it’s Saturday, and I’m headed out shortly.
        It’s actually something I’m interested enough in that I plan to write a blog post about it tomorrow evening. If you check out my site in ~30 hours (click on my name to find it), you should be able to find a fairly thorough discussion. In the meantime, one example of what I am talking about can be found here:

        But what of the first quote, to “kill yourself”, wickedly embellished by yahoo’s headline and subheading when they reprocessed the Independent original article? That’s just one word longer, and you can just guess what the missing word is:
        “Kill yourself immediately.”

        AS a preview, what you’ll find is this quote has been reported in at least four different forms: “kill himself,” “kill himself immediately,” “kill yourself,” “kill yourself immediately.” A variety of other changes between the stories not tied directly to the quotation exist as well. The Independent article you refer to might be accurate, but given the circumstances, I’m not inclined to make any guesses.
        What I will say is stories which use fake quotes should not be the basis for blog posts unless the inaccuracies of the quotes are discussed I don’t think this particular case would change much if things were reported accurately, but I also don’t think that matters to my point. My point is simply that fake quotes shouldn’t be used and promoted. If you don’t know what somebody said, just don’t’ give a quotation from them.

      • Dale S, that post is now live, though I changed the focus of it quite a bit (and had to delete a fair amount of what I had written) because I discovered The Independent has secretly deleted any reference to any such quotation in its article. The obvious inference is it screwed up by posting false information and is now trying to cover its error up. You can see my discussion of this here:
        At this point, I don’t think anyone can reasonably believe there is any credibility to the idea Professor Wiens said what he was quoted as saying. By all appearances, this story is nothing more than a bunch of people breathlessly rushing to spread a quotation they saw which was actually fabricated.

        • I dont care what he said about Trump. I try to avoid politics and wish this blog would too. But his statements on extinctions and climate change are ludicrous

      • I can;t believe people are having a fit about this one scientist making a joke about telling Trump to “kill himself” when Trump himself has siad so many awful things, tweeted so many awful things, and been caught on video tape saying truly reprehensible stuff. Trump has advocated bombing differnent places, grabbing women;s genitals, putting political opponents in jail, etc….but one private citizen makes a joke about what he’d say to Trump if Trump actually talked to him, and everyoen is freaking out. Note, Wiens did not advocate using force against Trump. He said if Trump asked him what he should do, tht’s what he’d say to him (remember free speech, y’all?) tht he kill himself, and he made it as a joke by making it clear he knew Trump would pay no attnetion to anything he said. In other words, Wiens knew full well his remark to Trump to kill himself would not be taken seriously by Trump or anyone. Yet Trump is a person with real power, who adovocated grabbing women by the genitals…not aksing them to grab themself or some such but physicaly assaulting them. He’s also advocated the use of military force against other countries and the use of jailt time agianst opponenets. Trump says scarier things than Dr Wiens does all the time, and has the power to back it up. Where is the outrage about that?

  18. Daddy, daddy, what does a sore loser say to the winner?
    Well, little one, if he’s not a big boy like you he says what Professor Wiens says.

  19. …the 6th mass extinction will kill us all off in the next ten years, regardless of what we do.
    New York Times Headline “World to end in 10 years. Poor and minorities hardest hit” – Old joke from the 1980’s

  20. The good Professor must live in the city. Our local State Capital doesn’t have much mega fauna left, although it’s still there.
    In my small town in Australia, there is a problem with these big 1.5m tall kangaroos, there is about 20 of them in town. There was a giant 2m lizard hunting just down the road. There is a huge number of sea turtles nesting on the local beaches. The coral has just spawned (it’s next to the Great Barrier Reef). The 1m birds were fighting in the storm out front last night.
    And the greenery despite the lack of rain – the monsoons are late this year (came last night). CO2 has had a big impact on this marginal country. For the better.
    Recently visited South Australia. They don’t have this diversity of life. The Greens had also chopped a lot of trees down for the windmills. But I guess that’s the price of “sustainability”.

    • Hey, Peter. Where do you live? Sounds bloody great, mate!!! I’m tired of this ridiculous winter-in-summer thing going on here in central Victoria. Each summer for the past few years I have had to fire up the wood fire several times, more often each year. That ever-expanding polar weather system and the encroaching Rossby waves (the roaring 40’s should soon be renamed the roaring 30’s) are making this place unbearable. Must be all that global warm(onger)ing making it really cold. Time for a climate change of my own!

  21. I see an opening for the Progs to revive Bushido.
    The slightest insult to Gaia, like stepping on endangered insect, or forgetting to recycle, could require immediate harakiri,
    They like multi-cultural stuff.
    We’ll have to allow them access to sharp objects.
    Or maybe not.(see 1962 movie Harakiri)

  22. “Professor Wiens joked that if he ever got to meet Trump he would instruct him to “kill himself”, but when questioned again he gave a more serious answer.
    “I guess I would tell him ‘what would you think if there was a country on the other side of the world that was releasing gas that was going to cause extinctions in our country, to hurt our crops and make people starve?’”
    The first thing I would do, if I were Trump, is ask Professor Wiens what evidence he has to prove the validity of his claims.

    • I want to know which gas he is talking about. It. Clearly isn’t CO2 as that doesn’t “hurt our crops”.
      Similarly, Donald Trump is reported to “refute climate change” in the article. Really? I guess the journo thought they were being sneaky by not calling Trump a denier. Says it all about the standard of journalism, doesn’t it.

    • the evidence he has is years and years of scientific research and study. Why don’t you people have any respect for education, hard work, and research? It counts for a lot more than just mouthing off about things you know nothing about. The harm caused by environmental disasters is a reality, that has been proven time and again by respected scientists, who actually go out and study these things, instead of just siting around talking out their asses about things they know nothing about.

      • A bad diagnosis is worse than NO diagnosis in medicine. Hence the Hippocratic Oath. Science is the same way. Years and years of research with faulty data is worse than no research.

  23. Biologist to President-Elect Trump: “Kill yourself immediately”
    Normal people to biologist: “You first.”

  24. “47 per cent of almost 1000 species had suffered local extinctions linked to climate change, according to the Independent.”
    This is unsurprising when one considers that every heatwave, coldsnap, storm, drought, hurricane, tornado, volcano, earthquake, disease, sexual distinction, parasite, infestation, terror attack, war, etc is blamed on global warming.
    I suppose the only surprise is that extinctions are 100% caused by global warming

  25. That’s odd. I thought increased CO2 and lengthened growing seasons would be good for crops. But then, I’m not a smart professor.

  26. What the Professor really fears is the extinction of the 97% of scientists who have left themselves exposed to the reality of the elements

    • Evolutionary success isn’t just surviving however, but reproducing.
      If a Trump administration can financially select for real scientists against fake ones, then scientists will become more fit.

  27. I also wonder how these dimwits become professors. I live in central MN and we had slightly above average summer temps accompanied with above average rain. The result? My cousin told me his farm set a record for bushels of soybeans per acre – 60. Warm and wet is good. Cold is bad. Bumper crop good! Crop failure bad! Ice age bad!! Warm period good!!! HELLO!!

  28. 47% of species have suffered local extinction?
    I would venture to say that no species on earth has noticed anything due to AGW. Nothing. The changes are simply too small to notice. The difference in climatology between my front yard and back yard are greater than the cumulative total off ALL historic anthropogenic climate change.
    Why dont the animals die when they move from a hill to a cold air drainage basin?
    Does this moron biologist know anything about Arizona microclimates ?

  29. Back in the 1960’s I was informed by academics that all life on earth would become extinct in less than 20 years if Air pollution wasn’t stopped. I’m sure in another 50 years my grandchildren will be told the same thing.

  30. Richard Feynman once said that extreme claims require extreme proof. Nuff said.
    But…we could use a little extirpation of the wild hogs that are destroying our local RC airplane field!

    • High concept!
      Trump resorts and hotels powered by nuclear energy, with pools heated by stored spent rods!
      Just think of the amphibian evolution that could be fueled by all that radiation.

  31. There is a risk of extinction and it is rising. However, not one of these species is endangered by climate change. Instead, they are endangered by the usual suspects:
    1) Over hunting/over fishing (as well as over-hunting/over-fishing of a primary food source.)
    2) Habitat destruction due to mostly a growth of farming and cities.
    3) Toxic pollution (as apposed to carbon dioxide) which is particularly harmful to coral reefs.
    4) Invasive species.
    Climate change is a fear, not a real cause. Scientists fear that species will be affected by warming, but (so far) they’ve adapted to it. However, far more significant is the distraction of climate change as opposed to taking basic conservation efforts which are needed.
    Climate change is a red herring on species extinction — any legitimate environmental biologist should understand this basic fact.

  32. By Wiens’ standards, the US should definitely attack China, for what it is doing to us. The US isn’t the country producing all that life-giving CO2.

  33. Various proxies show that the temperature in previous interglacials have been as much as six degrees above what they are now. link If such temperatures could cause extinctions, it is a miracle that there is any life left on the planet.
    What does the good professor think will happen when we swing into the next glaciation?

  34. All I hear is screaming for research grants. Unfortunately, after you start to predict imminent mass extinction, you cannot ramp it up further. People get tired of listening to these psychotic tantrums and tune it out.

  35. Why would an evolutionary biologist care about life being wiped out? Got here by accident , leave here on purpose. Lol.

    • Were he around during the Great Oxygen Catastrophe, he plead, what about all those anaerobes?
      If during the Great Dying, what about all those mammal-like reptiles?
      If during the K/T, what about all those poor dinosaurs?

  36. The climate extremist kooks are so lost into circular reasoning and have sold it so well. Disabusing the kooks like this latest example from Arizona presents a real challenge.

  37. Stupendous reverse snobbism here Eric. Masterful trolling.
    May the Dunning – Kruger effect be with you.

  38. “The Arizona University scientist found that 47 per cent of almost 1000 species..”
    Show me the bodies!!!!

  39. Everytime I read a phrase like “disputes the existence of climate change” I realize I’m reading propaganda since of course that phrase makes less than zero sense. It’s the alarmists that are disputing climate change. Anytime a clear definition of something keeps changing as the propaganda isn’t working, that in and of itself is a clear indicator of evil intent.
    I’ll be glad when the ‘swamp is drained’ of these illogical doublespeak peeps.

    • Exactly, if these clowns didn’t have their heads so far up their behinds while chanting their moronic monastic chants, they might possibly realize that Trump is the exact opposite of a person who denies that the climate changes.

      • With their heads up there, just apply a powerful vacuum cleaner to their belly buttons and… swoosh! Another local extinction!

  40. Can you imagine if this was said about Obama! He’d lose his job and be jailed. You can say anything about a republican but you can’t say a word about a democrap

  41. LOL _ I am thinking Wiens should have his credentials invalidated immediately. One would suggest an ‘Evolutionary Biologist’ SHOULD realise that attacking the Prime Male who is about to control pretty much everything to do with Wiens survival is distinctly NOT a valid evolutionary choice.
    There should be a requirement that academics cannot become such until they have made their way in a world without windows… i.e. the Real World. From recommendations such as the guy who isn’t even the PotUS yet should kill himself to recommending paedophilia, the academic world seems hellbent on divorcing itself from the rest of Humanity.

    • I completely agree, Mark–Wiens’ statement wherein he infers that CO2 is “going to cause extinctions in our country, to hurt our crops and make people starve” has got to be so void of common sense (say nothing of scientific validity) that his doctorate degree should be rescinded.

      • Even NASA is saying CO2 is HELPING growth, not harming it. In fact so far that’s been the only evidence I’ve found of CO2 having an effect at all and it’s a positive one.

  42. ‘john’ you forgot to mention the shape shifting lizards, they are at least responsible for some of all our ills.

  43. The professor is on the right track concerning extinctions. There are in fact some massive extinctions underway right now. They involve rhinos, tigers, African elephant and numerous other large land animals. And some sea creatures, too.
    But these extinctions are due to overhunting by humans, habitat destruction by humans, pollution caused by humans, and other pressures caused by human action; but not the burning of fossil fuels.
    Indeed, none of these real and ongoing animal extinctions are due to anthropogenic global warming. Why do the warmists ignore these facts?

  44. Meditations on ‘SIGILLVM VNIVERSITATIS ARIZONENSIS’ (hope that lamp of knowledge is solar powered)
    On the wheel and the plow
    And the sun is going down
    Upon the sacred cow
    and perhaps
    Brother don’t you worry
    Don’t you worry
    Don’t you worry
    See what my lord has done
    Brother don’t stop prayin
    Sister don’t stop prayin
    Sister don’t stop prayin
    See what my lord has done.
    Keep your lamp trimmed and burnin’
    Keep your lamp trimmed and burnin’
    Keep your lamp trimmed and burnin’
    See what my lord has done
    Keep your lamp trimmed and burnin’
    Keep your lamp trimmed and burnin’
    Keep your lamp trimmed and burnin’
    See what my lord has done

  45. Who believes in freedom?
    I believe in freedom!
    No definition of freedom is complete, without the freedom to take the consequences.
    It’s the ultimate freedom upon which all the others are based.
    Social justice warriors, such as this environmental defective professor, are just not willing to accept the consequences of their words or actions. They are cowards.
    When he was questioned, J. Weins whined he was only joking, revealing that he is not willing to stand strong on his expressed beliefs. This retraction won’t exonerate him. His card is marked. There will be secret service consequences down the road.

      • No, no. This is exactly the sort of tripe that Eric Worrall likes to wallow around in. The more post-truthiness the better. The cheap, click-bait crap he posts here inevitably brings out the best in people.
        [like you, for example – Anthony]

        • “This is exactly the sort of tripe that Eric Worrall likes to wallow around in.”
          Seems Eric’s really got your number doesn’t it, Tony?
          But hey, that’s all you’re capable of, messenger shooting, isn’t that right?

      • It’s gone thank goodness, my thanks to the mods.
        One I remember was blame for concentration camps which I think is one of the many things usually blamed on us wicked Brits although Wiki has this ‘The first modern concentration camps in the United States were created in 1838’. Let’s leave it there.

