New Video : CO2 Endangerment Finding Fails Every Test

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

61 Responses to New Video : CO2 Endangerment Finding Fails Every Test

  1. GW Smith says:

    Another great video, Tony! Thanks! You’re absolutely right, they simply don’t understand what is going on and what is at stake. I think they chose Greta because she so closely represents their alter ego.

  2. Jack Hilgen says:

    I’m leaving this comment not a response to this particular post, but as a general response to this blog.

    First, I appreciate Tony posting this. Thank you Tony!

    This blog is mainly about poking holes in the belief that our earth’s climate is undergoing significant change because of manmade greenhouse gasses. It does this (mostly) by showing the problems with press accounts of climate change, or what it believes are scientific claims about the climate. The problem with this approach, however, it that the claims that it lampoons are not *actual* scientific claims. They are accounts from the press and anecdotes from the past. They are not claims from scientific literature.

    You will know when you are ready actual scientific claims because they will be specific and supported by data. For example, here is an excerpt from an actual journal paper:

    “While the meteorological and climate community has come a long way in our understanding of the global and regional climatological features of tropical cyclones, as well as some aspects of the broader relationship between tropical cyclones and climate, we are still hindered by temporal inconsistencies within the historical record of storm data, particularly pertaining to tropical cyclone intensity. Despite recent efforts to homogenize the historical record using satellite-derived intensity data back to the early 1980s, the relatively short period makes it difficult to discern secular trends due to anthropogenic climate change from natural trends occurring on decadal to multidecadal time scales.” (from “The Global Climatology of Tropical Cyclones” by Ramsey)

    What this means that the author can’t say that there are more or fewer hurricanes due to climate change because the time scale of the events (decades) doesn’t give enough data to find a trend. This is an actual scientific claim. They aren’t saying there isn’t an effect. They are saying they don’t have enough data to support a claim.

    Before you get all happy about the fact that they can’t support a claim, there are studies that show the intensity of storms is increasing due to climate change. But I’ll leave that to you to find the studies and the actual scientific papers. (i.e., not the press accounts)

    I doubt these words will change anyone’s mind here. There will likely be comments insulting my writing or my mental capabilities. Whatever.

    But I hope that those of you who think for yourself will delve into the actual scientific literature and find out what it says. It might surprise you.

    • Gator says:

      They are saying they don’t have enough data to support a claim.

      Correct. So when you find something (the opposite of nothing, which you now have), feel free to come back. Until then, you guys are just hunting Bigfoot

      • Jack Hilgen says:

        Here are a couple of landmark studies that are solid evidence. Read them and get back to me:

        “Thermal Equilibrium of the Atmosphere with a Given Distribution of Relative Humidity”. Published in 1967 in the “Journal of Atmospheric Sciences”. This was the first paper to represent the fundamental elements of the Earth’s climate in a computer model, and to explore what doubling carbon dioxide (CO2) would do to global temperature.

        “Atmospheric carbon dioxide variations at Mauna Loa observatory,” This paper documented for the first time the stark rise of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere at the Mauna Loa observatory in Hawaii.

        • Archie says:

          “This was the first paper to represent the fundamental elements of the Earth’s climate in a computer model, and to explore what doubling carbon dioxide (CO2) would do to global temperature.”

          So? Current models can’t predict temperature past, present therefore, future. Why would anyone thing a 1967 model would do any better?

          It’d be nice if science were actually running the debate. It’s not. Politics and propaganda won’t cave in based on some word-parsed scientific paper. The way I see it, it isn’t even a question of climate changing — of course it is as it has done for billions of years. It’s this whole CO2 driven model that’s the issue. I haven’t seen any evidence that it’s correct. History matters when predicting the future.

        • Dan Paulson says:

          Jack you do realize that the Keeling curve actual disproves human influence on CO2 levels?

          The keeling curve shows consistent upward growth in atmospheric CO2 in a very consistent pattern, while human emissions have been up, down, and sideways over the same timespan.

          It’s almost as if nature was deciding how much CO2 would be injected and removed from the atmosphere, annually.

          I will reread the other paper, though I am reasonably sure that it doesn’t make alarmist statements, or even hint at any absolute conclusion.

          • KevinPaul says:

            Nice try Dan, but it appears Jack has returned back up the beanstalk to seek the Golden Goose with Chicken Little and other alarmists.

        • Dan Paulson says:

          From the conclusions in that particular atmospheric study, they find sensitivity to CO2 to be far less than current alarmist claims. Their conclusions were a doubling of CO2 netting an increase of surface temperature of about 1.3C with a realistic distribution of absolute humidity and 2.3C with a realistic distribution relative humidity.

          They also found that the equilibrium temperature of the atmosphere is about 20.7C colder under average cloud conditions, which is a far cry from the alarmist notions that clouds create a positive major feedback to surface temperature increases.

          There was also shown a direct connection between stratospheric humidity and surface temperatures, although attribution is problematic.

          I hate to say it but you ought to be careful what studies you put forth, unless you actually read them. Otherwise people might say that “You Don’t Know Jack”!

        • Lapsley says:

          One thing Tony Heller does with exactitude is show where, and when NASA and NOAA alter, revise, erase, and simply create from nothing, their temperature records.

          These are the same people who report the CO2 ppm data.

          Why should we give any credibility to their past and present reported CO2 percentages given their flagrantly false temperature reports past and present?

      • Gator says:

        Oooooh! A computator model, I ain’t never see one of them before! LOL

        Hey Mr I got nothin’, do me a favor.

        1- List all climate forcings, order them from most to least effectual, and then quantify them all.

        2- Please provide even one peer reviewed paper that refutes natural variability as the cause of recent, or any, global climate changes.

        There is nothing unusual or unprecedented about our climate, or how we got here. For 4,500,000,000 years climates have always changed, naturally. This means there has been a set precedent, and the burden of proof falls on natural climate change deniers like yourself.

    • Robert Austin says:

      Placing “scientific literature” on a pedestal and denigrating the anecdotal is a tactic of the climate activist. The medieval warm period was targeted for erasure by activist “scientists” as it did not fit their narrative. A single instance of anecdotal evidence is weak to useless but multiple independent instances of anecdotal evidence varying from the so called science may indicate that there is a flaw in the the science, not in the anecdotes. Tony presents a virtual avalanche of historical and perhaps anecdotal evidence that today’s weather/climate is not unprecedented or historically unusual.
      By extension, Tony uses archived weather data (do you consider that anecdotal?) to show many hysterical claims about climate/weather to be untrue or deliberately cherry picked.
      So I respectfully suggest you address the topics that Tony presents and not deflect with what amounts to an appeal to authority . Perhaps rather than vague hand-waving about the “actual scientific literature”, you could cite some of the actual literature relevant to the topic at hand. Otherwise you come across as a so called “concern troll”.

      • Jack Hilgen says:

        it’s impossible to respond to Tony’s claims. First, they’re all over the place. Second, he doesn’t supply his data. Third, his claims don’t actually attack climate science. They attack reports and anecdotal evidence.

        • Gator says:

          The laddy doth project too much, methinks. LOL

        • Robert Austin says:

          One can’t be all things to all people. Critiquing the egregious nonsense of the media is a vital function. Examining the products of data manipulators such as NASA GISS is a public service. Tony even created a program that retrieves the data so you can duplicate his work. And what do you mean by “attack climate science”?
          Is pulling back the curtain on the enforced consensus an attack on science or an exposure of the perverters of science?

        • Joel says:


          Tony has provided all the data he uses…and all the source code to his software. It is publicly available on this site. I gave you the links a few days back when we were writing back-and-forth here.

          Saying “he doesn’t supply his data” is wrong.

        • David A says:

          You can’t refute because of how many? That is a cop out. He does supply his data sources. The “reports” often come from the “scientists” in the field, and again, you ignore the national and international data bases he does use.

    • Gerald Machnee says:

      **Before you get all happy about the fact that they can’t support a claim, there are studies that show the intensity of storms is increasing due to climate change. But I’ll leave that to you to find the studies and the actual scientific papers. (i.e., not the press accounts)**
      We are quite aware of them JH, they are just as bad as your comments here.

    • establ says:

      Jack, I guess you didn’t get the memo. It’s not about the climate, it’s about the “economy” comrade.

