An “Open Discussion” With All People Who Accept Their Lies

All others are banned.

The host tells me that I can “do better” than post factual information.

How long before I get banned for posting factual information?

(78) Climate Change – an open discussion

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

62 Responses to An “Open Discussion” With All People Who Accept Their Lies

  1. Michael Spencer says:

    What a funny thing? All of the banned links are to people who insist on providing verifiable scientific facts!

    We can’t have these; someone might be offended – and nasty facts are not politically correct, don’t you know?

    • Hilarious!!

      I give you less than 3 days..
      They are such idiots, probably don’t even know who you are, but when they do..

      * Blip * Gone !!

    • arn says:

      This strategy goes hand in hand with facebook and twitter deleeting comments right now from people proving that Baltimore is a ratinfested shithole.

      (but i guess feces,rats and return of medieval diseases isn’t as dangerous as AGW- i mean:”What is reality compared to some BS you are forced to believe as they have been delivered by unproductive masterracish people with degree”

    • A C Osborn says:

      Not a very “Open” open discussion is it?

  2. Toto's fan says:

    They have been surreptitiously siphoning water from the Totos’ water bowls too. During summer heat. Nothing is beneath them.

  3. “Climate Change – An Open Discussion”!!!

    Well, not quite that open!

    • Al Shelton says:

      Paul Are you serious?
      Don’t you see the sarcasm?

    • arn says:

      Whatever they say and claim
      (islam-religion of peace
      diversity is strength)

      the opposite is the real thing.

      When they claim they are tolerant
      you can be sure they are the most intolerant.

      When they claim BLM- you can be sure that they don’t give a crap 99.9% of all the time and only white till a life gets ended by the “right” person to exploit it massivly.

      open discussion = you can be sure it is hermetically closed.

      There is no dialogue in AGW and it was created that way from the very beginning on purpose.
      That”s why they used shaming tactics,charackter assassinations and name calling from the very beginning.
      Everything was designed from the go to that there is absolutely no accepptable alternative to AGW.

  4. KevinPaul says:

    True Ostrich mentality,”if I bury my head in the sand, it will all go away”

    It reveals just how much ground these sites are gaining when the believer sites shutdown discussion and debate.

    It’s uncanny the similarities between Climate sciences’ belief in man as the cause of recent warming, and the Medical professions’ ardent belief that miasma (foul air) was the cause of disease.

    Carbon tax = Blood letting
    CO2 = Foul air

    It’s not science, it’s quackery.

  5. Nicholas McGinley says:

    We are rapidly approaching Peak Jackassery.
    But like a stock market peak during a bubble, the foolishness can go on for far longer than anyone might have anticipated from a careful review of the facts.

  6. Nicholas McGinley says:

    BTW…always good to have another list of sources of reliable info.
    I’ze gwine to go thank them for it!

  7. spike55 says:

    Poor muppets were obviously getting pulverised in every scientific argument.

    So SAD.


    So HILARIOUS. :-)

  8. Henning Nielsen says:

    Climate change: An open and shut case -clamlike. Keep quiet and send more money.

  9. Gator says:

    Oh look, the Nazi book club! Grab some marshmallows!

  10. MrGrimnasty says:

    We refuse to debate deniers.
    We won the argument.
    The debate is over.

    That sums up the climate movement’s attitude changes over the years.

    At least we can thank him for putting together a great list of factual climate sites as opposed to those operating on blind faith and politics and deliberate dishonesty!

  11. Gator says:

    But The Grauniad opinion page is fine. No issues with facts there.

  12. Mac says:

    Well, there it is. These people have gone full Goebbels. Nothing but state-approved propaganda will be allowed. This is a very scary time to be alive, and, despite dishonest leftist blathering, it has nothing to do with President Trump. Democrats are warlike rabid animals who are totally out of control. Eight years of Obama followed by Trump’s election made them all collectively psychotic, and now they’re actually trying to destroy human civilization.

  13. Chris says:

    This sounds more like Nazi Germany or the USSR by the day.
    Don’t these guys realise that in TRUE science you don’t get to pick the facts, they just are. But their science is more akin to witchcraft and voodoo than anything else.

    These clowns want to sit in some safe echo chamber, listening to each other and nodding furiously. All very nice, without having to actually consider the facts.

  14. Mark Amey says:

    I was informed today that temperatures will increase by at least three degrees by 2040, and sea levels will keep rising. This science is indisputable!! Anyone who disagrees is a f#*+ING moron.

    Jah Herr Oberfuhrer.

    • R Shearer says:

      Sea level has risen by about 400 ft in the last ~12,000 years. It’s not likely to see anytime soon, but if it does, it’s probably not a good thing.

