The New York Times has treated James Hansen as God for three decades, with over 350 articles featuring him.
His Bold Statement Transforms the Debate On Greenhouse Effect – NYTimes.com
But now, Hansen calls the Paris talks a fraud.
So how does the New York Times respond? By finding a new chief fraudster who says humans will stop exhaling CO2 by the year 2050.
The Latest: Top Climate Scientist Praises Draft of Pact – The New York Times
Stabilize our climate by decree?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ePj0c-BNR8U
https://elrobotpescador.files.wordpress.com/2015/06/zukunft-weltklimarats.jpg
John Schellnhuber
This is early…before he applies the brown lipstick.
I really expected a new Hansen and predicting/promising that within the next 30 years huge parts of New York will be under water (and than,after nothing has happened in 2045,he will just say:”I’m 100% right but you’ll have to wait another 30years.)
But this guy is not new-he is just Germanys Hansen and even climate-noobs like me know germanys most active climate prostitute.
His real name is Hans Joachim Schellnhuber,
and a few years ago he said somthing remarkable for a climate-cultist.
He said the truth.
He said:”Co2 tax is not about protecting the environment,
but about redestribution”
Hans-Joachim Schellnhuber may have said it, too—I’m sure they all understand the racket—but it was “The Climate Chairman” *) Ottmar Edenhofer, the co-chairman of the IPCC Working Group III who spilled the beans in an interview with the Neue Zürcher Zeitung in 2010.
http://www.nzz.ch/klimapolitik-verteilt-das-weltvermoegen-neu-1.8373227
http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2010/11/18/un-ipcc-official-we-redistribute-worlds-wealth-climate-policy
Then there is Christiana Figueres, the Executive Secretary of UNFCCC, who said on multiple occasions that the “fight against climate change” is about the transformation of the world’s economy and redistribution.
http://www.unric.org/en/latest-un-buzz/29623-figueres-first-time-the-world-economy-is-transformed-intentionally
———-
*) The “science” journal Nature calls Edenhofer The Climate Chairman.
someone told all these people that if you look smug, you’ll look smart
…uh, no
You look like Kim Kardashian
IIRC it was this twerp, Hands Joking Shellhummer, that INVENTED the 2ºC warming scare.
There was absolutely nothing “science” about it.
It was just plucked out of thin air.
How come all these guys all start to look the same? It’s enough to make me wonder sometimes if I’m right to be pro life because it is quite evident these people should not be allowed to breed.
All those people are full of the same sh!t,therefore is is plausible that they look the same to us.
For us unexperienced one cesspit looks like another.
The Global Warming Policy Foundation simply reposted their previous year’s summary of the Lima conference outcome by simply changing the word “Lima” to “Paris”.
And of course it is exactly the same result – a “non-binding-and-toothless-un-climate-deal” !
http://www.thegwpf.com/gwpf-welcomes-non-binding-and-toothless-un-climate-deal-2/
The less of this scam is used the better.
(though i think that your country will follow the way of deindustrialisation anyway just like it was written in the UNIDO Lima Agreement 1975)
Maybe they”ll now start to focus on real things like creating septic tanks all around the world to keep rivers and oceans clean,stop the use of uran ammo and replace plastic bags with organic ones
and teach poor people to become independent with a sustainable living style.
What do you think will happen when GW fails to materialise?
What about the data being re-modelled and showing that the temperature is holding steady and a “Top Climate Scientist” says it’s due to Obama’s work?
The NOAA temperature could reconnect with measurements again [until it’s time for more government-pumped hysteria].
It did. We’ve seen what happens when it does.
Glenn Reynolds at Instapundit calls the COP21 pact “a transfer of money from poor people in rich countries to rich people in poor countries”.
Well, naturally. Which of these two groups were present in Paris?
Paris-ites, the lot of them.
Again with the hangover/legacy of Malthus …. Of course if you deny Malthus and his proxy Darwin ,you will be labeled a religous nutter …. a game an old atheist such as myself finds amusing 😉
—–The position of Malthus, the classic spokesman of zero
population growth, is too well known to dwell on here.
But also Charles Darwin, who essentially viewed man as
another form of beast, somewhat like a clever ape, took
his cue from the work of Malthus. As he himself admits,
it was a reading of Malthus’s An Essay on the Principle
of Population which prompted Darwin to compose his
Origin of Species. Vernadsky had during his student days
encountered the work of Pastor Malthus on population,
and rejected it outright. Referring to Malthus’ fundamental
thesis, Vernadsky writes:
Malthus doesn’t realize that his fundamental results
lead to entirely different conclusions. You might say
that they are simply not true, because he did not take
into consideration the fact that, estimating accurately
the long-term growth of human population geologically,
as regards food and the necessities of life, the expansion
of plant and animals comprising it, must inevitably
increase with greater force and speed, expressing a
more rapid rate of reproduction, than that of the population.
It’s necessary to always have this correction in
mind. Historically, it is only the irrational elements in
our social system that make it difficult to clearly observe
the effect of this natural phenomenon——– http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/Articles_2013/Fall-Winter_2013/Greening_Vernadsky.pdf