Mass Climate Hypnosis

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

50 Responses to Mass Climate Hypnosis

  1. Paul Schreurs says:

    It would be great if our media outlets also used logic although then I guess it wouldn’t be news.

    • Eric Simpson says:

      “2000-Year Chart Make Today’s Warming Look Tame” Huge point, but I don’t even think we’re getting warmer, globally, at least in the context of the last ~ 100 years.

      We’re coming out of the Little Ice Age so we should be getting warmer, so even if we were warming the CO2 lag (see: Great Global Warming Swindle – Al Gore Excerpt) shows ZERO evidence that CO2 is responsible for climate warming!

      But, regardless, the recent temperature evidence shows that we’re NOT warming in the US, and imo, by a reasonable inference that I think Tony agrees with, globally.

      First, there’s an area that’s very hard for the politically motivated leftist warmists to manipulate which is the historical hottest day temperature records. The hottest day ever recorded on this planet was set .. IN 1913! If we’d actually had a century of runaway hockey stick global warming as the fear mongering Chicken Littles maintain then that record without a doubt would have been broken time and time again. But no.

      And look also at U.S. State hottest day records: most of the hottest day records for individual states were set ~ 50 to 100+ years ago!! There’s like only 1 state hottest day record (excluding ties) set in the last 2 decades: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._state_and_territory_temperature_extremes

      The inference: as Tony has said, the US temperature record circa the 1930s was MUCH more extensive and reliable than most of the rest of the world. With the spotty and highly manipulated and suspect global temperature record from ~ a century ago I would put greater trust in the US record as representing better the global temperature than the global temperature record itself. Hopefully that makes sense.

      And before NASA manipulated the data (!) the data showed (see graphic at bottom) the US to be warmer in the 1930s than now!! And if that’s not enough take the actual words of NASA’s Chief Scientist in 1999: “It is clear that [in the USA] 1998 did not match the record warmth of 1934.” -Jim Hansen. Case closed!

      Case closed, but I’ll add this for good measure: consider also: 1) the Urban Heat Island effect which increases current temperature readings!, and 2) all the alarmist data manipulations which in almost every case “coincidentally” also increases current readings and decreases past readings!

      Below, NASA US temperature data from 1999, PRE-manipulation:

  2. Don Vickers says:

    Some 60 years ago when I was a child in school in Australia we had to learn a poem ( one passage from a longer poem) called ” I love a sunburnt country” it was written over a hundred years earlier and speaks of droughts and flooding rains “her beauty and her terror” ( the terror refers to bushfires ) . So nothing has changed here, we still have drought, floods, bushfires. What we didn’t have then was air-conditioning and the 24 hr news cycle and those lazy journalists who just wish to place a story with no fact checking to move onto the next one and editors and publishers who fail to do the same. It seems to me that the only consequence of more CO2 is that it has lowered journalistic integrity.

    I can still quote the passage ( because we had good teachers then ) and do so often to any “millennial” that thinks they are in a climate emergency.

  3. Eric Simpson says:

    Great video, AS ALWAYS! Not 100% ot but my Breitbart comment this morning (now the #2 comment) at: Climate Alarmists Cry Out: Planet Earth Is Burning:

    Oh but .. hot causes cold!! As one of “the scientists” (in fact it was Obama’s Science Czar) said: “The kind of extreme cold being experienced by much of the United States as we speak is a pattern we can expect to see with increasing frequency, as global warming continues.” -John Holdren, Obama’s Science Czar, 2014

    Holdren also said: “A billion people could die from global warming by 2020.” -John Holdren, 1986. And this: “A massive campaign must be launched to de-develop the United States.” -John Holdren, 1973

    But Holdren was also saying, in 1971, that we were headed for an ice age, unless, guess what .. we cut industrial production! Lol. See: Flashback: John Holdren in 1971: ‘New ice age’ likely: https://www.climatedepot.com/2014/01/08/flashback-john-holdren-in-1971-new-ice-age-likely/

