Someone Just Volunteered To Debate!

August 15, 2019 at 8:57 pm

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

136 Responses to Someone Just Volunteered To Debate!

  1. Joel says:

    I’m making popcorn in anticipation of this!!!

  2. Theyouk says:

    Why do I think I already know his response? Fingers crossed he summons the courage to say ‘yes’—and follows through on it.

  3. KevinPaul says:

    Looks like another green freshman who desperately wants a seat on the gravy boat!

  4. GW Smith says:

    Go for it!

  5. Dave N says:

    Sad that this “Climate Researcher” attempts to equate whether or not something someone says is true with how much they’re being paid. Apparently if you do it for free, it’s not garbage?

    Wonder how much they’re paying Henrik to be a complete idiot?

    • Freddy Boom-Boom says:

      Well put.

    • Colorado Wellington says:

      Henrik knows where the money is. He’s researching “climate”. It’s hard to get a federal job in plants and soils.

      Utah State University
      Plants, Soils and Climate

      Climate Science

      The Climate Science integrates basic and applied principles of meteorology, climatology and environmental physics, which are concerned with how natural laws determine the climate. Physical oceanography and land surface physics are also part of climate science because the Earth’s climate variability is strongly coupled to the oceans and land surface. In addition, interactions between land ecosystems, water and climate are studied. This includes understanding and measurements of the atmosphere, soil, water and plants, and how the data are used to address practical issues related to climate change.

      Climate and climate change sciences are among the most rapidly growing topics in research, crossing physical science and social science. These are quintessential interdisciplinary studies, involving not only the physical aspects of earth science, but also the science of climatic impacts to natural systems and humanity, and mitigation of rapid change in natural systems. In Utah, these subjects are facing future planning not only for energy and agriculture, but also for water, soil, economics, recreation, and air pollution.

      Graduates will be well prepared to pursue graduate education in atmospheric science, climatology, hydrology and most other physical sciences, but especially suited for interdisciplinary science programs. The skills instilled in the graduates will qualify them as research technicians in federal, state and university laboratories. They will also be qualified to work with private sectors to design and conduct observations and data analyses for tasks related to weather, climate, water, and energy.

    • Mike says:

      I think some sympathy is needed for these people, in the same way as those who get involved in other doomsday cults. They have bought into a story, and been convinced by rhetoric, cult leaders and twisted facts.

      If you ever talk to someone who has escaped a cult, or wierd sect, they can explain how it works. There is not the freedom to think when they are bombarded by the same reinforcing messages, and forbidded to see anything else or risk isolation from the group.

      Even when these poor folks have started to see behind the curtain, and realise their error, they still continue with the charade until they can make a sure escape.

      It is better to assume that this guy is searching for truth because he knows something is wrong in his camp.

  6. ColA says:

    ….. crickets …… crickets!!!!

  7. Aussie says:

    Look forward to seeing the result here.

    I have never found any “warmist” who can actually reference facts. Instead they will just say “x happens” or “NASA says”. They have no grasp of the actual facts or research. That is where your fact based posts are so important.

    I work in factories and frequently I have people tell me about a problem on one of the lines. A lot of the time when you get there and actually do the investigation the problem is nothing to do with what you have been told.

    Warmists are the same, they make casual observations based on information (frequently false, incomplete etc) received but never bother to actually look at things themselves. If they did they would see what we see – no case for CO2 based warming.

    Keep up the great work!

    • Disillusioned says:

      “Warmists are the same, they make casual observations based on information (frequently false, incomplete etc) received but never bother to actually look at things themselves. If they did they would see what we see – no case for CO2 based warming.”

      Bingo, and B O O M !

  8. Bob Hoye says:

    I’m a financial researcher and writer. After completing a degree in geophysics got into the investment business. From so long ago, that I recall the description of a promotion from the old and wild Vancouver Stock Exchange:
    “At the beginning of the promotion, the promoter has the vision and the public has the money. At the end of the promotion, the public has the vision and the promoter has the money.”
    And with the climate thing the money amounts to $Trillions.
    The biggest promotion in history.

  9. fhsiv says:

    One question for Henrik.
    How much taxpayer money is he being paid to advocate for this pop culture theory?

    • KevinPaul says:

      Good question, I suspect respecting Henrik a number of sources are shriveling up, if Sonny Perdue has anything to do with it they will. Sounds like he’s been listening to Tony, good on him.
      quote “Climate change, we’re told, is responsible for heavy rains and drought alike. Whether temperatures are unseasonably low or high, global warming is the culprit. Snowstorms, hurricanes, and tornadoes have been around since the beginning of time, but now they want us to accept that all of it is the result of climate change,” he wrote in the National Review in 2014. “It’s become a running joke among the public, and liberals have lost all credibility when it comes to climate science because their arguments have become so ridiculous and so obviously disconnected from reality.”

    • Analitik says:

      How much taxpayer money is he being paid to advocate for this pop culture theory?

      And this includes any grant money he has received to fund his climate “research”

  10. Mac says:

    Sounds to me like this is a young guy, very naive, very gullible, poorly prepared, and angry as hell that he might not get all that gub’mint climate hysteria research money with which to purchase a battery powered Dodge Hellcat.

