New York Times Finds A New Chief Fraudster

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 –

But now, Hansen calls the Paris talks a fraud.


James Hansen, father of climate change awareness, calls Paris talks ‘a fraud’ | Environment | The Guardian

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

About Tony Heller

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

16 Responses to New York Times Finds A New Chief Fraudster

  1. rah says:

    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.

    • Zebo says:

      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.

  2. Rosco says:

    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” !

    • Zebo says:

      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.

  3. jon says:

    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].

  4. 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?

  5. Tom Harley says:

    Paris-ites, the lot of them.

  6. Allan says:

    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——–

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.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