      Global Warming A Back Door To Socialism – And Now Even The UN Admits It

      AOC’s top aide admits Green New Deal about the economy, not climate

  3. Jack Hilgen says:

    My post isn’t an appeal to authority. It shows what scientific literature actually claims, not what Tony says it claims.

    Tony is attacking claims that weren’t actually made by scientists!

    • Gator says:

      So Hansen never made dire predictions about Manhattan that didn’t come true?

      What color is the sky on your world Jack?

    • KevinPaul says:

      The duty of the Press has been to interpret and represent scientific revelations into a laymans’ sphere of understanding. They have done so for centuries past and a number of these are the articles that Tony has been highlighting, and they definitively show that climate science has a very long way before it can be taken seriously. I put its level of development at the level of miasma causes disease in medical science, it to blamed bad air.

      One has to take ALL Tony’s work as a whole, not just this post or that post. When one does, the pixels begin to fall into place and reveal a very sinister picture, one of mass institutional abuse of public money, intentional data set corruption, political biases, cherry picked data truncation, exaggerated and panic engendering conclusions, suppression and burying of studies contrary to the IPCCs mandate, I could go on, but it is naive of you to suggest that we delve into the scientific literature considering the forgoing, but ultimately the bottom line is the outright confession by at least two UN officials that it’s not about CO2 anymore, it’s about world-wide communism and the redistribution of wealth.

  4. Jack Hilgen says:

    Here’s another thought: Why do you all doubt the scientific consensus on climate change? Why do you focus on fraud here?

    What about other scientific findings? Perhaps you can attack findings in particle physics? material science?

    why just climate science? why not just kick it all out?

    What the hell do researchers know anyways?

    • arn says:

      The doubts are logical and reasonable as nothing changes and
      all that the same guys who started to promote global warming were those who promoted global cooling
      (Steven Schneider,Gavin Schmidt,John Holdren)
      I even read an article that Hansen was into global cooling haven”t reaserached it yet.

      Climate Science deserves the treatment it get as it is the only science that went from one extreme(ice age) to another(global warming)
      and it is also the only science that changed an established view for another without any internal fight or resistance from the promoters of the ice age.
      A well known problem in science which led to Plancks famous quote

      “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.”

      but this never happened.

      And it is no surprise that this inner fight never happened,as in real science we don”t have politicians,celebrities,anchormen and sceintists forcing us to believe in something.

      And if we argue against other science noone is gonna call us any names.

      And it is not that other scientific findings have not been criticized.
      (tony wrote about a sceince article from a leading science magazine
      that claimed that 50%+ of scienfic reseach papers are manipulated
      if i remember rifht)
      I myself criticized the dark matter/energy BS,
      as this was no finding but a theoretical deus ex machina pulled out of the Ass to keep the current system alive.
      Whenever one needs to increase the mass and energy of your system by 20x
      to explain your(now) remaining 5% which always were 100% and did not need fairytale matter before your theory was about to collapse-
      then be sure there is some shittalker on the road selling bridges.

      But i”m pretty sure:give them some billions and they will prove dark matter and energy and give them some more they will prove that unicorn farts exist.

      • Crispin in Waterloo says:

        I am pretty sure John Holdren was John Ehrlich’s grad student. Kirk Smith (Berkeley) was Holdren’s grad student. Kirk is the “We are all going to die from wood smoke and air pollution” guy. You will hear more about that in the coming months.

    • spike55 says:

      Consensus is NOT science.

      Seems you know very little about “science, Jack

      There is no empirical evidence of warming by increased atmospheric CO2

      There is no CO2 warming signal in any climate index

      There has been no change in the global climate in the last 40 that can be scientifically proven to be caused by man.

      Every facet of the current global climate is well within climate history norms.

      Global climate changes NATURALLY , and there is no evidence humans have affected it in any way whatsoever.

      You hate that TH finds fraud so easily in the AGW meme.

      That is because that is what it is built on.

      It is an agenda, becoming a religion,

      It is NOT science. !

    • Gator says:

      There is no consensus Jack. You clearly have no clue. Anyone who claims there is a consensus is an ignorant fool.

