Bangkok Herps

"Neither do I. But this is one of the realities of Thailand. Thai males of the street variety can be particularly nasty and vicious, and once aroused have zero self-control. Many vids on here attest to that."

I just don't know by what miracle it is that I have spent multiple stretches in Thailand totaling about 15 months, primarily in Bangkok, and yet never once was the target of any Thai man's anger nor saw any Thai man being "particularly nasty and vicious" or harming anyone physically. Not once.

The only time I was ever threatened with violence it was when I stood up against a drunk Brit who was peering through a window under the curtain trying to be a peeping tom on some Thai ladies. He got in my face and acted like he was gonna try to beat the stuffing out of me for ruining his show. Oh, and I had to talk a drunk swede out of an altercation when some Thai police officers personally asked for my help as he wouldn't leave a property where children were visiting and they didn't want to cause a scene. And occasionally I've seen foreigners in the red lights acting inappropriately aggressive with street girls. Otherwise nothing.

2 hours ago, JAG said:

And breathe...

In, out, in, out. There, do you feel better now? Maybe your shirt was too tight don't you know.

 

I have to say it's been a while since Steven lost the plot and treated us to one of his "go home you bitching falangs" performances. Quite like old times!

 

Where do these aggressively pro-military farangs come from anyway?

Literally all the farangs and most of the Thais I know don't like the junta, and this has been true since the first time I came to Thailand back in 2010. Even the ones who aren't actively against it are more ambivalent than supporting. It's pretty much only on Thai Visa and in the media that I ever see people supporting it with this kind of passion. 

On 4/29/2019 at 5:50 PM, Skeptic7 said:

That pic is either highly distorted in a way that makes the arthropod appear larger than it actually is...or it has been photo-shopped. I found that pic on Google Images, so leaning toward it being a fake. 

Absolutely right - I came on to post the same thing.

The largest centipedes ever found were around 10-11 inches in body length (some people add a few inches by trying to count their antennae and back legs in the measurement). 

My personal experience is they often look bigger in real life, due to the distortion of such long bodies moving fast with all those legs. I've sworn that I've seen a couple 12" ones and I'm usually very good at animal estimates, but I managed to snap a photo as one of them crossed tiles and it was only 9" in reality. Another time I chased down and killed one in my friend's home. Until I killed it I swore it was 8" long. When I killed it and measured it, only 4.5". 

Quote

Bangkok certainly has its flaws. Since being designated the capital in 1782, and chiefly in modern times, it has become Exhibit A in the case against poor urban planning. The remaining canals are mostly eyesores. Greenery vanishes far faster than it can be replaced. Pollution is worsening. Traffic remains horrendous.

I'm disturbed but not surprised to see poor urban planning, canals, lack of greenery, pollution, and traffic as the "flaws" of Bangkok.

You're think that human trafficking, extreme poverty in the slums, rampant commercialism/materialism and its place as the epicenter of military dictatorship would have placed a bit higher on the list than the presence of canals.

The comments here complaining about nature being natural are insane.

If you can't walk on a nature trail appropriately, blame God, not the Thai authorities. It is a NATURE trail for a reason. I have had the good luck of traversing multiple incredible trails in Khao Yai and Doi Suthep and pray that they don't become overrun by people who would destroy the natural aspects in favor of making the forest more like the city.

If you need sidewalks and guide rails to get around then there are lots of malls in Thailand, and I'm sure there are even fancy resorts with trees that will let you enjoy nature while not actually being natural. 

On 3/13/2019 at 9:31 PM, DrTuner said:

Never mind the money, some have sold their souls to the feminists in hopes of getting some nookie. Now that's scary. Reminds me of oberkabos.

Yeah, because NOT being sexist on an anonymous message board is the only reason my wife makes love to me. But I guess you need to make some sort of desperate reach to defend the behavior on here.

A lot of posters on here exposing why they're unable to form normal peer relationships with women without giving them a lot of money. ????

