SMH Compares Mann, Jones, And Hansen To Galileo, Newton And Einstein

Antarctica melting. Waxman is a heavyweight. Global Warming is like gravity. Deniers cause cancer.

The scientific champions were equally vehement. One Democrat equated the bill to an attempt to repeal gravity, while another hauled a tower of published climate investigations to the meeting and argued that if Copernicus, Galileo, Newton and Einstein were testifying, Republicans would still not accept the science until Antarctica had melted.

Californian heavyweight Henry Waxman called Republicans a ”party of science deniers” and declared that they ”can’t cure cancer by passing a bill that declares smoking safe. And they can’t stop climate change by declaring it a hoax.”

http://www.smh.com.au/

About Tony Heller

Just having fun
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

7 Responses to SMH Compares Mann, Jones, And Hansen To Galileo, Newton And Einstein

  1. Jimbo says:

    Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha.
    ROTFLMAO!

    The time is getting closer for when these people will be tarred and feathered. There is clearly panick within their stations. The jig is over. The parrot is dead. The lies don’t convince. This is a dead parrot.

  2. Latitude says:

    ..and I was thinking Clarabell, Howdy Doodey, Mr. Greenjeans, and Mighty Mouse……..

  3. Jimbo says:

    Dr. James Hansen et. al.2000
    “A common view is that the current global warming rate will continue or accelerate. But we argue that rapid warming in recent decades has been driven mainly by non-CO2 greenhouse gases (GHGs), such as chlorofluorocarbons, CH4, and N2O, not by the products of fossil fuel burning, CO2 and aerosols, the positive and negative climate forcings of which are partially offsetting.”

    Dr. James Hansen et. al.2003
    “Plausible estimates for the effect of soot on snow and ice albedos (1.5% in the Arctic and 3% in Northern Hemisphere land areas) yield a climate forcing of +0.3 W/m2 in the Northern Hemisphere. The “efficacy” of this forcing is ~2, i.e., for a given forcing it is twice as effective as CO2 in altering global surface air temperature.”

    Dr. Phil Jones email – July, 2005
    “The scientific community would come down on me in no uncertain terms if I said the world had cooled from 1998. OK it has but it is only 7 years of data and it isn’t statistically significant.”

    Dr. Kevin Trenberth – October, 2009
    “The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t.”

    Dr. Phil Jones interview – February, 2010
    Roger Harrabin – “Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming”

    Phil Jones – “Yes, but only just.”

    Hansen was convinced about something else causing the warming while Jones speaks with forked tongue then honesty.

    The above reveals all you need to know about the Earth’s temperature since the 1980s. AGW is a SCAM.

  4. Mike Bromley says:

    Phil Jones: Seven years of inconvenient data is insignificant, like the seven years contained in the blade of the hockey stick. Horse Pucks.

  5. papertiger says:

    One Democrat equated the bill to an attempt to repeal gravity, while another hauled a tower of published climate investigations to the meeting

    Did anybody get a picture of that stack? I sure would like to see that bibliography. It’d be good for a bunch of belly laughs.

  6. Dave N says:

    I hope Waxman can see the irony in his statement. That he declares “skeptics” (or whatever else he is labelling them as) as wrong doesn’t make it so, either.

  7. Scott says:

    I’m so tired of this anti-science BS…ridiculously tired of it. I know of no one who denies standard observational science…gravity, electromagnetism, physical chemistry, etc. This is the science that can be done following the scientific method.

    Now it’s the theoretical science, historical science, and projection science that people don’t like, usually because all of those require unprovable assumptions and guesses that people with different presuppositions don’t care about. Worse, sometimes these assumptions are in no way provable, so the debate will never die. In the case of AGW, however, eventually the hypotheses WILL be tested, it will just take quite some time. We’ll see if we manage 5-6 C warming by the end of the century. If not, there’s the observation of a lack of highly positive feedbacks.

    -Scott

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *