The Chilling Reality Of Lying To Children

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

14 Responses to The Chilling Reality Of Lying To Children

  1. G W Smith says:

    What Universities offer degrees in Climatology and who is doing the teaching? It sounds like a self-perpetuating mythology. Does anyone care?

    • Archie says:

      Climatology is starting to remind me of another “C” word, Creationism. Both fake science.

      • Vegieman says:

        Truth is not by chance. The awareness of truth and the defense of it, even to the extent of sacrificing one’s life, is uniquely human. To deny its origin is like cutting off the branch you are standing on.

      • Tyrannosaurus Rex says:

        I’ve read creationist websites, and even they aren’t buying it. Admittedly, their story of the Great Flood causing the Ice Age is a little more believable, key word being “little”. I still find it hard to believe evolutionists are standing by this. During the Late Cretaceous Epoch for example, the carbon dioxide was lowering while the average temperature remained high, and don’t give me the excuse of dino methane as Tony proved it to easily oxidize. Had the Nye Ham debate back in 2014 been about climate change, it would’ve been like this…
        Ham: “The world is four billion years old and robust…”
        Nye: “No! It’s six thousand years old and fragile!”
        For shame, Nye and Attenborough. For shame.

        • Archie says:

          It’d be a nice change if scientists would JUST DO science!

          I can’t convince any of my “scientific” siblings that CC is a hoax. They are too religious in their scientific convictions to look at the data and other evidence. I poked at the creationists but I’d rather have a discussion with one of them. They are more open minded than most scientists nowadays. LOL!

    • Scott Meaker says:

      Tony,
      I am very grateful for your efforts to clearly demonstrate the intentional corruption in the temperature record to make it appear as if there is a clear linear correlation between rising CO2 levels and temperature. However, I suspect that the results of your efforts will continue to produce the same outcome – personal attacks on you and others, like myself, who love science more than popularity or funding. I therefore propose a different approach:

      1) Take their current hockey stick chart at face value.
      2) Assume that the previously reported cooling from the 1950’s to the late 1970’s was the result of fraud or incompetence on the part of the scientists involved, including NOAA and NASA.
      3) Assume that the lack of warming reported from the early 1980’s to the late 1990’s occurred for the same reasons.
      4) Assume that because the above scientists either hid the warming or were incapable of reading simple graphs and data sets, we missed the opportunity to respond to this global crisis for over 50 years; thus causing us to face mass extinctions within the next 12 years.
      5) Let’s bring lawsuits against the above organizations and scientists and their families with the intent of making them pay for their catastrophic mistakes.
      6) Eventually, they must also be tried for global crimes against humanity.
      7) This should cause them to own and defend their previous studies and findings, which they are currently trying to erase.

  2. Scott says:

    Please remove my last name in the above comment.

    Thanks.

    Scott

  3. TeaPartyGeezer says:

    Tony Heller … I watched your video “Fear of Flying.” One of your best! But it doesn’t seem to have been posted on this website. Did I miss it? It would be a shame if the readers of your website, who are not subscribed to your YouTube channel, miss it. It’s beautiful and poignant.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n2D2KglGAMk

  4. Mohatdebos says:

    The name is not hard to pronounce — Einaar’s Doughter. Einar was one of my best friends in college. The easiest way to expose the climate change fraud is through the climate history of Iceland. My friend Einar and his father took me to a number of glaciers in Iceland. His dad described how glaciers expanded and shrank over time. The interesting thing is that because of volcanic eruptions, you can date when glaciers expanded and when they shrank. For those that have been following this issue, Michael Crighton’s “State of Fear” starts with Eco Alarmist trying to bribe an Icelandic geophysicist to withdraw a study demonstrating that glaciers were expanding in Iceland. from

  5. richard verney says:

    Tony

    The leading study on Iceland’s glaciers is that by Fernandez & Fernadez (2017). See for example: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0959683616683262
    gain and Gljúfurárjökull retreated in the years 1994–2005.

    “During the period 1898–1946, the snout of Gljúfurárjökull
    retreated 635 m, almost two-thirds of the total distance from the
    LIA maximum (1898–1903) to 2005 (Figures 2 and 3), at an average rate of 13.2 m yr−1 (Table 1). …

    The trend in Western Tungnahryggsjökull during the first half
    of the 20th century was a more rapid retreat, showing the highest
    average rates of the whole period (19.5 m yr−1). By 1946, this
    glacier had retreated almost 90% of the total recorded between the
    LIA maximum (1868) and 2005 (Table 1). In the 1946 photograph, this significant retreat of the ice reveals two large moraines
    in the centre of the deglaciated area. The snout retreat slowed
    down considerably during the second half of the century, especially in 1985 (1.5 m yr−1). …

    The most important retreat of the Tröllaskagi glaciers between
    LIA maximum and the present occurred during the first half of the
    20th century. The study of the three glaciers presented here shows
    that most of the glacier snout retreat, area reduction and volume
    loss had already occurred by 1946; a similar trend was observed
    at southeast Vatnajökull outlet glaciers, whose volume loss before
    1945 represented the half of the post-LIA total loss (Hannesdóttir
    et al., 2015)”

    Tony, have a look at Table 1

    Table 1. Glacier advance/retreat and snout elevation shift from the LIA maximum. Values in bold represent glacier advances.
    Distance from the LIA maximum position (m)
    Glaciers LIA 1946 1985 1994 2000 2005 Total retreat
    Gljúfurárjökull – 635 910 890 916 993 993
    Tungnahryggsjökull (W) – 1524 1584 1610 1703 1735 1735
    Tungnahryggsjökull (E) – 1027 1298 – 1257 1274 1274
    Average – 1062 1264 – 1292 1334 1334

    The average retreat of all the main glaciers is some 1334 metres, of which retreat some 1,062 metres had taken place by 1946, ie., some 80%.

    Since 1946 the further retreat is only 272 metres, and the bulk of that had already taken place by 1985. Of the 272 metres of retreat post 1945, some 202 metres had taken place by 1985, with only 70 metres of retreat post 1985.

    You could incorporate some of these findings in your videos as it supports the points that you are making.

  6. Andrea G says:

    Malcolm Roberts is supporting a petition open in the Australian Parliament website seeking the government to withdrawal from the Paris Climate Agreement. Open to all Australian citizens and residents. It closes tomorrow. https://www.aph.gov.au/petition_list?id=EN1116

    Senator Roberts is an ex-coal industry engineer and miner and a member of the One Nation party, a minor party headed up by the legendary Pauline Hanson; a right-winger of such trenchant views she makes the Tea Party look centrist. This is not to dismiss Roberts’ attempts to inject some common sense and balance into the current Climate Alarmism Craze that is taking over Australian public discourse and education, but be aware that One Nation are treated as a joke, a bunch of cranks, by the Australian media, as is Roberts’ vocal supporter radio shock-jock Alan Jones. As a result Roberts’ membership of the party and his coal industry background are used to blithely dismiss his climate change argument long before he gets to spell it out.

    In the flattest continent, it’s uphill all the way when it comes to Climate Alarmists I’m afraid. The Australian edition of the Guardian, which argues everything but the science, is their guiding compact fluorescent light bulb most lamentably.

    I wish you all the best in trying to get the message across on your trip to Australia.

Leave a Reply

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

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.