    The fact that there are people in institutions of higher learning believing and teaching others that 0.04% atmospheric CO2 is controlling the planet’s climate is truly scary and sad. Science is dead. It’s just another religion now.

    • Disillusioned says:

      Mac said, Sounds to me like this is a young guy, very naive, very gullible, poorly prepared, ….

      Bingo! (The rest of your conjecture is just that.)

  11. Anon says:

    This should be interesting! Back in 2016, after teaching AGW at university for about 20 years, I would have confidently and naively agreed to debate Tony on this. But what I would have quickly realized, upon doing my debate preparation, was that I had a very limited fund of knowledge regarding the fundamentals of the AGW hypothesis… as we never questioned them. From experience, most people on the AGW side operate/ begin with a set of axioms and build the science from there. They just take the Charney climate sensitivity or the latest NOAA temperature data set as the “word of God” and proceed forward, relying on peer review. When is the last time (or has there ever been a time) when a climate scientist questioned the latest iteration of a NOAA temperature data set, or showed doubts about the climate sensitivity? Panosyan will get an interesting education when he begins looking under those rocks, as happened with Judith Curry, Lindzen, Christy, Soon, Pielke, etal…

    Likewise, I would have accepted a debate defending the notion that fats and not sugars caused heart disease, naively thinking I would just need to read up on the literature before the debate.

  12. Actually been to North Pole many times says:

    A graduate student at Utah State who prostitutes himself as a research assistant/ teaching assistant asks how much someone’s paid to spread facts?

    The grad student is a prostitute. He will say whatever he’s been paid to. He’s also in the center of the brainwashing institutions educating climate morons.

    A graduate student is incapable of debating facts.

    It would be an entertaining display of academic incompetence by this grad student.

    • R Shearer says:

      Prostitution is illegal in Utah, going to graduate school is not, and I’m sure that this student could debate the facts as he knows them however incorrect they might be.

      • rah says:

        If he’d spent even a few minutes actually researching the many posts on this blog he would have challenged the data Tony is putting out with his own. He didn’t. Instead he just went right to ad hominem and THAT is all I needed to see to be skeptical that he would take up Tony’s challenge. But I don’t have much doubt that he is what he says he is and THAT says a lot about the program he is in and how little he has been taught or learned about science and the scientific method.

        • KevinPaul says:

          Indeed, going by his response we can safely assume he is gainfully employed converting tax payer $$$ into garbage. Tony’s revelations threaten to undermine that scheme, hence his attack on Tony’s integrity.

  13. Paul in Longmont says:

    Excited to hear/see the debate.

    Keep up the fantastic work.

    • Kurt in Switzerland says:

      Hey Paul –

      There is no “debate”, period.

      Seems our climate researcher friend Henrik got a case of cold feet. If he can truly do more than toss insults, I’d be surprised. Somebody once said it’s difficult to understand something if your salary depends on not understanding it. Sadly, this is a fairly good reflection of the state of “Climate Science” Anno 2019. Confirmation bias / cognitive dissonance in spades.

      Prove me wrong. :)

  14. Freddy Boom-Boom says:

    I’m going to suggest you not hold your breath. I’ve yet to see anyone actually take you up on your offer(s) to debate.

  15. Freddy Boom-Boom says:

    I really need to quit sugar.

  16. gregole says:

    Keep us posted on time and place.
    Wonder why Mr. Panosyan hasn’t commented here yet?

  17. rah says:

    My bet is that the “Climate Researcher” will not take up the gauntlet for a face to face debate. I imagine he is already talking to associates that are advising against it.

  18. Louis Hooffstetter says:

    Oh please, oh please, oh please…

  19. rah says:

    BTW Tony your challenge is your typical straight up pull no punches style and I Love it. It is the primary reason why have been frequenting this blog and your previous one for the last 7 years or so. In that time, except during your bout of illness, the blog content has only gotten better.

  20. Michael Spencer says:

    In my experience. true ‘believers’ refuse – point blank – to discuss, let alone look at and examine REAL FACTUAL information, resorting instead to denigration. It will be fascinating to see if Henrik is brave enough to take you on.
    My guess is that he won’t!
    And many thanks for your ongoing, UNPAID fantastically good work.

    • Dave Ward says:

      “In my experience. true ‘believers’ refuse – point blank – to discuss, let alone look at and examine REAL FACTUAL information”

      A perfect example is our local Green & Extinction Rebellion spokesperson:

      • Gator says:

        This is the real reason Rupert would (could) not debate…

        Read studied Philosophy, Politics and Economics (PPE) at Balliol College, Oxford, before undertaking postgraduate studies in the United States at Princeton University and Rutgers University (where he gained his doctorate). Influenced by Ludwig Wittgenstein’s philosophy, his PhD involved “a Wittgensteinian exploration of the relationship between Kripke’s ‘quus’ problem and Nelson Goodman’s ‘grue’ problem.”

        It is beyond insulting to have such a naval gazer calling science a “charade”. His entire academic career has been studying charades, he should know better.