19 hours ago, xr399 said:

Steve Jobs would not allow his children to have any electronic devices... he even sent them to specifically chosen boarding schools that did not use computer based learning. You do not develop proper learning techniques by having 'dubious' information fed to you by computers. Reading and thinking out solutions to problems is much better preparation of real life!  My 6 yr old son used to be stuck to a phone or tab for hours a day, his behavior becomes very bad after only a few hours viewing, so he is now limited to 5 or 6 hours a week.

This x100, and it's not just Steve Jobs. I read dozens of industry leaders talking about how evil these devices are with children's brains. Schools teaching Silicon Valley kids are much less likely to use screens that other schools:

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/26/style/digital-divide-screens-schools.html

There are numerous other articles much like that one with all sorts of warnings from the inside regarding how bad those things are.

One of my favorite local sellers recently switched from leaves to Styrofoam.

It upsets me, and I mentioned it to him. Leaves decompose and put nutrients back into the soil. Styrofoam is trash that lasts forever. You pollute three times - environmental destruction pulling it out of the ground, air and water pollution in the manufacturing process, and then waste left when you're done. Not to mention shipping costs. But it's so hard to resist the pressure to "go modern".

What do people think the end game is? Our world is already drowning in plastic and it's only been around a few decades and mostly in the West at that...where's it going to disappear to in the next 50-100 years when 10x as much plastic is getting used?

On 1/16/2019 at 9:13 AM, BigC said:

Why is this a 3rd  countries problem 

Ah, one of history's most popular refrains, imagining somehow that humanity ends at one's borders. You do realize that many people said the exact same to Jews trying to flee Europe in the 1930s and many other refugees from across history, right?

Especially ironic to hear it here, from someone who doesn't mind one bit partaking of another nation's generous freedoms but who despises a young woman in distress doing the same. 

1 hour ago, riclag said:

 “culture of secrecy” been going on for years according to the NYT

1 hour ago, riclag said:

Totally ridiculous that the TDS'ers are fixated on blaming the Trump Admin for neglecting what apparently has been going on for many years!

 

 

"Deaths in detention and concerns over healthcare. A 2010 New York Times report on deaths in detention found evidence of a “culture of secrecy” and a failure to address fatal flaws at detention centres.[75] These issues reportedly continue to persist, with poor medical care in particular contributing to the death of immigrants in detention.[76]"

 

This is completely true - it's an institutional problem that has been going on for quite a while now. Most of the agencies that were put under Homeland Security rather than the Justice Department believe that they are outside the rules and can act with impunity, and no one is keeping them accountable. 

On 12/12/2018 at 10:53 AM, 2008bangkok said:

Apart form the craziness of the whole thing this statement "Immigration Bureau chief Pol Lt Gen Surachate Hakpal instructed investigators at the Lumpini station to handle the case in strict accordance with the law and not try to assist their colleague." just shows Thai society IMHO. I mean what type of person would try to help a colleague that just shot somebody in the head and killed them!!!

If you think Thai society is the only place where police officers have been known to help other officers even after those officers had killed someone, you should read news more widely.

On 11/16/2018 at 8:48 PM, Nyezhov said:

I said, if you read again 229 +/-. 

That's not how "+/-" works. You musta meant plus, cause there's no minus.

And you said straight up "she has a margin of 11".

Actual number turns out to be 235/236.

 

8 hours ago, quandow said:

That salary is for native speakers with a valid degree only.

I'm sort of interested to hear you guess what the native language of a Ugandan teaching English internationally is likely to be. ????

12 hours ago, Nyezhov said:

The Speaker number is 218 votes. There are 229 Democtats +/- which means she has a margin of 11.

 

That means:

a. She needs the entire Democratic majority to vote for her, from the most radical to the most conservative (and there are still a few classic Blue Dogs left). Seems like she wont make it...or

b. She need Republicans...

 

I can only imagine the Horse trading going on behind the scenes...

No way it is only 229, where do you come up with that?

They've already got a confirmed 232 right now and 4 more seats are still TBD.

That being said, I hope for the Dems sake they get some fresh blood in there.

