*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:
https://web.archive.org/web/20161208201537/http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change-global-warming-mass-extinctions-species-study-donald-trump-kill-himself-joke-a7464391.html
Now it reads:
http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change-global-warming-mass-extinctions-species-study-donald-trump-kill-himself-joke-a7464391.html
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
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’.”
…
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.
Trump appears to be doing his best to be anti-science, making a list of people doing science he doesn’t like.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2016/12/09/trump-transition-team-for-energy-department-seeks-names-of-employees-involved-in-climate-meetings/?utm_term=.30b32b6a1543
This is the opposite of what every skeptic wants.
Humanity needs honest science, not science corrupted in a different direction.
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.
Trump Team Memo Hints at Big Shake-Up of U.S. Energy Policy
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-12-09/trump-team-s-memo-hints-at-broad-shake-up-of-u-s-energy-policy
Bloomberg claims to have a copy of the memo. Seems reasonable to me.
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.
If there is to be good science, then the bad scientists need to be fired.
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.
I’m grateful that my comment passed moderation muster.
Thanks.
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.
Markl , if it wasn’t asked, it wouldn’t be on the list not just dead last.
We don’t need any scientists involved in making international climate pacts.
boring (yawn) are you Wien’s graduate assistant? Sounds like he taught you all you know.
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.
Guess he never heard of China & India. Provincial Lout.
WE are the most unpolluting very large segment of humanity.
G
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.
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.
Barry, that should read: a pimple on the wrinkle of a spider’s balls.
Evolution is a chaotic process. Fortunately, we exist in a semi-stable environment.
That said, the climate is evolving. The biologists are, too.
Not fast enough.
True. The biologist could have his funding cut off because he won’t evolve.
What comes to warming, I’m still waiting for palms and bananas promised.
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
Shroooooms, man! (like wow)…
☺
How do idiots like this get to be college professors?
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.
Prof Wiens – get another job immediately. Your snake oil is now longer required.
He carries a frog, or something, in each pocket.
http://eeb.arizona.edu/sites/default/files/people-highlight/Wiens_John.jpg
Is that a reptile in your pocket, or are you glad to see me?
What a pretentious jackass. (Apologies to normal jackasses everywhere.)
He might be one of the amphibian researchers who helped wipe out frogs.
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!!
Arggh, credit not cradit. Sorry
It’s phylogeny (categories of related species and ancestors) based on genetics/dna. The traditional approach was based on morphology/form.
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:
Which is different from the more eye-more catching phrasing:
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. 🙂
Why did the chicken turn Red?
To get to the other side!
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?
Brandon,
I wonder how many journalists you’ve known.
They have no interest in getting it right.
“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?
No matter how hard you try to pick things apart, he said what he said.
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?
Of course it isn’t credible. A journalist reported it.
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:
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:
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/12/10/leading-climate-alarmist-donald-trump-kill-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:
http://www.hi-izuru.org/wp_blog/2016/12/newspapers-fabricated-quote-suckers-skeptics/
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?
just one?
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.
…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
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”.
Climate professors don’t seem to like the equator, all that abundant life in a warm climate probably upsets them…
Eric, there isn’t “abundant life” on the top of Chimborazo. It isn’t very warm there.
Peter, time for the boxing gloves it’s the only language roos understand it seems.
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!
Can you imagine what would happen to a prof who said this about Obama or Hillary?
The SS and FBI would visit him and he’d never be heard from again.
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)
“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.
Biologist to President-Elect Trump: “Kill yourself immediately”
Normal people to biologist: “You first.”
“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
That’s odd. I thought increased CO2 and lengthened growing seasons would be good for crops. But then, I’m not a smart professor.
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 biology === Survival of the Fittest. Trump won!
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.
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!!
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 ?
Geez
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.
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!
That’s why God invented the .357 Magnum.
I was going to suggest lead poisoning.