  21. Jimmy Haigh says:

    A lot of what Tony posts is from old newspapers and weather records. Does Henrik think these were all part of the” deniers” grand plan?

    • Jason Calley says:

      Alarmists have amazing powers of insight. They are absolutely certain that “deniers” are idiots who do not understand settled science, and yet at the same time, deniers are so cunning that they salted false weather reports into newspapers and historical documents going back for hundreds of years.

      • Crispin in Waterloo says:

        Jason, that is brilliant. There is cunning, and then there is science denier cunning that is able to to master time travel, but not weather forecasting.

        On the other hand are the catastrophists who have the amazing ability to clearly see the future, but not the past. Amazing.

  22. toorightmate says:

    Do I have a red hot tip for you!!!

    THE SUN.

    Do a bit of research on the sun sunshine and you might just work out that it has a major bearing on weather AND 9surprise, surprise) CLIMATE.

    Regard this red hot tip as a godsend dear Henrik, dear Henrik..

  23. Jimmy Cole says:

    How dare you question the narrative? Must be funded by someone

    • arn says:

      good one

      (the same guy who is behind the government in albania which is now,as usual,drowning in corruption and organised crime and pushing hard for EU=easier centralised controle()

  24. Russg says:

    How would someone come to dispute archived records and newspaper articles?
    Tony is showing history here, he isn’t spreading anything that can’t be verified.
    It’s the strongest argument possible.

    • Disillusioned says:

      How would someone come to dispute archived records and newspaper articles? Tony is showing history here, he isn’t spreading anything that can’t be verified. It’s the strongest argument possible.

      Mindless drones like Henrik are clearly not smart enough to deal with such complexities.

    • mddwave says:

      Henrik Panosyan
      Plants, Soils & Climate
      I have a BS in Atmospheric Science from the University of California, Davis, and started pursuing an MS in Climate Science in Fall 2018. My general interests revolve around the North American Dipole and its intensification in recent years, which has been linked to anomalous weather and climate extremes such as flooding and drought in the Western States. With my research, I hope to shine a better light on potential short and long-term consequences that may arise as the dipole evolves in tandem with our warming planet.

    • mddwave says:

      Maybe the debate should start on his understanding on “drastic and rapid temperature changes near the Earth’s poles”. Perhaps, he should present where his money comes from?


      Climate systems student researcher Henrik Panosyan is working to understand drastic and rapid temperature changes near at the Earth’s poles as Arctic amplification is heating up the polar regions 2-3 times faster than the rest of the globe.

      “We really don’t have a good idea after all on what is going to happen even years from now,” Panosyan said. “We try to make the best predictions we can, but Arctic amplification is one of the examples of proof that we really don’t know. Things may happen a lot faster than we can predict or things can happen a lot slower than we can predict. There is a ton of work to be done.”

      Panosyan said impacts of rapid polar warming are being recorded in Siberia, eastern Asia, Eurasia and Europe. He is working to discover how polar temperature changes may also impact the United States.

  25. James says:

    These cowards just have big mouths with no facts. Remember all liberals lie, cheat and steal.

    • Gator says:

      Or founders were liberals. Don’t let the liars fool you, they are not liberals, they are hard core leftists.

    • Tel says:

      Oh have a heart … the kid is only a postgrad … he’s still only learning how to lie, cheat and steal.

      After he’s invested six or seven years of his life dedicated to the cause … he will become fully dependent on the climate bandwagon and might have moved up in the priesthood to the point where he can be the boss of other people who lie, cheat and steal for him.

  26. Gator says:

    Awwwwww. What a precious millennial snowflake. I’ve got underwear older than this brat.

  27. None of your beewax says:

    Reading the comments on this page doesn’t necessarily infuse me with a lot of trust in the debate – whether it’s gonna happen or not. And that has nothing to do with being right or wrong or somewhere in between, but simply because of human psychology: cognitive dissonance is a strong urge, and the mean thing is that people are most often unable to recognise it as such.

    If Henrik would actually agree to argue I suggest that this be done in private. Otherwise it’s just gonna be like Bill Nye vs Ken Ham, where it was more about Ham’s virtue signaling than actually finding some sort of point to agree on. And most important of all; people need time to stomach new arguments. Reading stuff on a website, when you can dictate your own pacing, is completely different from a one or two hour meeting with no pauses. Rushes help no one accept anything.

    • Tel says:

      If only there was some method by which we could use the data in a systematic manner that didn’t depend on personal opinion or individual judgement. We would need to have some rules in place to ensure no one got away with any sneaky tweaks or twiddles.

      We could build a whole discipline around this to help us understand the world … call it Empirical Method Science!

      • None of your beewax says:

        >that didn’t depend on personal opinion or individual judgement

        And that has never been the case. “A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.” – Max Planck, 1948 in his scientific autobiography.

        Scientists think that they’re above these things, but the shameful truth is that human beings are simply wired as such. See also Backfire effect.

        • Tel says:

          As the pilot never said to the copilot … flying deep over enemy territory in 1945, “But what happens if the Japanese don’t believe in nuclear energy?”