1 hour ago, canuckamuck said:

Amazing how folks can sense that .2 degree increase in temp from the last 20 years. You must be some really lame versions of x-men.

 

Cold season is still weeks away by the way.

I don't know what the data is for Thailand, but the summer increase in the USA has been close to 2 degrees Fahrenheit since the 1970s and due to local variation it can be a lot more in certain regions. In portions of Texas, New Mexico, Colorado, Arizona, Utah, and Nevada it has gone up as much as 1.3 degrees a decade. If you'd been living in the same region for 20-30 years that would be quite noticeable. 

11 hours ago, StayinThailand2much said:

Spot on! When I had things stolen on the beach on Phuket years ago, at first all Thais (tourist police, bystanders...) blamed the Cambodian immigrants who were peacefully staying near the beach, minding their own business. The tourist police officers, consequently, walked right to a group of Cambodians, quizzing them... There was no indication, whatsoever, that the perpetrators were Cambodian, but, as it turned out, it was a Thai citizen!

 

Rapes, thefts...; the first thing Thais do, is blaming foreigners, esp. Cambodians and Burmese. ????

That isn't limited to Thailand. Certain Thai Visa posters from the West appear convinced that no one other than a darkie has ever committed a crime in their home countries.

It was like that back in the day too. Whoever the "foreigners" were - Germans, Irish, Eastern Europeans, Chinese, etc. - were the ones being accused of a criminal mind.

On 11/6/2018 at 11:30 PM, Cheops said:

And what did you use to write all this crap?

A laptop.

And I'm not a kid. 

On 10/24/2018 at 6:34 AM, Catoni said:

>

 

>First of all, I have a degree in science from a highly respected (and quite apolitical) science and engineering school in the United States,and have continued to do work in science off-and-on since then. I know literally hundreds of scientists and have met thousands. 

     ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Yes... I have also been to college and university and have a good education.  Guess what... even now in my retirement years... I continue to learn and study....    My education only makes me smart and intelligent.. it does not confer wisdom and honesty on me...  I work on that on my own.... 

 

To begin with.... all those fancy degree letters from university behind ones name is no gaurantee of honesty, truthfulness and high moral standards.  Your education makes you smart and intelligent....  

    It does not make you wise and honest...  

     All those degree letters do is get you your first job. 

 

      Good for you and today's scientists.  The 97% number of scientists that always gets thrown around is for the question..

   1. Do you believe the Earth has warmed in the last 100 or 150 years... and

   2. Do you think man has had something to do with it.. 

 

  Answer to question 1...   yes...

  Answer to question 2.... It depends....

        No.... Not for the initial warming pre-1950 or so... We had not put enough CO2 in the atmosphere previously to have caused that warming from approx 1880 to 1949. We dont really know what caused that. But it was a good thing.  The L.I.A. was not a good time.... 

        Yes... for the warming from the 1970s up to now....  about 40% - 50% of the warming in that time. Not all of it. 

 

    97% of scientists do NOT say the warming is bad.  And present CO2 levels are still extremely low if taking a look at the past 500 - 600 million years.

    But Warming Alarmist activists and scientists with a vested interest in keeping a problem going really like to concentrate on data sets that start low.. and end high...  especially after they adjust the data....

You completely misread the post. I did not say that having the degree made me smart, or made me an expert. I was saying that I personally KNOW hundreds of scientists, including ones who work for fossil fuel interests, and virtually all of them affirm that climate change is occurring, man-made and undesirable. 

The claims that it's driven by people with a "vested interest" are ridiculous. The vast majority of the people I know in science would keep their same jobs and same paychecks regardless of what they believed about climate change, not to mention that I know their characters and know they are not liars. And even the people whose companies have a "vested interest" in denying climate change don't deny it anymore, or the culpability of manmade gases in causing it.

And claiming that there wasn't enough carbon dioxide produced by man to make any difference until recently - I have no idea where you got that idea. We had already cleared an enormous percentage of the Earth's surface for cities, logging, and agriculture, enough to have a substantial effect on the Earth's ability to store carbon. And then there was the Industrial Revolution. Not to mention two gargantuan wars that produced an enormous amount of industrial overproduction, burned fuel, and burning cities.

It's the parents' fault, but it's not "just" the parents' fault. For years now the tech industry has been hiring psychologists and studying psychological manipulation in order to make their screens as addictive as possible. It's incredible how much resources that some of the smart phone and social media companies have put into that endeavor. 

https://www.vox.com/2018/8/8/17664580/persuasive-technology-psychology

https://www.wired.com/story/our-minds-have-been-hijacked-by-our-phones-tristan-harris-wants-to-rescue-them/

Quote

The founding father of this research is B.J. Fogg, a behavioral scientist at Stanford University [where there’s a lab dedicated to this field]. Fogg has been called the “millionaire maker,” and he developed an entire field of study based off research that proved that with some simple techniques, tech can manipulate human behavior. His research is now the blueprint for tech companies who are developing products to keep consumers plugged in.

Quote

 

Dr. Freed and 200 other psychologists petitioned the American Psychological Association in August to formally condemn the work psychologists are doing with persuasive design for tech platforms that are designed for children.
 

“Once it sinks its teeth into these kids, it’s really hard,” Dr. Freed said.

 

And those who are doubting the negative effects on children of large amounts of screen time should take it up with Silicon Valley. A substantial percentage of the people who profit most off of these technologies and who know them the best are keeping their own kids away from there.

Quote

Athena Chavarria, who worked as an executive assistant at Facebook and is now at Mark Zuckerberg’s philanthropic arm, the Chan Zuckerberg Initiative, said: “I am convinced the devil lives in our phones and is wreaking havoc on our children.”

Quote

Tim Cook, the C.E.O. of Apple, said earlier this year that he would not let his nephew join social networks. Bill Gates banned cellphones until his children were teenagers, and Melinda Gates wrote that she wished they had waited even longer. Steve Jobs would not let his young children near iPads.

Quote

 

Among those is Chris Anderson, the former editor of Wired and now the chief executive of a robotics and drone company. He is also the founder of GeekDad.com.

 

“On the scale between candy and crack cocaine, it’s closer to crack cocaine,” Mr. Anderson said of screens.

 

Technologists building these products and writers observing the tech revolution were naïve, he said.

 

“We thought we could control it,” Mr. Anderson said. “And this is beyond our power to control. This is going straight to the pleasure centers of the developing brain. This is beyond our capacity as regular parents to understand.”

 

A Dark Consensus About Screens and Kids Begins to Emerge in Silicon Valley

The Digital Gap Between Rich and Poor Kids is Not What We Expected

Silicon Valley Nannies are Phone Police for Kids
 

But I thought the criminal overstayers were all Black. Who knew?

On 10/19/2018 at 7:59 AM, VincentRJ said:

 

 

 

I think if a world-wide survey were done, most scientists would agree with the above quote. In other words, millions of them would understand the uncertainty of predictions or projections of such a complex and chaotic system as the earth's climate.

However, many scientists working in Climate Research Centers would probably be reluctant to openly admit, publicly, their opinion that the projections are very uncertain, because they understand that their careers are dependent upon the alarm about climate change being maintained.

 

This is not a conspiracy but the normal psychology of workplace relations. If one disagrees with the fundamental premises of whatever organization one is working with, or employed by, then one has no future career in such an organization. 
Unless one keeps quiet about the personal doubts that one has, that rising CO2 levels are the main driver of the current slight warming, and that such slight warming will be bad for our future well-being, for example, then one will be criticised by one's colleagues. One will be unlikely to get promotion or have one's research papers peer reviewed, so one might as well leave, and express one's opinion outside of the system. Whistle blowers are not treated well.

 

However, I imagine that some of those skeptical scientists might justify to themselves that maintaining an alarm about the negative effects of CO2 will have positive effects in the long run, in terms of more efficient 'alternative' energy supplies, which probably wouldn't have been developed without that alarm about the effects of rising CO2 levels being maintained.

