How very funny. I mention Tim Ball as the first person from the aforementioned list and the immediate response is that someone quotes me back an article from Tim Ball. Well here's a quote from Tim Ball's Wiki article, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timothy_F._Ball
"Dan Johnson, a professor of environmental science at the University of Lethbridge, wrote in an April 23, 2006 letter to the editor of the The Calgary Herald in reply to an editorial by Dr. Ball: "... he does not have the academic background and qualifications to make serious comments on global warming". The newspaper had credited Ball as "the first climatology PhD in Canada and worked as a professor of climatology at the University of Winnipeg for 28 years.". His biography for the George C. Marshall Institute also cites his being "a professor of climatology at the University of Winnipeg for 28 years"., and he has repeated "the fact that I was the first Canadian Ph.D. in Climatology" 
Ball could not have been a professor before receiving his PhD in 1983, only 23 years before the article.
Ball has also stated that "for 32 years I was a Professor of Climatology at the University of Winnipeg."
Ball's resume shows that at the University of Winnipeg he was Associate Professor from 1984 to 1988, then Professor from 1988 to 1996, a total of 8 years.
Ball was not "the first climatology PhD in Canada", but was in fact preceded by many well known Canadian PhD climatologists: e.g. Dr. Kenneth Hare, PhD in arctic climatology, 1950 , Dr. André Robert, PhD, 1965, , or Dr. Timothy Oke, PhD 1967 .
In September, 2006, Ball filed suit against Johnson and four editors at the Calgary Herald newspaper for $325,000 for, among other things, “damages to his income earning capacity as a sought after speaker with respect to global warming”.. In its response (point 50(d), p12), the Calgary Herald stated that
“The Plaintiff (Dr. Ball) is viewed as a paid promoter of the agenda of the oil and gas industry rather than as a practicing scientist.”
(Original statement of claim, Defendant Johnson's answer, Defendant Calgary Herald's answer). In June 2007, Ball abandoned the suit."
The article essentially points out that Ball has made a substanstial income solely on the basis of his opposition to global warming. Again conflict of interests rears it's ugly head.
As to your reference to the U.S. Senate Minority Report (i.e. Republican, i.e. political agenda) I can easily quote an equally rabid left wing source to refute everything in it.
Excerpt from Inhofe Plays while the Boxer's Away.
"It must be that time of year again. Just like last year, the Minority on the Senate Environment and Public Works (EPW) Commitee (read James Inhofe (R-Exxon)) has just released another "report" somehow proving that the globe isn't warming or, if that fails, that humanity has nothing to do with the warming or, if that fails, that it really doesn't matter or, if that fails, that we can't do anything about it anyway.
Let's make some things clear, we should be outraged about this report. But, perversely, Inhofe and sidekick Marc Morano merit credit for using their positions of power quite effectively to do great damage to our abilities to move toward sensible policies that might actual provide a prosperous and secure future for Americans.
I am outraged:
As a taxpayer, that my taxes are used to support such truthiness and distortions.
As a human being, that such deniers (Roadblock Republicans) are able to stand in the way toward moving the nation and the Globe toward a more sensible energy future.
And, as an analyst, that such mediocrity and mendacity is allowed to be pedaled as a "report" with the imprimatur of the US government and a US Senate Committee behind it.
Giving credit where credit is due is, to me, normally a quite pleasurable task in most cases. Lou Grinzo's Inhofe Scale captures the delusional nature of the Senator from Exxon."
Like I originally said, it doesn't bother me one way or another how this really turns out. I and everyone I care about will be dead long before anything dire will happen. Continue deluding yourself as much as you wish, however your lies are so transparent that only those with a desperate political agenda will claim to believe them even though they themselves know it for what it is, however enough money *can* buy pretty much any opinion it wants.
 Extra credit for anyone that looks up the co-author of the http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/719 article. The Wiki quotes four different Tom Harris's one of which is a lobbyist for both the Canadian Electricity Association *and* the Canadian Gas Association. Can anyone guess which Tom Harris co-authored the referenced article. Sorry no karma for correct responses, the question is really *way* too easy. [/edit]