  28. richard says:

    Unfortunately his first question makes him an idiot so don’t expect an intellectual debate.

  29. Tim Spence says:

    I notice that Greta isn’t making much headway against the Atlantic winds, perhaps it’s time to switch those diesel engines on if she wants to make it to New York on time.

    • MrGrimnasty says:

      In the world Greta thinks she wants, the wealth and resources and materials woulnd’t even exist to build the boat she is on. I hope they are not using any modern satellite navigtion. And I assume she will decline fossil fuel powered air sea rescue if they get into trouble?

    • Steven Fraser says:

      Been tracking Greta. They turned WNW earlier today. I think they are positioning to catch the northerly circulation around a high pressure system in a few days, and to ride the tailwinds around the high on the east and southern sides of the circulation.

      Position and windpatterns at

      I have no doubt that they have the advantage of modern weather forecasts.

  30. EternalOptimist says:

    Plants and soils, he must ‘know his onions’ as my dear old dad used to say.

    He had another saying as well. for someone who was all talk – ‘gob sh1te’

  31. D. Boss says:

    So, let me get this straight: Henrick directly implies that the truth or veracity of data or results is not relevant or lies if they are paid for???

    OK “actual climate researcher” Henrick, then does this logical argument mean everything published by the AGW/Climate Change Cult, is therefore false? It has been funded to the tune of billions of dollars per year for a couple decades…

    These bozos can’t even make a coherent argument when trying to denounce actual facts or data!

    Whether Tony is paid or is not, cannot be the yardstick for the truth of the data he presents, else that same yardstick could refute everything the IPCC and AGW cult followers proclaim!

    Oh I forgot, being arbitrary regarding rules or laws of physics etc., is the way the loony Left operates. (Left’s rule = If our proclamations are funded they are true and worthy, but if a skeptic has data that refutes those claims, and the skeptic was funded, it is untrue and unworthy) (I doubt Tony is funded but that is not my point)

  32. Gator says:

    What I love is that little Henrik believes that data is garbage. Just like the rest of the thermometer deniers, little Henrik believes that data is worthless, but that contrived sets of fake numbers are the gold standard. He believes in models rather than his own lying eyes.

    He has clearly earned his BA-aaa-aaa in Climate Science.

  33. Kurt in Switzerland says:

    In fairness to Henrik, “Plants, Souls & Climate Researcher” from USU, his post suggesting that Tony was ‘being paid to spread garbage’ was a comment to a post on sea ice extent in 2019 vs. 2012 (lowest rot the past 40 y, per satellite record). Tony had suggested that the boys in Boulder were getting creative [again], since the curve for 2019 appears to track 2012 very well, although a snapshot of arctic sea ice from 14 August 2019 appears to give evidence of more ice than 14 August 2012.

    Two individuals, repeat commenters Griff & Phil, appears to disagree.
    Neither had much coherent to offer. Perhaps Henrik does?

    • Phil. says:

      Actually as usual Tony didn’t have the guts to back up his claim with data.
      “Neither had much coherent to offer.”
      You claim that NSIDC’s maps show 5% more ice without any evidence, care to justify that? Perhaps you don’t know how to calculate it.
      You claim that “Arctic sea ice is melting very slowly, there has been almost no change in extent over the last three days”, whereas loss rate is about average for the date.

      As usual Tony failed to respond.

      • spike55 says:

        Poor PHAIL, can’t see that the areas were taken from the NSIDC charts and show a discrepancy.

        Basic maths and comprehension PHAIL from Phil.

        When you post ignorant comments, why should TH bother to respond.

        Ignorance is your only trait, which is why you continue to Phail after phail after phail;. !!

        • Phil. says:

          Poor PHAIL, can’t see that the areas were taken from the NSIDC charts and show a discrepancy.

          Basic maths and comprehension PHAIL from Phil.

          OK, care to outline the basic math you believe should have been used?

          • spike55 says:

            OMG , you are SO DUMB.

            You must be MOCKING yourself. !!

            Tony showed you the basic area calculations from NSIC charts,

            and you STILL are too dumb to comprehend

            You really are going down the path of WILFUL and DELIBERATE IGNORANCE in your bid for utter and complete PHAILURE.

      • Kurt in Switzerland says:


        Do you dispute that the 14 April sea ice snapshot shows a greater extent than that for the same date in 2012?

        • spike55 says:

          He has to close his eyes and his brain so that FACTS cannot get in. !

          Wilfully blind, and wilfully DUMB !!

        • rah says:

          Shhhh! The whole intent of his post was to talk around and avoid that FACT!

        • Phil. says:

          I assume you mean 14th Aug since that was the date of the snapshot in question? Yes I do dispute Tony’s statement that 2019 shows 5% more ice than 2012 which has made no justification for. He implies that he has made a calculation but refuses to say how.
          A minor point is that NSIDC compare with Aug 13 2012 to allow for the leap year but the difference is less than 1% in any case.

          • spike55 says:

            If you are SO IGNORANT that you don’t know how to do a calculation from an area..

            That is entirely expected.

            It is totally irrelevant if you “dispute” TH’s calculation if you haven’t go a clue how to do it yourself.

          • spike55 says:

            Now phail, let’s see if you can admit to some actual truth.

            State after me….

            1. “Current Arctic sea ice extent is HIGHER than it has been for most of the last 10,000 years.”

            2. “The only periods it has been higher were during the Little Ice Age and the period from the late 1970s , which was up there as an extreme anomalous extent equal to the LIA.”

            Waiting for some HONESTY from you.

            Or are you a LIAR and a climate change denier.

          • Phil. says:

            It is totally irrelevant if you “dispute” TH’s calculation if you haven’t go a clue how to do it yourself.

            Yes, but you’re the one who doesn’t have a clue how to do it. Tony miscalculated the area and came up with the ‘5%’ claim, but of course won’t admit it so we won’t get a response from him. Perhaps you could explain how you would calculate the seaice extent from those maps?

          • spike55 says:

            Poor phail, simple maths is beyond you

            Poor phail, simple HONESTY is beyond you.

            Try again.. or PHAIL as is you name.

            Repeat after me

            1. “Current Arctic sea ice extent is HIGHER than it has been for most of the last 10,000 years.”

            2. “The only periods it has been higher were during the Little Ice Age and the period from the late 1970s , which was up there as an extreme anomalous extent equal to the LIA.”

            You just CANNOT bring yourself to face the truth, can you. !

          • spike55 says:

            Hey Phail,

            Did you know that the Russian Ice charts are currently showing some 15% MORE thick sea ice than in 2012 !!

          • Phil. says:

            Poor phail, simple maths is beyond you
            The fact that you think it’s ‘simple math’ to calculate the sea ice area from those maps indicates that you don’t know how to do it!

            Did you know that the Russian Ice charts are currently showing some 15% MORE thick sea ice than in 2012 !!

            Which charts are those? And where do you get those numbers from?

          • spike55 says:

            Poor phail,

            .. if you are SO INCOMPETENT that you don’t know how to find the Russian ice charts..

            .. and don’t know how to do the calculations for thick ice from those charts….

            .. then why are you bothering to comment????

            Only reason I can think of is to display your ABJECT IGNORANCE.. !!

            You just keep on doubling down on that slap-stick display of your innate DUMBNESS…

            PHAILure after PHAILure

          • spike55 says:

            Let’s watch as phil PHAILS to tell the truth , yet again

            Repeat after me

            1. “Current Arctic sea ice extent is HIGHER than it has been for most of the last 10,000 years.”

            2. “The only periods it has been higher were during the Little Ice Age and the period from the late 1970s , which was up there as an extreme anomalous extent equal to the LIA.”

            You just CANNOT bring yourself to tell the truth, can you. !

            Slither and slide little worm.

          • spike55 says:

            Missed a bit this morning…. pre coffee.

            Its around 10% more thick sea ice on this date as there was in 2012, not 15%

            You will have to figure out how to do it, won’t you, poor mindless twerp.

            No use us explaining anything to you, in one ear out the other, with nothing to catch it in between.

          • Phil. says:

            .. if you are SO INCOMPETENT that you don’t know how to find the Russian ice charts..

            The Russian ice charts with which I am familiar with are at however during the summer they show concentration not thickness so you must be referring to different ones. Most of the ice was First year ice at the end of May (less than 2m). The supporting information for those maps states: “traditionally this information is stored in the form of ice charts for operational purposes. for statistical or climatological use the chart format is however not convenient and the information needs to be digitized”.
            So apparently the math isn’t so simple!

            .. and don’t know how to do the calculations for thick ice from those charts….

            See above. If those are not the charts you are referring to then perhaps you could give your source rather than throwing around insults.

          • spike55 says:

            Admitting you are clueless how to find the area of thick ice is not helping your cause, little PHAILURE.

            Your slithering and sliming as you refuse to admit the main truth is quite hilarious.

            Wilful IGNORANCE, no doubt.

            Repeat after me.. ADMIT the facts, or PHAIL !!!

            1. “Current Arctic sea ice extent is HIGHER than it has been for most of the last 10,000 years.”

            2. “The only periods it has been higher were during the Little Ice Age and the period from the late 1970s , which was up there as an extreme anomalous extent equal to the LIA.”

            You just CANNOT bring yourself to tell the truth, can you. !

            Slither and slide little worm.

          • Phil. says:

            spike55 says:
            August 20, 2019 at 8:30 pm

            I guess that’s your admission that the Russian Ice charts you spoke of don’t exist.

          • spike55 says:

            Triple PHAILURE from Phil

            LYING through his ass.

            IGNORANT as well

            And totally incapable of basic HONESTY and TRUTH.

            Truly a sick deceitful little POS. !!

  34. Barry Sheridan says:

    So wrapping articles around contemporary newspaper reports and other data produces garbage. I think not, this is honest research, rather a contrast to the endless reporting based on the use of models about how the climate is going to react. A tide that hardly ever produces anything like an accurate idea of what may happen a few weeks down the road, never mind several years hence.