There are two reasons why I strongly dispute your hypothetical interpretation of events.

First of all, I have a degree in science from a highly respected (and quite apolitical) science and engineering school in the United States,and have continued to do work in science off-and-on since then. I know literally hundreds of scientists and have met thousands. An extremely minuscule percentage of them have the slightest doubt that man's activity is a major driver of climate change or that said climate change will have devastating global effects in the next century, especially for the environment and for poor people across the warmer regions of the globe.

Secondly, among those relationships include personal friends of mine who work for fossil fuel producers, and they report that even the scientists who work with the fossil fuel companies believe the party line on AGW is basically accurate. So workplace incentives cannot be driving the acceptance of the theories when even those who have the most to lose have admitted there is an issue here.

I ended up overstaying a few hours when we came in at 1am and the official stamped us with the old stamp from the previous day, ruining my carefully calculated stay length. It was no problem at all, we were not fined or stamped with an overstay stamp or anything. This was 5 years ago though. 

Some of the casual racism by posters here is gross and more than a little ignorant.

Racial profiling is stupidity for any highly-functioning police department. It wastes time dealing with non-criminals that could be spent following meaningful leads. Like the example of the 100 Africans who were detained at church only to find that all of them had valid visas, lots of time is wasted for little benefit.

When you follow actual leads and actual complaints, you have a much better chance of dealing with actual criminals who are causing actual social problems. When you go after someone solely because you hold stereotypes or generalizations about their race, you're much more likely to be wasting your time. Not to mention that even if you do find a "criminal", chances are better than not that they were engaged in a relatively victimless crime that no one had complained about and thus didn't have much negative impact on society.

Not to mention that when you start profiling entire communities you turn those communities against you, thus making crime both more likely as well as more difficult to solve.

Of course, we've talked about this all before, and the same people are making the same stupid racist comments based on the same 70-year-old anecdotes. Ya'all do realize that moving from an anecdote to a general policy is exactly how racist stereotyping happens, and that relying on politicians from a century ago to express your views of colored people is a pretty good way to end up with racist views?

And the guy who thinks being a White person in Thailand is equivalent to being a Black person in the American South in the 1960s is a riot. 

On 9/18/2018 at 5:12 PM, Catoni said:

 

    Well... in general...  people do best in wamer times.  Civilization began, and also made their greatest advances during warmer times....  not so much during the intevening colder periods.   (Holocene Climate Optimum and the end of hunter/gatherer....beginning of agriculture and first villages/cities).  The Minoan Warm Period, Roman Warm Period, Medieval Warm Period...

     Not so good during the cooler times....  

 

    We just came out of a 550 year cooler time... the Little Ice Age..(circa 1300 - 1850) with longer, colder more bitter winters, shorter growing seasons, failed harvests, famine and lots of early death from easier disease spread due to people spending lots more time close together indoors...

   The I.P.C.C. says we warmed only 0.85 degree C between 1880 - 2012. (Third, fourth and fifth Assessment Reports.)

                    You think 0.85 degree C over a period of time of 132 years is fast compared to the past ?  You haven't heard of Abrupt Climate Change?  (Like 10 degrees in 10 years or even less.  That is fast.) 

    Tell me.... what do you expect it to do after a nasty colder time ends.  Do you expect it to warm up for a couple of hundred years?   

    Or get colder.. . LOL   ? 

   By the way..  CO2 is not pollution.  And compared to almost all of the last 500 - 600 million years....  CO2 level is extremely low right now.   

   We actually reached a level of 180ppm before.......

  What do you think would have happened if we went below 150 ppm atmospheric CO2 ? ? ? 

 

  You're a "scientist" ? ?   

 

Here's some more scientists : 

 

These scientists have said that it is not possible to project global climate accurately enough to justify the ranges projected for temperature and sea-level rise over the 21st century. They may not conclude specifically that the current IPCC projections are either too high or too low, but that the projections are likely to be inaccurate due to inadequacies of current global climate modeling.

