New Video : The Imaginary Global Warming Consensus

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

19 Responses to New Video : The Imaginary Global Warming Consensus

  1. feathers says:

    Thanks Tony for the history lesson! Without you much of this information would be lost!

    With Trump in the Oval Office, the US Government should no longer be intimidating climate skeptics, in fact, debate should be more welcomed now than ever before. What’s happening?

    • -B- says:

      There’s a bureaucratic machine that is very difficult and time consuming for a president with a lot of support who knows what to do and who to put in to turn around the day he steps into office. At best Trump is learning both as he goes, at worst, well on this subject anyway better than the alternative would have been.

  2. Anon says:

    The only thing I would add is that the consensus issue is an entirely different question than verifying the science behind AGW. Example:

    Q: Did Joe commit the crime?
    A: The jury said he did.

    You can answer the question that way, almost immediately and without thinking, all you need to do is count jurors. It does not have anything to do with the original question, although it appears to. And once you go off into trying to ascertain the positions of thousands of scientists, who self-censor themselves, based on what they have tangentially written, you are well off in the weeds.


    Also, if anyone is interested, this is a great but long read; the parallels with the current AGW alarmism are incredible. Think about all of the millions of people negatively affected by this “consensus”. And everything single item, of the ten Tony listed in the video above, are in this article:

    The Sugar Conspiracy

    In 1972, a British scientist sounded the alarm that sugar – and not fat – was the greatest danger to our health. But his findings were ridiculed and his reputation ruined. How did the world’s top nutrition scientists get it so wrong for so long?


    By then it was too late. The Seven Countries study had become canonical, and the fat hypothesis was enshrined in official advice. The congressional committee responsible for the original Dietary Guidelines was chaired by Senator George McGovern. It took most of its evidence from America’s nutritional elite: men from a handful of prestigious universities, most of whom knew or worked with each other, all of whom agreed that fat was the problem – an assumption that McGovern and his fellow senators never seriously questioned. Only occasionally were they asked to reconsider. In 1973, John Yudkin was called from London to testify before the committee, and presented his alternative theory of heart disease.

    A bemused McGovern asked Yudkin if he was really suggesting that a high fat intake was not a problem, and that cholesterol presented no danger.

    “I believe both those things,” replied Yudkin.

    “That is exactly the opposite of what my doctor told me,” said McGovern.


    Teicholz’s book also describes how an establishment of senior nutrition scientists, at once insecure about its medical authority and vigilant for threats to it, consistently exaggerated the case for low-fat diets, while turning its guns on those who offered evidence or argument to the contrary. John Yudkin was only its first and most eminent victim.

    —- Meanwhile —-
    Throughout the 1960s, Keys accumulated institutional power. He secured places for himself and his allies on the boards of the most influential bodies in American healthcare, including the American Heart Association and the National Institutes of Health. From these strongholds, they directed funds to like-minded researchers, and issued authoritative advice to the nation. “People should know the facts,” Keys told Time magazine. “Then if they want to eat themselves to death, let them.”

    And here we go again… with AGW.

  3. Klaus Berger says:

    Wow, Tony! This is your strongest video yet! Thank you for your great work!!

  4. GW Smith says:

    Excellent video, Tony! It gives “believing in science” a whole new meaning!

    “And believe we much, and that with we much, believe, we much.”

  5. Robert Benson says:

    Tony, I have watched a number of you videos on Global Climate Change (AKA – AGW), and I find this one very persuasive. I consider myself an environmentalist and a “truth seeker”. My background (Engineer, Eagle Scout, camper, hiker, technology early adopter, Quality proponent, etc [not quite as impressive as your CV) and interest in preserving the Planet Earth, should make me a strong supporter of the AGW religion. However, I have a great distaste for Junk Science and the use of Bad Data to support a thesis. Therefore, I applaud your work. Please continue with your exposure of this Bad Science.
    I would like to help out. How do I do so? I am retired, and I have some time and interest in helping to support an “Even handed” approach to this issue. I am “Data driven” and I have reasonable capability with “Problem solving” and the use of “Data bases and spreadsheets.
    BTW – I met Bill Gray and Michael Creighton at a symposium panel that they spoke at in SF well over ten years ago. Their discussion of facts about the issue known as Global Warming at the time caused me to start to dig into the issue.

