Mickey And Minnie : Desperate To Have Me Silenced

After News-O-Matic agreed to let me post an article, there was a massive alarmist attack on twitter to bully them into censoring me.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

32 Responses to Mickey And Minnie : Desperate To Have Me Silenced

  1. GW Smith says:

    Go for it, Tony!

  2. Lasse says:

    M Mann is it the man with a hockey stick?
    Who faked temperatures buy changing method and not showing his data to anyone.
    When he is trusted anyone can be trusted!

    • Johansen says:

      Yes, and imagine anyone from Penn State appealing to “courage of convictions”?
      An institution that cultivated boys (and girls) over several decades for sexual abuse BECAUSE OF THE MONEY their football program brought in, approved at the highest levels of the University. What kind of money does M/M represent to the University?

  3. Roger Roots says:

    Michael Mann paints a picture of bravery at public Q & A sessions. About a year ago, Michael Mann was flown out to speak at Montana State University in Bozeman. His ‘warm up’ speaker was former South Carolina Republican Congressman Bob Inglis (now a global-warming-doomsdayist). I was one of the first in line to ask Inglis about his sources of funding (and Inglis admitted being funded by major environmentalist billionaires). Then, after Michael Mann’s speech (in which Mann actually claimed his ‘hockey stick’ depiction of temperatures had been completely verified), I was one of the first to stand up to ask Mann a question. Mann looked directly at me and then avoided me–knowing I was a skeptic who had confronted Inglis earlier.

  4. Bob Hoye says:

    Michael Mann “disappeared” the Medieval Optimum and the Little ice Age.
    At a stroke of the pen, so to speak.
    Because of a personal revelation he altered geological history.
    Audacity usually only attributed to god.
    Sheesh–what a charlatan.

  5. Mac says:

    Wait a second… Hayhoe and Mann must be lying their posteriors off, and simply clapping each other on the back to puff themselves up. If I, personally, would be totally happy and willing to debate either of them at any time about their climate change religion, with my comparatively weaker scientific background, then I find it very hard to believe that Mr. Heller or Anthony Watts are afraid to debate.

    This is just more infantile self-absorbed climate cult idiocy. These two aren’t scientists. If they were, they wouldn’t be lying about the climate and historical temperature data. They’re just publicly writing a phony narrative to discredit people like Tony Heller who tells the truth about leftist propaganda.

    • Squidly says:

      I’m not a “climate” scientist, but I would absolutely take up the challenge to debate either of these idiots. Actually, I will debate anyone on the subject. You cannot get around the Laws of Thermodynamics, which makes the so-called “greenhouse effect” impossible in this universe.

      Bring it on .. I will debate anyone on this, and I will win.

  6. Al Shelton says:

    Notice that the alarmists never, ever, provide proof of AGW.
    Why? Because they cannot.
    They have been harping about CO2 for nearly 40 years now and still no proof.
    All we ever hear is name calling and insults.

  7. Steve Buchholz says:

    Seems to me that alarmists need to spend less time adjusting their data and more time adjusting their attitude.

  8. Colorado Wellington says:

    “science-denying crank who uses a fake online identity as if he is a good faith actor?”

    Sweet mother of pearl, what are you trying to say, Professor?

    1. Everyone with minimum knowledge of the climate change arguments—including you–knows who is Tony Heller and that he uses his old pen name Steve Goddard on Twitter.


    2. How on earth would using a “fake identity” enhance anyone’s standing as a “good faith actor”?

    3. Don’t facts and data stand on their own in real science, Professor?

    4. Don’t you understand that even middle schoolers could see through your fallacious arguments? On a second thought, you clearly do understand it. That’s why you are attacking the person before any facts and data can be discussed, Professor. Your arm waving is not science and you know it. Your rhetorical devices are just as honest as your “Nature Trick”.

    • arn says:

      Mann is just using another underhanded rhetoric trick
      (=the standard of modern climate science as climate gate 1&2 have proven).
      by missleading the reader to associate that someone who uses an artificial name on the internet(what probably 97% of people do)
      must be a fake scientist by default.
      That way he keeps people away from the real subject=
      his pathetic predictions that would make even a 6 year old feel ashamed and stupid(but obviously not him)and
      scientific methods and correct use of data instead of pulling a hockeystick out of the butt which was completely crashed by the hiatus.

    • Windsong says:

      Well said. I notice the clapping seals on Twitter that follow the two Blue Checks that started all the complaining have *gasp* pen names/handles. Geez, if Cary Grant were alive today, Mann would probably be complaining that he doesn’t identify himself as Archibald Leach on Twitter.