      And besides, we don’t vote for science.

    • Robert Austin says:

      Now you are being willfully obtuse. There are vast funds up for grabs in the climate change game. Advocates are demanding extreme measures to combat alleged catastrophic climate change. The validity of particle physics does not fundamentally impinge on our way of life. Climate research would be a backwater of science if it had not been weaponized by certain groups interested in using it to promote their agendas. I detect your increasing frustration that your trolling is not going as planned.

      • Jack Hilgen says:

        “There are vast funds up for grabs in the climate change game.”

        Status quo:
        94 million barrels per day of oil x $60/barrel x 365 days = approximately $2 trillion per year.
        And that’s just the oil industry. I’ve excluded plastics, coal, gas, etc.

        The future:
        Solar industry worldwide: $400 billion worldwide by 2022.

        Which number is higher?

        • spike55 says:

          Fossil fuels are USEFUL.

          They have helped build society as we know it

          Wind and solar are not useful

          They are a drag on every electrical grid they are introduced into, and the agenda behind them threaten to destroy society. That is their aim.

          It is noted you did not even try to counter any of the points I made up above..

          You obviously KNOW THAT YOU CAN’T
          You really are an ignorant Jack-ass.

        • KevinPaul says:

          I think Jack must be a school student having some fun, is it school holidays there too Jack?

        • Gator says:

          Why not include medical care and food Jack? LOL

    • Dan Paulson says:

      Jack you are correct as somewhere in the neighborhood of 80% of all published modern “science” is only fit for use in an outhouse.

      It all comes down to why the studies were undertaken, and who actually paid for he results.

      Modern science has horribly lost its’ way as you can largely determine the results of most studies by examining who produced and paid for them, without actually diving into the details.

      The biggest problem with most climate science is that it contains so little actual science.

    • Kent Clizbe says:

      Why focus on climate “science” fraud? Great question! Glad you asked!

      Because the climate science scam is intended to provide a gloss of “Scientific” legitimacy to the globalist scheme to destroy the American-led, oil-fed capitalist economic system.

      The consequences of allowing the fraud to play out to the fraudsters’ desired conclusion are: reduction of the relatively free economies, destruction of Normal-America’s way of life, surrender of our liberty to globalist masters, and more.

      Are there other scientific frauds? Surely are–see below. All should be identified and stopped. But none have the potential to be as destructive as the climate fraud.

      Read Retraction Watch. Just last weekend, they carried stories of “peer-reviewed, journal-published, wee-p-value” fraud in these “scientific” fields:

      Marine biology
      MIT Media Lab
      and many more…
      Subscribe and see the daily toll of science fraud.

  5. arn says:

    i found a short video that fits into this.
    Maybe noone has posted it yet here .

    It is somehow similar to global cooling that became global warming and then climate change.
    In this case it is about our swedish actress Greta Carbo-our beloved supercompetent cliamte alarmists.
    She was already there and protesting before she was even born
    and they did not even bothered to change the script when they did the remake(same way then they turned from cold to hot but kept all the apocalyptic scenarios).
    Here is a story of your little millionaire girl that sacrificed so much to get to a UN meeting to protest( and was obviously given the same script by the UN that is used today)

  6. Klaus says:

    How will the alarmists make iron, steel and other metals without coal? How about plastics without oil? Or fiber glass? And many other materials. Do they want us back to the stone age? Then at least 6 billion people will die very soon!

  7. Andrea Green says:

    Hello. I found your website through a comment on Facebook. I am an artist and it is assumed by most of my friends and associates that I am quid pro quo “on the side” of climate activism, climate alarmism and, as I see it, climate zealotry. It is assumed one will not only agree with everything Ms Thunberg delivers, but that one must also find her personally inspiring. To say otherwise is not only to be lumped into the heretical climate denier basket, but to also be accused of misogyny, (or internalised misogyny in my case), sexism, ableism, ageism etc.etc. The UN have done well in locating her and utilizing her for their cause.

    I found this video informative, easy to grasp and free of “conspiracy theory” style narrative. I will mention this site henceforth to the climate evangelists when they tell me to look at the “incontrovertible science” of man-made climate change.