    • Anon says:

      Hi Robert,

      I don’t know if you have seen this yet, a 45 minute podcast that came out last month. About people like yourself that started to dig into the climate data and did not like what they saw. It gives a history of climate change skepticism and the bloggers that started it. (Specifically Mann’s Hockey Stick and the CRU email hack, it is a pretty exciting story):

      Cherry Picking
      Why did Donald Trump say a lot of global warming was a hoax? We follow the biggest science heist in history to find the answer.

      If you have not listened already, I think you / anyone will get a lot out of it. It really shows the importance of the work Tony (and others) are doing.

  6. Bob Hoye says:

    How can it be presented where it can be read by liberals?
    I’ve been gently trying to introduce reality to my two younger sisters, neither with degrees in any science.
    Mine is in geophysics.
    Here is how one discussion went:
    “Would I be confused about how the the physics of how climate shifts from ice ages to interglacials?”
    Would I lie to you about “Global Warming” or “Climate Change?”
    That’s about as far as it got.
    They want to be distressed about climate threats and don’t want to be relieved with the knowledge that CO2 has very little to do with warming and nothing to do with change.
    At the moment the impasse seems hopeless.
    My oldest sister’s daughter is a PhD in marine biology and becoming prominent in her field.
    She is also a warmunist.
    I think I’d better have a nap.

  7. arn says:

    It is really an epic scandal that a scientist like Bill Gray is supposed to
    bow down to the opinion of an unqualified dipshit like Al Gore.

    Another huge scandal is that most scientists exactly did such a disgusting thing,
    (the docs gave the asylum to the most crazy inmate)
    as they have the same buttkissi… “tolerant”and open mindset of those 2 guys
    who regularly post here and suffer from griphilis..

    I guess the main reason for integrity may be that people like Bill Gray and David Horowitz went to universities before they got corrupted by marxism and became indoctrination camps to create spineless yes-people who will adjust to any popular opinion and do anything for their carreers.

    97% of Naziscientists agreed that Hitler was a great statesman.

  8. gregole says:

    Great video!

    Indeed we live in a upside down insane time – when politicians impersonate scientists and scientists impersonate politicians.

    It is terrible how skeptics are treated and a poor reflection on our culture and our leadership. Sometimes I think we are entering a dark-ages. But you know what, it’s always been like this in various degrees. “The People” begin believing in something crazy and destructive that to the non-believer is clearly madness. Communism. Socialism. National Socialism / Fascism. Democratic socialism. Lysenkoism. Junk science. Junk diet science. Weird speculative social experiments like 89 genders and 4th wave feminism. Just weird stuff. Man-made global warming. Eugenics. The immanent ice-age. Climate change the man-made kind. The list goes on and on. And if you stand up and tell the truth woe to you. Hope you weren’t planning on winning any popularity contests. And sad that the best, brightest, and bravest get run over by the crazy train if they stand up to it. Keep up the fight! Actually, I don’t recall it ever being different. Got to fight for the truth. It doesn’t come natural to most people.

    • rah says:

      gregole says:
      January 11, 2019 at 3:17 am
      Great video!
      Indeed we live in a upside down insane time – when politicians impersonate scientists and scientists impersonate politicians. [snip]

      You forgot so called “journalists” who impersonate scientists also. ie: Chuck Todd. But there are plenty of others, like Seth Bornstein.

  9. Michael Spencer says:

    Yet another excellent video Tony, full of (Gulp!) nasty facts! Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear – we can’t have that now, can we?

    Upon reflection, this climate cult has developed in exactly the same way as various belief systems throughout history, and whenever anyone invents. creates something (being in the Pareto 20% minority group) they pose a threat to the status quo! It’s been ever thus.

    I’m sure that the inventor of the wheel must have been greeted by his fellow cave-men with the comment: “That will never work, Mate!”

  10. Jeff L. says:

    Very good video Tony.
    My only critique is your use of the term “fossil fuels”. Please see:

Leave a Reply to feathers Cancel 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.