New Video : Extreme Heatwave Fraud At The New York Times

If you have 15 minutes, grab some popcorn and watch me dismantle the New York Times and James Hansen.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

13 Responses to New Video : Extreme Heatwave Fraud At The New York Times

  1. Anon says:

    Hi Tony, thanks a lot for this video! Well done!

    I don’t have a scientific comment to add today, but will post this seemingly trivial incident about JK Rowling & President Trump, which is a lot more significant than it appears and worth the read:

    http://www.theblaze.com/news/2017/07/28/harry-potter-author-j-k-rowling-caught-spreading-terrible-lie-about-trump/

    I am assuming JK Rowling considers her self well informed and well read, based on her blind consumption of the MSM, which lead her to humiliate herself in this very public way. I would hope that after this incident she starts fact checking the media she consumes and blames them for this and not Trump.

    Thanks to your work, we can more easily fact check climate related stories appearing in the MSM, instead of losing our heads and going out proclaiming the sky is falling, the sky is falling! – as befell JK Rowling.

    This was not my attitude a year ago, when I too made the same error Rowling made, but in the area of climate. Thanks to your blog, I am no longer mis-informed. Kudos!

    • John of Cloverdale, WA, Australia says:

      As George Orwell once said: ‘Early in life I had noticed that no event is ever correctly reported in a newspaper.’

  2. Windsong says:

    Excellent rebuttal, Tony. One has to wonder if the NYT is consciously putting these things together all by themselves, or are they doing a cut and paste on some drivel supplied to them by an alarmist or Fusion GPS? Meanwhile, Snopes will undoubtedly give the story a big green checkmark, and it will be cited as gospel for years.

    • arn says:

      They are consciously doing this.

      NYT is the “source” of all new “standards”,”truth” and whatever should be shoved down peoples throat.

      If there is a country to be destroyed,
      New York Times is the first to spin and shape the public opinion
      to legalise this killings and to declare the countries leader into a new Hitler.

      If there is a new stupidity to be established in the mainstream as new normal(Genderbathrooms,Gay marriage)
      New York Times is the starting point of this which is then usually copy&pasted in Europe first by the guardian((the late smaller twin of the NYT)) and then by the others.

      It is no coincidence that all these newspaperoutlets have all the same
      opinion about
      climate
      trump
      putin
      islam
      etc,etc
      thiugh there usually is overwhelming evidence that the exact opposite is true
      and are crying nazi whenever their opinion is challenged.

      Of course this is not a normal state.
      As soon as you leave the MSM an go to some alternative sites
      you will find much more variety-
      there are still some one-sided idiots,but there is much more variety.

      And as soon you leave the western MSM you may find a complete different world in terms of reality,variety and world view,
      as most of these journalists have not been corruppted on universities that way the way western students are((that does not mean that they are not corrupt,but in a different way-
      you won’t find there the standard “i love jim morrisson/Bob Dylan/the smith&islam because i’m so fricking intellectual and and i don’t comb my hair and wear (expensive)shabby style clothes to make me look so alternative,proleterian and down-to-earth while i drive with my Tesla
      to my Villa”-
      journalists

  3. mat says:

    This may be your best video yet…

  4. David Reich says:

    Hi Tony,

    Superb video as always as overnight lows here in southeastern PA are forecast to reach 56 deg F 7 deg below norm for July 29. Thought you would interested to know that I posted a comment on a webpage a couple days ago citing the fact that arctic temperatures as documented by the Danish Meteorological Institute have been at or below the 50 year norm since the end of April and that the ice extent as shown by the National Snow and Ice Data Center is within 2 standard deviations of the 1981-2010 median. One of the replies I received was that my comment was unfounded because I was “citing non-climate scientist Tony Heller” even though my comment made no reference to you. Notwithstanding the illogical nature of the reply, you have obviously become such a thorn in the oppositions side, such that in the enfeebled mind of at least one of them, it is no longer even acceptable to quote bona fide data sources you cite simply because, well, you cite them. They are really grasping at straws. Keep up the great work. It is working.

  5. GW Smith says:

    Another brilliant video, Tony. The lefties today are shunning it like the cross of Christ. You’re quite famous, or should I say infamous. They all know you.

  6. CheshireRed says:

    Long but necessary due to the detailed take-down. Proper journalism – maybe NYT could hire you as Red Team leader! NYT and Hansen have nowhere to hide after this one; both guilty as charged.

    Can I make a suggestion? You’ve now exposed multiple lines of adjustment Tony, from US data, global data, sea level rise and OHC through to RSS satellite data, worldwide data sets (eg New Zealand, Iceland, Africa) and the manipulation / removal of temp stations at altitude and high latitudes. All that plus the complete lack of surface data in much of the SH which requires in-filling, ie guesses. However they’re on multiple video and single posts. How about bringing them all together in one concise, up-to-date summary video? It could be an absolute bombshell.

    Exposing a check-list of data adjustments would give viewers the bigger picture of how each data set of climate evidence is being systematically adjusted to fit the by now failed AGW theory. It may be good to show the knock-on effects of adjusting one data set which then throws another out of kilter, thus requiring that next data set to be adjusted to keep everything in sync’, as that would expose the reasons for the on-going adjustments. There’s a chronological time-line for all these adjustments that is like fingerprints at a crime scene; if you know what you’re looking for the evidence becomes damning, and you most certainly do know. The other side know you know too, which is why they’re attacking you personally rather than debating your science. Most entertaining and a huge compliment.

    However the public isn’t anywhere near as aware, hence there’s a role for whistle-blowing climate sleuths like yourself. Perhaps time to re-educate everyone to an even higher level?

    Finally, maybe ask what are the odds of multiple adjustments being made to multiple data sets all in the same pro-AGW direction? The statistical odds of many dozens of adjustments all going in one direction are off the scale, moving the practice from ‘normal’ to outrageously unlikely – and therefore the only plausible conclusion is they’re deliberate. (See how the odds on an accumulator / parlay bet go from tricky for a double to much harder for a 4 and diminish to all-but impossible for a 20. It’s a nice analogy of how the odds are hugely against multiple outcomes being correct.)

    Likewise Occam’s Razor, which suggest amongst competing theories the one with the fewest assumptions should be selected. I make it a minimum 5 assumptions for man made AGW but just the 1 for natural variation. 5:1 means Occam’s Razor falls squarely on the side of natural variation. Could be a video on its own right there.

    Hope you don’t mind me making a suggestion or two. Great work as ever.

  7. CheshireRed says:

    Occam’s Razor: Man made warming theory v natural variation minimum assumptions.

    AGW theory.
    1. It’s man made!
    2. It’s human-emitted CO2.
    3. High climate sensitivity to CO2.
    4. Positive feedbacks, amplifying…
    5. ….atmospheric water vapour.

    I think they’re the 5 minimum assumptions. (Cross-reference by trying to remove any 1 assumption, and see how the theory collapses every time. All 5 must be in place.)

    Natural variation theory.

    1. It’s natural variation!

    That’s it. 5:1. Game over for AGW via Occam’s Razor.

  8. Bas Spliet says:

    Hi Tony

    Excellent report! Is there a way you could provide the links to this or future episodes? That would surely help other researchers.
    Also, how do you browse for all these old articles?

    Cheers,

    • tonyheller says:

      I have a subscription to the New York Times and newspapers.com They have digital searches.

      You can see my videos at youtube.com/c/TonyHeller

Leave a Reply

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

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.