  8. Rah says:

    Last week this trucker hauled Toyota replacement parts from Anderson, IN to KC, MO. Then picked up a trailer full of plastic food containers in “the caves” at Independence, MO and took that back to Anderson.
    Then I took an empty trailer to Washington, IN where I was loaded with 43,867 lb of powdered sweetener in bags. Took that to Lancaster, NY and then went to Tonawanda, NY where I was loaded with high temperature insulation used in motor vehicles and took that back to the terminal in Anderson. So last week I drove approx. 2, 500 mi and hauled 95,000 lb of freight. I used about 240 gallons of diesel fuel doing it over a five day period. In the world that Jack thinks he wants what I did would not be even remotely possible.

  9. MGJ says:

    The claim that Tony is just poking holes in isolated reports but that overall the science is solid does at least have enough substance to be worth falsifying. It boils down to the Correlation != causation argument, in that just because there’s a few(!) dodgy reports doesn’t mean the whole industry is rotten.

    There are cases when correlation does equal causation or very nearly so.

    Give a pill to a healthy man who then dies within a month then it would be absurd to assign causation in the absence of supporting evidence. Give ten thousand men the pill and they all die within a month then it would be equally absurd to deny causation, in the absence of other evidence.

    Tony’s ever-growing mountain of evidence of failed predictions, fraud, double-think and outright lying puts his claim very much in the ten thousand pill category.

    If the complaint is that he doesn’t attack the scientific papers head-on then there’s no shortage of people doing that. Tony is highly productive but even with the vast payouts he gets from Big Oil and Russia (/sarc) he cannot do everything.

    • KevinPaul says:

      Many many scientific studies examining how climate change affects the biosphere do have merit, there are serious implications resulting from climate variation, but what is actually changing the climate affecting these systems and creatures is mostly natural and not man induced change.

      Thus the conclusions of many of these studies are being misdirected from a faulty preposition to advance a social philosophy and until such time as we fully understand how solar-cycles, orbital variations, and atmospheric particle interactions actually generate earths climate and then how mans’ contribution interacts with these processes, we are seriously standing on the flat earth of climate science.

  10. Lapsley says:

    One thing Tony Heller does with exactitude is show where, and when NASA and NOAA alter, revise, erase, and simply create from nothing, their temperature records.

    These are the same people who report the CO2 ppm data.

    Why should we give any credibility to their past and present reported CO2 percentages given their flagrantly false temperature reports past and present?

  11. Follow the incredible URL link: and you will understand that Greta Thunberg is also being used by the Rothchilds—part of the NWO.

    The situation in Sweden is going totally out of hand.
    Students in high school in central Stockholm are forced to strike for the climate. If they don’t, then they will be registered for non-attendance.

    People are striking, even stopping traffic in the streets.

    Many strikes have already been taking place and many more are planned all over the country of Sweden.

    A little funny is the artist that used all that smoke during performance. Would that support a better climate?

    Children are subjects (objects) to propaganda.

    Professors strike!

    Celebrities strike!

    And the school children strike.

    Do as Greta does! Be like Greta is!
    The heard of sheeps are driven towards the steep cliff.

    The economy is going down the slope, but in Sweden the politicians, the school children, the teachers, the workers and soon maybe even the dead will do anything for the climate.
    Unite, unite!

    The Swedish prime minister have decided to spend billions on the climate.
    Sweden is going to be a prime example and a pioneer for all the countries in the world.
    Spend, spend, spend… at the same time as many retirees does not have a sufficient pension and not even sufficient food. In residential homes they won’t anymore cook warm food due to the climate change. Everybody wants to be climate smart.

    That’s what Sweden looks like at the moment, and the psychosis is spreading like leprosy and plague.

  12. Disillusioned says:

    “What historians will definitely wonder about in future centuries is how deeply flawed logic, obscured by shrewd and unrelenting propaganda, actually enabled a coalition of powerful special interests to convince nearly everyone in the world that CO2 from human industry was a dangerous, planet-destroying toxin. It will be remembered as the greatest mass delusion in the history of the world – that CO2, the life of plants, was considered for a time to be a deadly poison.”
    — Richard Lindzen

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.