    • Agreed, but more than just objectionable, malicious and in violation of site policy. I’ve removed it, rather than snip it, so that there’s no approved comment. Fake commenter. Also made a change to spam filter so that comments like this don’t make it into the open without being flagged.

  46. The extraordinary thing is that there is a country which is doing exactly what the professor complains about. It is indeed on the other side of the world. It is called China.
    And what do the greens say about it? Nothing. Do they want China to reduce? Not really, they are perfectly content to let it go from 10 billion tons to 15 billion or more. Because its fair. Whereas, for the US to emit 5 billion is destroying civilisation and perhaps life on earth.
    Its insane.

  47. LOL…. Did this tool of a Professor just threaten the President Elect of the United States of America?….. Because I’m pretty sure he just found himself put on the no fly list and a quite a few other lists too. The dummy.

  48. Just another one of the “educational elite” suffering a cogdissy fit. More indication that a significant percentage of the the population currently suffers from one or more mental disorders.

      • I think the disease comes first, and then causes “leftinia”, resulting in exacerbation of the malady as a result of close, continual contact with others suffering from leftinia, resulting in the extreme form, “hyperbolic leftinia”, an acute fungal infection leading to total mental paralysis.and with a side effect of Tourette syndrome when in the presence of intelligent beings.

    • Should have mentioned – the S1 Appendix linked at the bottom of the paper is an Excel file with a complete list of the species looked at, and which studies looked at which species (Wiens’ paper is apparently a meta-analysis of 27 studies which looked at variations in species population range and tied them to climate change).

    • Thank you for the link to the paper. All these extinctions are based on climate models. So, the predictions must be accurate! (sarc)

  49. “I guess I would tell him ‘what would you think if there was a country on the other side of the world that was releasing gas that was going to cause extinctions in our country, to hurt our crops and make people starve?’
    “He would say, ‘tell me where it is and we’ll bomb them tomorrow’.
    No, Trump would say, “Yes, I know because I have worked a great deal with China and Chinese suppliers. This is one reason I would like to move production back to the US where that is practical, because we can do a better job of working in a way which will protect our small planet.”

  50. So this guy doesn’t get a visit from the Secret Service? What? I suppose we should follow his lead! Let’s rid ourselves of Climate Warmist, in his position. Would not that be their example to the Deniers? If HRC had been elected, would not the same professor be embolden to do worst? The pendulum must swing both ways. The distance traveled by the pendulum is almost as great as the first swing. Given a push, it will travel further than the last….no? The left has created the momentum by which the pendulum swings to the right. We should take full advantage of such. And then thank them for the opportunity.
    Let me be the first….thank you Warmist for this opportunity to crush you as you desired to crush us Deniers. No more so, but surly, no less.

    • Hmm,, i wonder if Trump’s comments about grabbing women by the pussy has been forwarded to police stations around the country along with his picture and description as a self-proclaimed sexual predator. We actually have his comments on audio tape, not to mention the many accusations of his sexual misconduct from a variety of women. I think Trump poses more of a threat than dr Wiens does….

      • That is called freedom of speech. The odd thing about freedom of speech is that it does not protect speech you like, but speech you do not like. And it is not illegal.
        However the actions are. And that was Bill Clinton. Guess we dodged a bullet by making sure he was not doing it again in the Whitehouse!

  51. Not expecting less from anyone linking local events to man-made climate change conjecture. After all, the latter is observable only globally over decades by their own definition.

  52. Rather than just engage in ad hominem. It would be much more effective to read the original research and show that both Wiens and the Independent draw absolutely incredible conclusions from the original research. To begin with Wiens definition of “local extinctions” is so tortured, one wonders how this ever got through peer review (until one remembers that PLOS is a pay to play journal). Then, the “data” come from a secondary analysis of published articles, Wiens alone seemed to pick to suit is purposes. He did not actually directly see, taste, touch, feel, or hear any of the 1000 highly localized local populations (good lord not entire “species”) he references in the article. Junk science meets hysterical alrmist reporting. This shoddiness of the work would be a better target than the person who did the work.

  53. It is comforting to know that I’ll get all of my Social Security, and pension, and I won’t outlive my savings (which are meager at best), since we’re all going to be dead in ten years (Guy McPherson). I was afraid I was going to linger well past the exhaustion of the Social Insecurity Trust Fund. Now I have hope.
    And maybe Wiens should take his own advice, since he’s so adamant. It is so funny how these envirowackos always want someone else to do the “heavy lifting” , and won’t do any themselves.

  54. I think it has to be asked:
    “What difference at this point does it make?”
    Seriously, if we’re all dead in 10 to 50 years, then Trump is absolutely the man for the job because it makes no difference at all.