  35. Gerald Machnee says:

    Sort of like Michael Barnard on Quora to the question:

    How has public opinion regarding anthropogenic climate change shifted from when if first became an issue to the early 2000s to today (2019)?

    He gives some fake responses falsely accusing accusing the fossil fuel industry then ends with the comment:
    **Note: my personal policy is to block and mute climate change deniers. Yours should be too.**
    And blocks responses.
    Truly a coward.

    • Ray says:

      It applies on so many levels in science . Once the establishment is threatened through science especially funding , the knives come out . Learning in the fall of my life that so much of my education has been fabrication has led me to a better understanding of who i truly want to be : and some of his papers on the discovery were ‘lost.’ ‘I was hounded from my
      Canadian government position by certain American citizens on both sides of the
      border and driven into eight long years of blacklisting, and enforced
      unemployment,’ Lee wrote.”63
      Michael A. Cremo and Richard L. Thompson describe what happened to Lee
      “In the early 1950’s, Thomas E. Lee of the National Museum of Canada
      found advanced stone tools in glacier deposits at Sheguiandah, on Manitoulin
      Island in northern Lake Huron. Geologists John Sanford of Wayne State
      University argued that the oldest Sheguiandah tools were at least 65,000 years
      old and might be as much as 125,000 years old. For those adhering to standard
      views on North American prehistory, such ages were unacceptable. Humans
      supposedly entered North America from Siberia about 12,000 years ago.
      “Thomas E. Lee complained: ‘The site’s discoverer [Lee] was hounded
      from his Civil Service position into prolonged unemployment; publication outlets
      were cut off; the evidence was misrepresented by several prominent authors . . . ;
      the tons of artifacts vanished into storage bins of the National Museum of
      Canada; for refusing to fire [Lee] the discoverer, the Director of the National
      Museum who had proposed having a monograph on the site published, was
      himself fired and driven into exile; official positions of prestige and power were
      exercised in an effort to gain control over just six Sheguiandah specimens that
      had not gone under cover; and the site has been turned into a tourist resort . . .
      Sheguiandah would have forced embarrassing admissions that the Brahmins did
      not know everything. It would have forced the rewriting of almost every book in
      the business. It had to be killed it was killed.”64
      In commenting on Cremo and Thompson’s book, Bradley T. Lepper admits:
      “Cremo and Thompson are right about the extreme conservatism of
      many archaeologists and physical anthropologists. While an undergraduate at a
      prominent southwest university, I participated in classroom discussions about the
      claims for a very early [prior to 12,000 B.P.] occupation at the Timlin site (in
      New York) which had just been announced. The professor surprised me when
      she stated flatly that if the dates were correct then it was ‘obviously not a site’ [of
      early man]. The dismissal of the possibility of such an ancient site without an

      63Vine Deloria, Red Earth White Lies, (New York, 1995) p. 73. See also, Thomas Elee, “Sheguiandah
      as Viewed in 1974.” NEARA Newsletter, Vol. 9, (1974), pp. 34-37.

      64Michael A. Cremo, Richard L. Thompson, The Hidden History of the Human Race, op. cit.,

  36. MrGrimnasty says:

    Would Henrik hand in a thesis if it didn’t have the ‘right’ conclusion. Would Henrik publish a paper that didn’t have the ‘right’ conclusion. Would Henrik apply for a grant for a research project that might undermine the consensus. Would Henrik whistle-blow on his fellows if he knew they were being dishonest.

    The entire cash-pot swilling around the ‘denial-sphere’ is a fraction of GreenPeace’s budget alone. In contrast the climate alarmist industry has $Trillions to waste on junk science and pushing propaganda.

    Contrarians have tiny resources, are starved of publicity, publicly denigrated, and still alarmists can’t win an honest argument – I wonder why!

  37. Windsong says:

    Tony, if Henrik is available for a debate, I suggest you meet him half-way (assuming he is in Logan) in a neutral location, which would be about Rawlins, WY. If you are both agreeable and can pinpoint a time/place, I will be honored to cover the cost of a hotel conference room or public space there to do the meet-up. Anywhere between Ogden and Cheyenne is fine.

  38. Gummans Gubbe says:

    But who would pay Tony Heller for the work he is doing?

    I can see ordinary people that knows about the climate fraudsters doing that, but what industries?

  39. Ray says:

    Tony , Thank you for your knowledge and truth through science.
    As it snows today in Western Canada in August the concern is for the youth going forward that have been deceived as we approach ECOLOGICAL GENOCIDE on a Grand scale based on propoganda and false models ( idols ) all for 30 pieces of silver & U.N. AGENDA 30 .

  40. Billyjack says:

    One would have an easier time debating the veracity of the virgin birth with an Evangelical. In the Church of Warming, the post graduate is hoping to become one of the clergy. The climate scientist of today are little different than the educated clergy of the monarchs who provided the “science” of the king’s right to rule by divine providence.

  41. HayMaker says:

    Looking down at the Boulder NOAA complex as I write. Great work Tony. I have been doing independent climate research for the last year. I have a 30 year science background and have been involved in several worldwide corporate mis information campaigns.