  15. Mohatdebos says:

    Just be glad you live in a democracy where laws protect independent thought. Instead of being censored, you could be stoned to death if you lived in a theocracy or end up in Siberia or some other horrible location if you lived in a dictatorship.

    • NavarreAggie says:

      Technically, it is a constitutional republic. A democracy is tyranny by majority.

      • Squidly says:

        Thank you for that!

        It infuriates me when people refer to America’s form of government as a “Democracy” .. we are not a “Democracy” !!!

        Democracies breed tyrants. Democracies are ruled by the mob. Democracies enslave the minority. In a Democracy, the majority extinguishes the rights of the minority.

        We have thousands of years of historical example of what happens in a “Democracy” .. while the left would love to turn us into a Democracy, few things could be more dangerous.

        The United States of America was designed as a Constitutional Representative Republic .. far far away from a “Democracy”.

  16. Larry Geiger says:

    Daniel Swahn Lindberg: Another “weather has always changed” type of argument. There, fixed it for you.

  17. GW Smith says:

    Proof there is an alternate reality.

  18. Bob Cherba says:

    I regularly read and have bookmarked nearly all the “banned sources” on the list. I must really be a bad, misinformed man. As a supporter of the current US president, and an old white guy, I’ve been called all the politically bad names in the book. If you add that I don’t like soccer or political correctness, and I believe there are two sexes, and I support really free speech — especially on college ‘campi,’ I must be a terrible, terrible person. Funny, I used to have a pretty good reputation.

    One would think I should belong to some victim group, with all the privileges thereof.

  19. Crispin in Waterloo says:

    That list of banned sites is a pretty good club to be in. I have found each of them to provide factual information blocked or denigrated at sites belonging to or managed by “the Team”. I wonder why.

    Congratulations Tony, for making it into the biggest league – sources of fact and the occasional flipped bird bringing history to light.

    Holding an open discussion is a really good idea. Keep it up here and more will join in the consultation. Weather is complicated, highly variable and endlessly interesting. I have loved my study of it since I was a child.

    Tony, there was a heat wave in France in 1961. Was that something unusual or was it fairly common (1 year out of 10?). Why does a heat wave in a Mediterranean country surprise anyone who lives there?


  20. Anon says:

    This is really entertaining! RCS as a source is banned, so TH posts in person. Good to start the day off with a laugh. It will be interesting to see how this goes. Thanks Tony!

  21. Windsong says:

    Fakebook; verifying the popular nickname every hour of every day.

  22. DCA says:

    They also missed these “perpetually produced misconceptions, misrepresentations, errors and falsehoods about climate science”:

    How long before you get banned for posting factual information, you ask?
    3 … 2 … 1 …

    • Ari says:

      You know CAGW theory predicts more snow….

      (or less snow,or the end of snow.)

      • Disillusioned says:

        Yeah, my head is spinning from their never-ending, disingenuous spin. Hard to keep up with them. The moving goal posts for the climate changes is akin to acceptable and unacceptable terms of ‘political correctness’ – they change it up all the time (to maintain control). What is mind boggling is that their idiot followers never catch on.

        I did.


  23. -B- says:

    That list of banned sites seems like it may be useful. I only knew of a few of them.

    It’s funny that those who don’t disregard data are the ones called deniers and those who do find reasons to disregard every measurement that disagrees with them are practicing good science.

    Climate “scientists” use starting points rather selectively coming up with a reason to disregard the previous. But there are also examples when government experts did the opposite. For instance, in 1974 when Nixon imposed the 55mph NMSL the government also dramatically changed what counted as fatality in automobile crashes. Basically 1973 and prior data cannot be compared to 1974 and later. It is two very different systems that are not compatible. What did they do? Showed how much fatalities dropped from ’73 to ’74 and we were stuck with the 55mph NMSL for the next 20 years. In every field of government funded science they will only use a measurement or policy change to disregard previous data when it suits them. It does not matter how small or how minor. If it suits them to compare as if it never happened, regardless of how severe of change they will.

  24. establ says:

    I see people that criticized the rule changes got booted from the group. Seems like Daniel Swahn Lindberg wants an echo chamber not an open discussion.

  25. Taphonomic says:

    “Another climate has always changed type of argument”

    Is he intimating that climate hasn’t always changed? Who’s the climate change denier?

  26. LexingtonGreen says:

    Color me no longer a skeptic. That site makes it adamantly clear that the whole movement is a scam and I am 100% sure the alarmism is all BS. Wow! Anyone with a fact is hence forth banned. It is a cult.

  27. DM says:

    “Do not answer a fool according to his folly, Or you will also be like him” Proverbs 26:4

    “Never argue with a fool, onlookers may not be able to tell the difference.” –Mark Twain

    “Never argue with an idiot. They will only bring you down to their level and beat you with experience.” –George Carlin

    Wisdom that has withstood the tests of time and experience.

    Tony, your time and efforts are BEST spent informing the inquisitive and prodding the open minded to THINK!!! You can win them over with “one brain lobe tied behind your back” in debates vs M. Mann (truly a source of catastrophic anthropogenic climate change) and his fellow travelers.

    Keep up the GOOD FIGHT!!!

  28. CheshireRed says:

    Yet again we see the left in action.

    Their standard MO is to simply ban anyone and everything they dislike, disagree with or cannot beat in open debate with actual evidence.

    Belief trumps evidence every time. They do it ALL the time. Not worth p*ssing on if they were on fire.

  29. What they are actually saying is ” These sources are having too much influence on our followers.”
    “They are banned because they show us up for the very reasons we falsely attribute to them. We can’t beat them and their truth, so we must ban them!”

  30. It’s a modern version of the Nazi book burnings.

  31. Gamecock says:

    I am reminded of Messier’s List.

    For you non-astronomers, Messier was a comet hunter in the late 1700s. He got tired of getting excited about anomalies he saw in space that weren’t comets. So he made a list of the junk, so he could check when he saw them again.

    Fast forward. His list is the gold standard of interesting objects in space to see. His junk is our gold.

    And the above list of websites looks like Messier’s List of great science websites to see! Good job, Lindberg!

  32. Petit_Barde says:

    Propagating such a great list of valuable sources of information so that people can educate themselves and get out of the CAGW church !??

    Doesn’t that deserve banning ?

    Daniel Swahn Lindberg !
    You should ban yourself !

    PS : do not forget to ban some other nasty sites that dare to bring unbearable factual information such as :
    – …

  33. Disillusioned says:

    I just read a few pages of the arrogant and deeply ignorant posts on that “Open” Fakebook discussion bored, and …

    …and I came across this gem from Joe Romm: We don’t have 12 years to save the climate. We have 14 months.
    The deadline for protecting our children from a ruined climate is close at hand.
    Joe Romm
    Jul 26, 2019, 8:00 am

    Deadline: POTUS election 2020

  34. Ben Vorlich says:

    Thanks for posting that, there are some sites in it I wasn’t aware of, but will visit in the next few days.

  35. MGJ says:

    Love is hate, war is peace and now it seems that open is closed.
    I doubt they actually read any Orwell, it probably comes naturally to them.

    • Rah says:

      Yes! New York, a great place to be. I’m parked along the curb of 56 Rd looking at the intersection with 49th St. in Maspeth, NY waiting to deliver Nestle’s product to a place called Big Geyser. What a hole!

  36. nejking says:

    Tony, why are you even bothering with a climate alarmist Facebook group? You’re tilting at windmills. The one you reference has only 5,000 members. Here’s an actual Climate Change Discussion group with over 22,300 members that welcomes all opinions and sites, including yours.

    Here’s another discussion group with over 16,500 members:

    Why waste your energy and time on people with hands over their eyes and ears and who truly hate your guts?

  37. Rich says:

    Although not a Mormon, I come from an LDS culture. If a member of the church persists in criticizing the religion, they are excommunicated. The sites listed here have effectively been excommunicated from Daniel S. Lindberg sect of the CAGW religion.

  38. Dave Ward says:

    How the righteous moan when the tables are turned:

    “The White House Blocked My Report on Climate Change and National Security”

    The comments are priceless!

  39. mister wallace says:

    How very Orwellian Newspeak of the owner of “Climate Change – An Open Discussion”. It means anything but. This is just another modern Nazi and Statsi/KGB equivalent of book burning.

  40. 4TimesAYear says:

    I’ve been accused of posting false information on climate as well. What gives THEM the RIGHT to say someone’s information is wrong? Yes, climate has changed before – and faster than it’s changing now. Nobody is looking at what caused those woolly mammoths to freeze solid with flowers in their stomachs. Talk about climate change. What happened?

  41. Jeff Jefferson says:

    If “heatwaves have happened before” is your finest argument against AGW then I really wonder what the oil shills are paying you for.

    • tonyheller says:

      This is the sort of mindless rhetoric I have come to expect from climate alarmists. Not a shred of reality in anything Jeff Jefferson says.

    • Gator says:

      Jeffrey, if you believe it is wrong for someone to be making money based upon their views on climate change, then you must really be upset over the trillions spent on alarmists. And if money is corrupting science (and it is), then why are you not attacking those who are making millions off of climate change? Why are you here, where nobody gets paid for their work, where we give honest unsolicited opinions and facts?

      Something tells me this is the “finest argument” that you have against our skepticism, and that you therefore have no argument whatsoever.


Leave a Reply to Ben Vorlich Cancel reply

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