  55. Imagine this headline instead: “Majority of local extinctions due to natural climate change, says UofA Prof.”

  56. I believe the re-emergence of non-politicized science will result in a targeted mass extinction limited to those preaching unsupportable conclusions about “climate change”.

  57. This is exactly why, common core should be eliminated from every school and university. The teachers became a completely idiots lefties.

  58. Well, that’s a relief. It’s a slow news day, and I worried I was going to have to finally go a day without a leftist death-wish.
    Silly me!

    • Marlene, are you making a death threat against Dr. Wiens? IS this part of the intimidation of scientists that so many societies engage in? I saw this kind of thing first hand in the mid east…if you don’t agree with what someone says, just threaten to kill them. How wonderful to see that that kind of bullying and fear-mongering is at work here in the US as well.

  59. We have to look at the positive angle here. If goofballs like Wiens weren’t safely sequestered in the Halls of Academia, they’d be loose on the streets.

  60. ““I guess I would tell him ‘what would you think if there was a country on the other side of the world that was releasing gas that was going to cause extinctions in our country, to hurt our crops and make people starve?’”
    Ummmm it’s called CHINA and no we can’t bomb them because they have nukes too.
    Second “hurt our crops”?? WTF?? Greater drought resistance and growth due to extra CO2 is “hurting” our crops? In what way?
    Absolutely gobsmacked by the arrogance and ignorance of this prof. Wow. Just wow.

  61. Prof. Wiens is prolific and delusional, a dangerous combination. His latest book is a collection of rediculous screeds ( ). His chapter on sea level (don’t bother to read it, certainly don’t buy it) doesn’t once mention the measurement of sea level over the last century, except to say “sea levels have risen some 20 cm over the past century” (roughly true as best we can measure) and “the rate of increase has doubled over the last two decades” (false). I visited the University of Arizona last year and toured one of their labs (not biology) and have a high respect for some of their scientists. Not this one.

  62. It has already been proven that azz hats like you made up this climate change thing. So do us all a favor and shut up.

    • So the vast majority of scientists believe in climate change…actual educated people who do research, not just idiots who cruise the net and form their science from whatever . Climate change is not “made up”. What’s laughable is how the effects of climate change are starting to change people’s lives,in overall negative ways, but they still refuse to believe in it. You can’t argue with idiots i guess.

      • The vast majority of Rosicrucians believe there is such a thing as ‘black magic’. The vast majority of searchers for Sasquatch believe that a primordial great ape roams the forests. The vast majority of UFO enthusiasts believe that little green men fly around in saucers. The vast majority of children believe in Santa Claus. Three billion Muslims believe that Big Mo was the perfect man. I suppose, therefore, that in your mind these ‘vast majorities’ make it true. Do you have any evidence to suggest that a ‘vast majority’ of scientists share the same ludicrous proposals? Do you have ANY idea what a LOGICAL FALLACY is?

      • Marie,
        No one knows what share of the millions of scientists in the world “believe in climate change”. They have not all been surveyed. The bogus “97%” lie is based upon a poll of 10,257 scientists, of whom 3146 responded and 79 were selected by the conductors of the survey.
        Of these 79 cherry-picked “climate scientists”, 77 answered yes to Question 1: “When compared with pre-1800s levels, do you think that mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant?” Most skeptics would say the same.
        Of these 77 respondents, 75 also answered yes to Question 2: “Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?” Again, some skeptics might even agree with this statement, but it’s practically meaningless, since “significant” isn’t quantified. Does it mean five, ten, 25, 50% or more of whatever “climate change” has actually been observed?
        The other 3067 respondents answered “yes” to both questions at lower rates.
        But science isn’t based upon voting. It’s based upon making predictions subject to test, which are capable of being shown false. On that score, man-made “climate change” fails miserably.

      • “What’s laughable is how the effects of climate change are starting to change people’s lives,in overall negative ways,”
        Yep, like this:
        Carbon Dioxide Fertilization Greening Earth, Study Finds
        From a quarter to half of Earth’s vegetated lands has shown significant greening over the last 35 years largely due to rising levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide, according to a new study published in the journal Nature Climate Change on April 25.
        Or this:
        You haven’t the first clue what you’re wittering about, have you?

      • One of the uneducated overly believing types on here is you Marie. Obviously, you don’t follow what goes on here. Almost all the people here are degreed and have made some meaningful inquiries into what is passed off as climate science. I haven’t seen anywhere you have presented anything in the way of ideas. You are just another one of those that appeal to authority with the ability to copy and paste. Explain how someone can write a paper using data from NOAA showing that co2 follows temperature, and NOAA changes the data. Explain that. While you are at it, explain how global temperature drops, where does that energy go ? It takes 100 years for the temperature to rise 0.8 C and drops 0.5 C in 6 months. Why isn’t co2 holding the heat ? Is it being transferred Somewhere? Tell me the process, we all want to know. Perhaps it’s hiding in the deep ocean, or maybe there’s a tropical hotspot. I’d like to here your spin on that. Similar how global warming makes it colder. You should put on a white lab coat and stand up for science. What do you know ?