    Global warming is the best mis information campaign in history. Based on the NOAA’s own data, the U.S. has been magically cooler than most of the world for 140 years.

    NOAA is a hold over, ultra extreme, political organization that needs a good kick in the ass. Based on my estimations, NOAA can just as easily show global cooling and blame it on the grand solar minimum.

    I asked for parsed rural temperature data from NOAA yesterday. We’ll see what happens.

  42. Andy says:

    That’s disappointing to be honest considering he is supposed to be scientific

    I can call up Tony when I think he is wrong, from my armchair, and do a lot, and I get a bit of a bashing on here from the brainless, but at least I would attempt to put forward why I think Tony is wrong, or not yet proved.

    Obviously the above just tends to be in the polar regions


    • Gator says:

      No Andy Andy, you get bashed for being brainless.

      I know, our current epoch is damned inconvenient for trolling alarmists, but that still doesn’t mean that you can ignore its entirety, and then cherrypick the parts that you like.

      Sorry that butt hurts you Andy Andy… OK, really not sorry.

      Quit whining like a ninny, and start reasoning like an adult.

    • spike55 says:

      Poor little-andy

      You are so brain-hosed that all that remains of your feeble little mind is a PUTRID GREEN SLUDGE. !!

      Never once have you presented anything to prove TH wrong.

      Everything you present is baseless anti-science NONSENSE, because that is all you have available to you.

    • spike55 says:

      “when I think he is wrong”

      Which seeing you have the mentality and brain-hosing of a 10 year old greta, is totally irrelevant and laughable.

    • None of your beewax says:

      @Gator and @spike55: What the *hell* is wrong with you? Instead of explaining things and linking to sources you fling ad hominem attacks at people who’re skeptics – a trait that people here seem to have no problem with whatsoever as long as it’s *them* who’re the skeptics – and then you’re expecting climate scientists to still be willing to debate you?!

      Seriously, what sort of kindergarten show are you pulling off here? There is absolutely no need to get emotional over this. Simply state the facts, link the sources, give people a chance to change their mind instead of them immediately refusing your claims because you’re a bunch of immature twats.

      Or maybe you simply do not convince people. Maybe you just want to bask in the glory of your perceived righteousness, and that would be fair, but you’re doing TH a disservice with this. If Trump’s election is proof of *anything*, then that the facts don’t matter as long as you don’t present them properly.

      So start learning to present them properly or remove yourself from the presentation.

      • Gator says:

        You must be new here. We tried reasoning with Andy Andy for years, and it was a complete waste of time. In case you missed it, he just told me that the Holocene is irrelevant. Care to take a crack?

        Before you go about making judgements on those whom you do not know, you should maybe ask “why” first.

        • rah says:

          This subject of this whole thread is about a ad hominin attack by a “climate researcher” that offers one shred of data.

        • None of your beewax says:

          >You must be new here.
          No, *you* must be new, then. Very new. So new that you completely missed the Uesnet era, because that’s when the phrase “Don’t feed the trolls” emerged.

          If Andy *is* a troll, then what he wants are your emotional reactions; and you just hand them to him.
          If he is *not* a troll, then you leave a bad shine on the entire scene. Either way you’re making a bread out of yourself; not in particular in front of me, but of people who see your immature reactions and think: “Well, if they *had* arguments they would’ve brought them up first; *clearly* Andy is in the right here”.

          >you go about making judgements on those whom you do not know
          You either haven’t read or haven’t understood my post. You shouldn’t care about *my* judgements, but about the judgement of those who’re going to read your posts and just *wait* for an excuse to scream “ad hominem”. What Andy is doing is the equivalent of giving you guys enough rope to hang yourselves in front of everyone.

          Yes, and that’s great. For *you*. Seriously. When someone gives you such a basis it’s ridiculously easy to ask “Seeing as you went for ad hominem directly I don’t suppose you have any data on that point?”.

          With that the ball lies in the other court. Mission accomplished. Even if they’re a troll any reader will now assume that *you* are the rational one here, and not the other side.

          >And who TF do you think you are to tell me what to do !
          Based on your orthography I’d say that I’m someone severely more conscious of their presentation than you are, which is why you should listen doubly to what I have to say.

          Or, y’know, you can just continue to act like an immature brat, and convince no one with your act. People are simply going to think: “Oh, another denier nut. Great. Whenever it comes to show facts and data they throw an autistic fit”.

          >this fool called “None of your beewax ” thinks we should lie back and take it.
          Are you … actually implying that what a troll calls you *bothers* you? Like, seriously?

          What others say about you says more about them, so you shouldn’t even acknowledge it. So, yes, I’m telling you to *take* it, because that makes you the bigger person in the eyes of an observer. Because, again, the facts don’t matter at all if you cannot properly present them.

          • spike55 says:

            What a mindless SJW rant from beeswax.

            So sad, so pathetic

            Grow a backbone, and stop being a clown.

          • spike55 says:

            “You either haven’t read or haven’t understood my post.”

            Neither of us gives a stuff about you or your posts.

            Why should we, you are not in the least bit as important as you think you are. !