• David Bellamy, botanist.^{[19][20][21][22]}
• Lennart Bengtsson, meteorologist, Reading University.^[23][24]
• Piers Corbyn, owner of the business WeatherAction which makes weather forecasts.^[25][26]
• Susan Crockford, Zoologist, adjunct professor in Anthropology at the University of Victoria. ^[27][28][29]
• Judith Curry, professor and former chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology.^{[30][31][32][33]}
• Freeman Dyson, professor emeritus of the School of Natural Sciences, Institute for Advanced Study; Fellow of the Royal Society.^[34][35]
• Ivar Giaever, Norwegian–American physicist and Nobel laureate in physics (1973).^[36]
• Steven E. Koonin, theoretical physicist and director of the Center for Urban Science and Progress at New York University.^[37][38]
• Richard Lindzen, Alfred P. Sloan emeritus professor of atmospheric science at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and member of the National Academy of Sciences.^{[35][39][40][41]}
• Craig Loehle, ecologist and chief scientist at the National Council for Air and Stream Improvement.^{[42][43][44][45][46][47][48]}
• Ross McKitrick, professor of economics and CBE chair in sustainable commerce, University of Guelph.^[49][50]
• Patrick Moore, former president of Greenpeace Canada.^[51][52][53]
• Nils-Axel Mörner, retired head of the Paleogeophysics and Geodynamics Department at Stockholm University, former chairman of the INQUA Commission on Sea Level Changes and Coastal Evolution (1999–2003).^[54][55]
• Garth Paltridge, retired chief research scientist, CSIRO Division of Atmospheric Research and retired director of the Institute of the Antarctic Cooperative Research Centre, visiting fellow Australian National University.^[56][57]
• Roger A. Pielke, Jr., professor of environmental studies at the Center for Science and Technology Policy Research at the University of Colorado at Boulder.^[58][59]
• Denis Rancourt, former professor of physics at University of Ottawa, research scientist in condensed matter physics, and in environmental and soil science.^{[60][61][62][63]}
• Harrison Schmitt, geologist, Apollo 17 astronaut, former US senator.^[64][65]
• Peter Stilbs, professor of physical chemistry at Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm.^[66][67]
• Philip Stott, professor emeritus of biogeography at the University of London.^[68][69]
• Hendrik Tennekes, retired director of research, Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute.^[70][71]
• Anastasios Tsonis, distinguished professor of atmospheric science at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee.^[72][73]
• Fritz Vahrenholt, German politician and energy executive with a doctorate in chemistry.^[74][75]
•  

These scientists have said that the observed warming is more likely to be attributable to natural causes than to human activities. Their views on climate change are usually described in more detail in their biographical articles.

• Khabibullo Abdusamatov, astrophysicist at Pulkovo Observatory of the Russian Academy of Sciences.^[77][78]
• Sallie Baliunas, retired astrophysicist, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics.^[79][80][81]
• Timothy Ball, historical climatologist, and retired professor of geography at the University of Winnipeg.^[82][83][84]
• Ian Clark, hydrogeologist, professor, Department of Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa.^[85][86]
• Vincent Courtillot, geophysicist, member of the French Academy of Sciences.^[87]
• Doug Edmeades, PhD., soil scientist, officer of the New Zealand Order of Merit.^[88]
• David Douglass, solid-state physicist, professor, Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Rochester.^[89][90]
• Don Easterbrook, emeritus professor of geology, Western Washington University.^[91][92]
• William Happer, physicist specializing in optics and spectroscopy; emeritus professor, Princeton University.^[35][93]
• Ole Humlum, professor of geology at the University of Oslo.^[94][95]
• Wibjörn Karlén, professor emeritus of geography and geology at the University of Stockholm.^[96][97]
• William Kininmonth, meteorologist, former Australian delegate to World Meteorological Organization Commission for Climatology.^[98][99]
• David Legates, associate professor of geography and director of the Center for Climatic Research, University of Delaware.^[100][101]
• Anthony Lupo, professor of atmospheric science at the University of Missouri.^[102][103]
• Jennifer Marohasy, an Australian biologist, former director of the Australian Environment Foundation.^[104][105]
• Tad Murty, oceanographer; adjunct professor, Departments of Civil Engineering and Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa.^[106][107]
• Tim Patterson, paleoclimatologist and professor of geology at Carleton University in Canada.^[108][109]
• Ian Plimer, professor emeritus of mining geology, the University of Adelaide.^[110][111]
• Arthur B. Robinson, American politician, biochemist and former faculty member at the University of California, San Diego.^[112][113]
• Murry Salby, atmospheric scientist, former professor at Macquarie University and University of Colorado.^[114][115]
• Nicola Scafetta, research scientist in the physics department at Duke University.^{[116][117][118]}
• Tom Segalstad, geologist; associate professor at University of Oslo.^[119][120]
• Nir Shaviv, professor of physics focusing on astrophysics and climate science at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem.^[121][122]
• Fred Singer, professor emeritus of environmental sciences at the University of Virginia.^{[123][124][125][126]}
• Willie Soon, astrophysicist, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics.^[127][128]
• Roy Spencer, meteorologist; principal research scientist, University of Alabama in Huntsville.^[129][130]
• Henrik Svensmark, physicist, Danish National Space Center.^[131][132]
• George H. Taylor, retired director of the Oregon Climate Service at Oregon State University.^[133][134]
• Jan Veizer, environmental geochemist, professor emeritus from University of Ottawa.^[135][136]

 

These scientists have said that no principal cause can be ascribed to the observed rising temperatures, whether man-made or natural.

• Syun-Ichi Akasofu, retired professor of geophysics and founding director of the International Arctic Research Center of the University of Alaska Fairbanks.^[137][138]
• Claude Allègre, French politician; geochemist, emeritus professor at Institute of Geophysics (Paris).^[139][140]
• Robert Balling, a professor of geography at Arizona State University.^[141][142]
• Pål Brekke, solar astrophycisist, senior advisor Norwegian Space Centre.^[143][144]
• John Christy, professor of atmospheric science and director of the Earth System Science Center at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, contributor to several IPCCreports.^{[145][146][147]}
• Petr Chylek, space and remote sensing sciences researcher, Los Alamos National Laboratory.^[148][149]
• David Deming, geology professor at the University of Oklahoma.^[150][151]
• Stanley B. Goldenberg a meteorologist with NOAA/AOML's Hurricane Research Division.^[152][153]
• Vincent R. Gray, New Zealand physical chemist with expertise in coal ashes.^[154][155]
• Keith E. Idso, botanist, former adjunct professor of biology at Maricopa County Community College District and the vice president of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change.^[156][157]
• Kary Mullis, 1993 Nobel laureate in chemistry, inventor of the polymerase chain reaction (PCR) method.^{[158][159][160]}
• Antonino Zichichi, emeritus professor of nuclear physics at the University of Bologna and president of the World Federation of Scientists.^[161][162]

 

These scientists have said that projected rising temperatures will be of little impact or a net positive for society or the environment.

• Indur M. Goklany, electrical engineer, science and technology policy analyst for the United States Department of the Interior.^{[163][164][165]}
• Craig D. Idso, geographer, faculty researcher, Office of Climatology, Arizona State University and founder of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change.^[166][167]
• Sherwood B. Idso, former research physicist, USDA Water Conservation Laboratory, and adjunct professor, Arizona State University.^[168][169]
• Patrick Michaels, senior fellow at the Cato Institute and retired research professor of environmental science at the University of Virginia.^[170][171]

       . 

     

When out of the hundreds of thousands of scientists in the world, you're stuck having to throw in zoologist, geographers, and electrical engineers just to pad out your list to a few dozen, you expose the deficiency of your own position. The large majority of people you list have literally never worked in climate science, some of them aren't even scientists...and you still only managed to get 50 or so names out of literally hundreds of thousands.

I could make a longer list of scientists who believe that 9/11 was an inside job, or that world governments are covering up the existence of aliens.