      • Please tell us about some ways that human caused climate change is affecting peoples’ lives. What exactly has changed…be quantatative… and explain how that has caused hardship.
        Then, explain what concrete steps you would take to mitigate the changes. Quantatative cost/benefit analysis would be informative

        • Mary Brown

          Please tell us about some ways that human caused climate change is affecting peoples’ lives. What exactly has changed…be quantatative… and explain how that has caused hardship.

          Well, EVERYBODY on earth (now some 7 billion of us) are enjoying MORE food, MORE fuel, MORE fodder, MORE farms and MORE fruitful lives with MORE plants and MORE growth of larger trees, plants, and ALL green growing things worldwide – ALL growing 12 – 27% FASTER, TALLER, HIGHER, and MORE PRODUCTIVELY – due to the recent release of MORE CO2 from the earth’s reserves of long-fossilized carbon into the atmosphere. So, some 8-12% of those 7 billion are getting fed directly from the extra CO2 and the longer growing seasons of a slightly warmer planet.
          And the remaining 5 billion are getting fed, clothed, sheltered, and granted clean drinking water and rational sewage disposal due to fossil fuel. So, no fossil fuels = 4 billion deaths.
          Not a bad trade, I’d say.
          Especially given that there are NO problems associated with the recent release of CO2 into the atmosphere …. All gain. 5 billion lives improved. No bad, not bad at all.

        • In addition, it would help if Marie were to describe what her perception of “climate” actually is.
          Her perception might not conform to the definition which is “the composite or generally prevailing weather conditions of a REGION, such as temperature, air pressure, humidity, precipitation, sunshine, cloudiness, and winds, throughout the year, averaged over a series of thirty years or more.” Climate can be quantified with metrics such as the Koppen-Geiger classification, or the Trewartha classification (or Alisov, Holdridge, or Vahl)
          So a necessary step is to identify a region, and determine whether the classification has changed in the last hundred years or so. If that is the case, try to determine whether that is due to land use, urban sprawl, or natural variation.
          See, the Earth doesn’t have a “climate” any more than it has a global language or a global currency. The only way to determine whether a parameter such as a climate has changed is to compare with identical metrics.

      • The problem with the claim “ALL green growing things worldwide – ALL growing 12 – 27% FASTER, TALLER, HIGHER, and MORE PRODUCTIVELY” is twofold.

        The first is that WEEDS are also benefiting, and the weeds DECREASE food production.
        The second is that you are attributing these benefits strictly to CO2 when in fact it is a multi-variate dependancy , and you cannot prove 100% of the benefits come ONLY from CO2. (i.e. irrigation, fertilizers, improved strains, etc.)

        • And you cannot prove that ALL the benefits do NOT come from increased CO2. However, there are 2 problems with your claims.
          #1 – No one is claiming 100% cause and effect. They are looking at a statistical relationship based upon established biological facts and coming up with a r2 value in excess of .95 that shows SOME relationship,.
          #2 – Weeds are a problem at ANY CO2 level, and farmers have gotten very good at controlling them. You even contradict yourself on that, by saying other factors MAY be contributing to higher yields!

        • “The first is that WEEDS are also benefiting, and the weeds DECREASE food production.”
          Assuming we have been warming since 1960, this would appear to show otherwise.

          The second is that you are attributing these benefits strictly to CO2 when in fact it is a multi-variate dependancy , and you cannot prove 100% of the benefits come ONLY from CO2. (i.e. irrigation, fertilizers, improved strains, etc.)”
          Take it up with NASA.
          “Carbon Dioxide Fertilization Greening Earth, Study Finds
          From a quarter to half of Earth’s vegetated lands has shown significant greening over the last 35 years largely due to rising levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide, according to a new study published in the journal Nature Climate Change on April 25.

      • Climate change is eternal. It happened before the advent of Homo Sapiens, and it will happen after they are gone. You do not need “years and years” of science to tell you that. So you are claiming he wasted his life. Not a bad supposition given his penultimate pronouncement is for the President Elect to kill himself.

      • “Have you ever done any gardening?”
        Certainly have.
        Have you ever done any farming?
        Don’t bother answering that, you very clearly haven’t.