          • spike55 says:

            “why you should listen doubly to what I have to say.”


            … so I can catch the full HILARITY of your arrogance?

            You are a meaningless non-entity and a waste of space, beeswax.

          • spike55 says:

            “the facts don’t matter at all if you cannot properly present them.”

            And you haven’t presented any facts, just mindless self-aggrandising gabble.

            You are not important to anyone except yourself, little boy. !

            Great slap-stick comedy act , though. :-)

          • rah says:

            Yes, and that’s great. For *you*. Seriously. When someone gives you such a basis it’s ridiculously easy to ask “Seeing as you went for ad hominem directly I don’t suppose you have any data on that point?”.

            I was referring to the very subject of this thread. An ad hominine attack tweet from a supposed “climate researcher” presenting not one shred of evidence or data to back his claims or to justify the grounds for his question. I have no idea what your rambling about. Quite frankly it was just happenstance I even saw you included me in your long spiel.

        • Gator says:

          Sorry New Guy, but Andy Andy does not raise my blood pressure, he is a child in need of reprimand, but not my child. I will correct bad behavior no matter where I am, or whose child it is. That is how proper societies stay proper.

          Your verbose attempt at psychoanalysis was like trying to educate Andy Andy, it was a waste of effort. As I said, correct it and move on. You go ahead and see if time outs work for you, maybe try and reason with him, waste more of all of our time.

          Guess why we are still discussing Andy Andy’s latest outburst?

          Frankly I don’t give a damn about anyone’s judgement anymore, I am way past that juvenile and needy concern. But you clearly still do, so when I said to look before verbally leaping, it was advice meant to make you look less foolish on the future. More wasted time.

          Next time keep your PC advice to yourself, and mind your own damn business. The only person encouraging more of Andy Andy’s crap, is you.

      • rah says:

        Not one shred of data

      • spike55 says:

        We have xplaied MANY MANY times,.

        They refuse categorically to even try to comprehend basic facts.

        They come here to just spread the same LIES and FALLACIES time after time.

        They deserve all the derision they get.

        If you don’t like it.. join the ranks of the SJW. !!

      • spike55 says:

        And who TF do you think you are to tell me what to do !

      • spike55 says:

        Odd isn’t it, little andy calls us “brainless” and this fool called “None of your beewax ” thinks we should lie back and take it.

        Beeswax doesn’t realise that little andy has NEVER proven TH wrong about anything. Gets shot down every time.

        Little-andy just cannot face facts that go against his brain-washing, and yaps endlessly about unproven irrelevancies he really is totally clueless about.

  43. Annie says:

    Hey Tony,

    LOVE the work you do. THANK YOU!!

    I keep hearing that the oceans are warming. Are they lying about that data, too? I’ve seen you do lots with the land data, and I’ve heard an Australian researcher describe the same lying and change of data going on there as here in the US. I’ve seen researchers debunk the rise in sea level, but I can’t recall seeing much debunking of the ocean temperature data that is being reported. Can you find any info on that?

    Again, thank you for all you do.

  44. EdB says:

    This thread must rank amount the worst I have seen. TH does not need his good work sullied by the comments ofvSpike55.

  45. Henrik says:

    Hello all,

    I am just now finding out about the request from Tony Heller to debate me. The thing about a debate on this topic, is that it would have to be entirely evidence based and couldn’t possibly be done properly on the spot, in a one on one setting. We’d have to hear each others arguments, then spend adequate time to fact check each other and properly respond, and not through claims of our own, but through data and evidence presented through the scientific peer reviewed research and literature.

    Now I understand that many of you have a problem with the peer review process, but it’s the best thing we got in understanding the world around us through implementation of the scientific method.

    Formally and respectfully, I will have to decline the debate for the reason stated above, and for the fact that potholer54 already had this debate with Tony Heller not 1 year ago, and the results were very clear for all who watched. But don’t take my word for it, for any of you interested in seeing this debate, please go check out their back and forth on YouTube.


    • tonyheller says:

      In other words, you know you would lose

    • spike55 says:

      potholer lied and lost, producing a load of unsubstantiated BS.

      Your point is ?

      You are just a scared little zero-science twerp.

      Get over yourself.

    • Gator says:

      Henrik, we have no issue with peer reviewed science. It backs our point of view 100%. There is zero proof in the peer reviewed literature that man is responsible for global climate changes.

      You know you will lose. What a pathetic little snot nosed chicken shit brat.

    • Disillusioned says:

      IF a consensus of Youtube viewers approve of p-hole’s lies, that’s good enough for Henrik.

    • Disillusioned says:


      I understand. You’re doing your very best to keep the cognitive dissonance as far away from you as possible. Your career and your funding depend on you believing and supporting the CAGW house of cards. Trying to support it ultimately became too tiring for me.

  46. Hoipolloi says:

    Tony. Big spread in the NYT about page 17; “Swollen Great Lakes Are Engulfing Beaches and Seeping into Towns.” Any comments?

  47. Massimo says:

    Actually, from a climate researcher ( a “real scientist” then, I suppose), some better argument would be expected.

Leave a Reply

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