  9. Rah says:

    My goodness they’re scared. What did Hayhoe want Tony to do when they met? Challenge her and Mann to a duel?

    • Gator says:

      Does Katy have Turrets? How often does she bleat while speaking? I’m thinking or must be really bad if it shows up in her tweets as well.

  10. gregole says:

    Hayhoe and Mann – reduced to name calling and insults. Wonder why they are so very motivated to shut down Tony Heller with slander? If their climate science is “settled” why the fear and loathing of Heller? Just prove Tony wrong. Simple.

    Between Hayhoe’ permanent drought and Mann’s thoroughly discredited hockey stick those two charlatans haven’t got much credibility left.

  11. just a thought says:

    Michael Mann called you a “science-denying crank.” y

    Sounds like grounds for a slander lawsuit to me. Well, at least if you were a faux climatologist named Michael Mann, it would.

    • Anon says:

      It is actually pretty pathetic. As a scientist, I would gladly debate a flat-earth proponent, creationist, gmo critic or anti-vaxer and let the facts are arguments stand on their own merits. (Win or lose.) That is the way it should be done, has to be done and is “highly appropriate”.

      When Mann takes this approach, my initial thought is that his science and arguments don’t hold water.

      He needs to Mann-up if he wants to make his case.

      • just a thought says:

        ”When Mann takes this approach, my initial thought is that his science and arguments don’t hold water.”

        Yup. The more they rely on insults, the more suspect are their assertions.

        • Colorado Wellington says:

          I am partial to cowboy wisdom but an old courtroom saying goes like this:

          “If you have the facts on your side, pound the facts. If you have the law on your side, pound the law. If you have neither on your side, pound the table.”

  12. Robert Austin says:

    So Anthony and Tony acted like gentlemen in the presence of their opponents. And Hayhoe and Mann take this gentlemanly behavior as weakness and a vindication of their climate alarmism. But challenge either to a fair debate and see them disappear with their tails between their legs.

  13. Squidly says:

    How do you know this is not about “climate” ? … just look at their reaction to any climate news that is not bad news. Are they glad that the Arctic hasn’t melted yet? .. are they happy Greenland is still a frozen wasteland? .. do they cheer to find out Antarctica is gaining ice? .. do they applaud in joy when they find our temperatures are not actually rising? .. do they whistle and hoot in glory when they learn the Maldives are NOT going to drown?

    A resounding NO to all of the above. They do everything they can to try to convince you otherwise. They will twist themselves into pretzels and lie to your face to convince you we are all going to die in 12 years. That should tell you everything you need to know about the AGW cult … it’s not about climate! .. it never was.

    • Al Shelton says:

      Right on …..Squidly

    • Colorado Wellington says:


      It is clearly not about climate, science and finding the truth. Their actions in response to “climate news” give the game away.

      “If people keep choosing means that seem unsuited to
      their ends, consider that you might not understand their ends.”

      Glenn Reynolds

  14. Sophie says:

    Anthony Watts never went to the UK to confront Michael Mann, He was just there to listen to his lecture respectfully and to visit the UK in general. Micheal Mann was only one of the parts of his visit, Anthony also wanted to stand on the The meridian line in Greenwich and there was other stuff too.

    Michael Mann is just plain lying, how awful, considering that Anthony was respectful towards him in his articles about the visit.

  15. Tom Abbott says:

    “Wonder why they are so very motivated to shut down Tony Heller with slander?”

    What motivates Hayhoe and Mann is that Tony Heller exposes their climate prediction failures and misrepresentations and outright lies on a regular basis on this website.

    In short, Tony makes them look like the fools they are.

    Mann claims Tony and Anthony Watts are afraid to debate him, but I don’t see Mann showing up on this website or WUWT and taking on the skeptics.

    Mann is just shooting off his mouth, as usual. He is the worst of the worst Climate Charlatans. He has misled the whole world and cost it countless treasure that could have been applied to something useful.

    I would challenge Mann to debate the skeptics but I would be wasting my time. He knows better than to try to do that. Don’t you, Michael.

  16. Jason Calley says:

    Heller vs Mann and Hayhoe

    Heller: “Let’s debate the science. Let’s look at the data.”
    Mann and Hayhoe: “You’re a stinky poo poo! Nanny nanny boo boo!”

  17. just a thought says:

    Out of curiosity I googled to see who Mann’s PhD advisor was, and found this alleged CV of his.

    Forgive me for being skeptical, but, at 71 pages, …well, is there anyone else who thinks it might be just a tad exaggerated?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.