  63. I live in Tucson, home of the pathetic, below-average institution called the “University” (haha) of Arizona, and it really disgusts me that my taxpayer’s dollars are going towards the salary of this dimwit.
    I do believe in freedom of thought, but most of the communists who are utterly unaccountable to we Arizona taxpayers, themselves are devout Stalinists who never believed in freedom of speech unless it agreed with theirs.
    We must clean out these rat nests!!

    • Seriously, so now you are resorting to calling people you disagree with communists? Or Stalinists? Wow, how original. And how stupid. Where in any of this has communism come into the picture? How does an economic system get dragged into this? Anyways, Dr. Wiens is not a communist, and unless having an IQ above 160 quailfies one as a dimwit, he is not a dimwit either. He happens to agree and support freedom of speech very much. Even the freedom of speech of ill informed, idiotic folks like most of the people posting here.
      I assume you’d only be happy if your tax dollars were going to a University where everyone agreed with you..whatever your idealogy is…It appears your idealogy is to ignore scientific evidence, and try to spin climate change as something good because you can cherry pick a few not so harmful results and ignore the bigger picture. And i guess you’d outlaw communism in your University. Although how that squares with freedom of speech and freedom of thought i dont know, It’s not actually illegal to be a communist, or a Muslim, or an educated scientist, or a socialist, though you’d never know that from reading some of these comments.

      • And freedom of speech like calling for your opponents death? Actually no one is claiming he violated any laws. So your crutch on free speech is off base. He has the freedom to make a fool of himself. And he jumped into that hole head first.
        What amuses me is that all the things you accuse others here of are not in evidence. Ridicule at stupidity is also protected by the right you want to trample on, except when it is something you agree with.

  64. Kind of the Progressive solution for everything, isn’t it. Ninety percent human population reduction solves a lot of problems. Kind of a Gordian knot solution perhaps, but remember, guys like Prof Wiens never seem to consider themselves part of the ninety percent that’s gotta go. But they do seem to like Final Solutions.

  65. For all the people who have been apathetic toward me pointing out this piece uses at least one fake quotation, I have a fascinating update. A while after I started posting about how at least one of the quotations provided must be fake, The Independent secretly edited its piece on this story to delete any mention of or reference to any version of the quotation. Their article no longer makes any mention of the idea anyone told Donald Trump to kill himself, and they provide no indication their story has been changed.
    This is dishonest and unethical. It would also seem to confirm that a fabricated quote was used. Given The Independent has removed any and all versions of the quotation from their piece, it is entirely plausible Professor Wiens never said anything like what got so many people riled up. You can see documentation and detail in my post about it here:
    I don’t claim my actions caused The Independent to do anything (it could easily have been triggered by someone else, perhaps even Wiens himself, noticing the issue), but it would appear I was completely correct. At this point, there is absolutely no reason to believe the headline of this post is true or accurate. There is no credibility to the idea Professor Wiens said he’d tell Donald Trump to kill himself in any fashion.

    • You started it 🙂 But now you are making an assumption that because the quote was withdrawn it was not true. I don’t know and I don’t think you do either.

      • I’m not sure why you think I’m making such an assumption. First, the phrase “the quote” is misleading as The Independent provided two different quotations. I have stated from the beginning one of those quotations must be fake simply because they don’t match.
        Aside from that though, I have not said we know what Professor Wiens said. I’ve said The Independent’s dishonest and unethical behavior supports the idea a fake quote was used (which already seemed obvious) and calls into question the idea any such quotation was said. That doesn’t rule out the possibility Wiens said something like this. It just means (I think) there is no credibility to the quotation. I don’t think it is reasonable to consider a quotation credible if the people who provide the quotation try to cover up the fact they ever published it.
        I don’t know what Wiens said. What I know is absent actual evidence or a statement directly from Wiens himself, I’m not going to believe something based solely upon a contradictory portrayal by The Independent which it has now secretly deleted and tried to cover up. I don’t think anyone else should either.

        • We’re quibbling over the blind leading the blind. If you are claiming that it could be a total fake report from the very beginning you win. I agree you cannot trust anything but a direct quote that can be verified anymore. I don’t think this falls into that category.

      • OR, it could be that greenies don’t want their opinions posted publically and there was pressure to get their genuine opinions removed.
        It won’t be the first time, will it?

  66. There is a very big difference between an environmentalist and a conservationist. A conservationist believes in protecting the environment and keeping a balance within nature. They want clean air, clean water, and abundant animal life. They are angry when pets or livestock are abused. While the environmentalists will do absolutely anything to push a political agenda. Did you know Greenpeace executes millions of dogs and cats while claiming to be rescuing them? In essence it is the realists versus the Green whacko’s. You know, the extremists who want to reduce world population of humans who want to give animals human rights. Or PETA who is completely insane.
    As for this professor… Well life is all about birth and death. Even the stars are born and die and born again from the scattered debris. We are all star dust. Yes we should protect species from going extinct but sometimes thats the way it is and the way its always been long before man roamed this Earth. Millions of species have gone extinct through no action on mankind’s part because mankind didn’t exist. The Earth has been both hotter and cooler many times over millions of years and each time Man wasn’t present. I do not believe that man can impact the environment as much as these experts claim. Especially when one large volcanic event can put more carbon and toxins into the atmosphere in a month than the entire industrial revolution till today. Or the sun can slow it’s activity to the point of a mini-ice age which we are now headed for by 2030. Climate change happens and has been happening long before man. They gave up on the term Global Warming because it snowed every time they had a conference. Again, this is not to say we should not continue making things cleaner and more efficient but the lengths they propose are insane. The solutions are not solutions they are a transfer of wealth.

    • Duh, of course climate change has been happening long before mankind arrived, It amazes me how many people spout that like it’s some new discovery that biologists and climate scientists have somehow overlooked. Scientists like Dr Wiens and others are well aware of changes in the Earth’s environment that come about due to things that are unrelated to human activity The issue is not whether climate change happens…the issue is whether it is reaching new and dangerous levels due to human activity. And most scientists agree that yes human activity is messing with “the climate:, in ways that will prove harmful in the end to humans and that could have its more devestating consequences mitigated by human action. What is so threatening to you people behind that simple idea? Saying bullshit like “well life is about birth and death and we are all star dust” is just evading the hard truths of what is in our power to do. If someone has cancer, do you just deny them treatment and spout off about how death is a part of life and they should just accept that and not fight it? Or do you try and actually cure that person’s cancer? Or would that be some unacceptable transfer of wealth or communist plot?
      What is so threatening to people in the idea that human activity is having negative consequences on the environment and there are some things tht can be done to slow down or stop these negative consequences? Or is it just a knee jerk reaction that anything people do is okay and beyond reproach?

  67. 47% of 1000 species? What they don’t say is that all of those species in peril make up less than 1% of the entire animal biomass. None of them are keystone species. And every one of them would be subject to extinction from normal climate and biome change even if humans never existed. Yep, they’ll disappear and we’ll have less total diversity; less diverse, un-adaptable, un-selected for survival species. Darwinian natural selection at work.

    • In Arizona, if you walk uphill two or three feet a year, global warming is mitigated by elevation change. If a species is so weak that that kills it, then it was doomed for extinction anyway.
      This whole business of blaming extinction on human climate change is absurd. It is theoretically possible in the future but certainly is not happening now

  68. You people are idiots. Dr. Wiens is an intellegent, highly educated person who actually studies climate change, instead of just mouthing off whatever nonsense idiots like you pick up from reading second and third hand accounts of scientific papers or whatever some bonehead who pretends to know about science says. The vast majority of scientists agree that climate change is happening, that human activity is contributing to it, and that its effects are detrimental to the survival of humans. But please,don’t let facts get in the way of your know-nothing rantings. None of you could handle the kind of study, training, research and work that Dr. Wiens has gone through. But its so easy to just sit back and mouth off when you don’t have to back up what you say with years of education and studying and research. Y’all are idiots. As for Trump killing himself, it was obviously a joke…how come Trump is allowed ot make all kinds of tasteless comments, about grabbing women’s pussies, having the 2nd amendment people take care of Clinton, etc, and that’s all okay. But if someone else makes a comment, wow, you all are suddenly humorless and think everything should be taken as literal truth. Thank god the majority of Americans did not vote for and support Trump. It gives me hope for my country.

    • Marie,
      His paper is junk “science”. It’s ideologically motivated garbage, as is so much of what appears in print today.
      What he calls “local extinctions” are not extinctions. They’re just instances of the geographic ranges of species changing, however slightly, and subjective judgements at that. A species is not extinct because its members now live a mile away from where they used to range.

      • You know nothing about Professor Wiens, or you’d realize he is the furthest thing from a “junk” scientist. He is well respected in his field (much more respected than those very few scientists who disagree with the reality of climate change), has had many articles appear in many places, has devoted decades to studying this field, and is altogether much more intellegent and knows more about the subject than you do. And it is not idiealogicaly motivated…it’s factually motivated. Unfortunately, people like to call things “ideologically motivated” when the facts disagree with their own ideology. And yeah, duh, of course the instances of speices changing locations is factored in…you really think a scientist is too stupid to realize when a group of animals has shifted location by a few miles? D’oh! However, it is no use arguing with people who have no respect for science or knowledge or who think they know as much as someone with a doctorate and years of research in a field just because they read a few internet articles about something.

        • So get some respect – through hook or crook, and then you can issue death threats? is that how it works?
          A life time of work to gain respect can be undone with one stupid action. Weins just undid his life’s work.

Comments are closed.