  4. Dion MacDonald says:

    The Australian Journalist who’s tweet you reference is actually a school boy, he’s 16 years old. When he went to the ABC website he presumably scrolled down unlike what you did, this would reveal the graphs and not just the pretty colours you came across. Not sure why you omitted this? Or stopped short?
    There is a graph where you attempt to attribute corn yields with increases in CO2. No other explanation is offered as to why yields might have improved such as increase in farming, fertilizers, GM farming, innovation in technology. You provide no evidence that CO2 has attribute to yield increases other than to say it has. Next up are several graphs focusing on some positives on the general health and wellbeing off humans. Presumably to highlight that science, education and innovations does work, not sure what this has to do with climate hypnosis. Again you return to the ABC’s pretty colours without having scrolled down to their graph. You say Australia is currently experiencing draught and fires and then go onto read a 1868 article about Australia which at the time Australia hadn’t been fully explored, therefore reports of draught, fires or even flooding are not representative of Australia but of Sydney NSW instead. But yes, Australia does experience draught and floods in various locations. Additional clipping of newspapers such as the Pall Mall article where there is no empirical data presented you focus on just opinion. Why? Finally there are comparisons of a lack of sea level changes in 4 photos at Bondi. Firstly the last and earliest photo is from 1875 not 1889. Not that this is of any importance. Why the 4 photos are shown is not clear because no claim or counter claim is being made about sea rising. What are the claims of sea rising at Bondi? And by who? Setting the record straight?

    • tonyheller says:

      Quite an hysterical rant!

      • Dion says:

        I know right! An incoherent bunch of ramblings strung together in an effort to seek credibility for some ill conceived argument. This video blog is far from real science and a warning sign of a mind in decline. Sad, so very sad. Why omit facts or any credible research?

    • Gator says:

      There is a graph where you attempt to attribute corn yields with increases in CO2. No other explanation is offered…

      Then it must really set you off when alarmists do the same with CO2 and temperature!

      • Dion says:

        That aside you agree that this corn yield graph and the lack of any credible correlation diminishes what ever argument or point he was trying to make.

        • Gator says:

          No Dion, I do not. Over forty years ago I witnessed first hand what increased CO2 does for plants, through controlled experimentation. It is a fact that the additional CO2 in our atmosphere is increasing crop yields. Only an idiot would argue otherwise.

          You trolls come here for one reason, to try and diminish the credibility of Tony Heller. I have witnessed these failures and this nonsense for many years now, and you are nothing special. Climb back under your rock and leave logic and reason to those of us who know how to handle them.

    • Dave Jung says:

      Dion,

      You sound very skeptical, which is step one in freeing yourself from government propaganda, which is something the 16 year old school boy probably isn’t yet capable of. Now go back and view those ABC graphs and report back to us what your conclusions are. We can’t wait to hear your in-depth analysis of the ABC empirical climate data used to generate their graphs. You agree that drought, floods and fires are quite normal for Australia and that sea levels have not significantly risen due to perceived or manufactured global warming, so you’re already on your way to enlightenment and liberty. Good for you Dion!

      • Dion MacDonald says:

        Dave, how am i skeptical? I’m confused as to the motives of why this video blog does not represent the ABC website correctly. If there is an argument or debate of the content of the website put forward the argument don’t simply misrepresent the website and expect me to accept this as some kind of validation of opinion. I couldn’t care less about he ABC data or its graph but if I was to make a coherent argument I wouldn’t do it in the manner the video blog has, it lacks credibility and just looks amateurish. Why hide the truth or shy away from debate and a coherent argument?

        • Gator says:

          Why hide the truth or shy away from debate and a coherent argument?

          That’s what skeptics have been asking for decades! Thanks for the predictable psychological projection, it’s part of what makes a leftist a leftist. Ever wonder how we know what you guys are up to? We simply listen to your accusations of others.

    • MrGrimnasty says:

      Wow Dion, long on nit picking and vague criticisms, not a lot of substance.

      I’ll take one point – Re: Corn yields. Alarmists constantly tells us crops are failing due to climate change, the opposite is empirically true. It’s established science that CO2 boosts (most plant group) yields – completely uncontroversial unlike woo woo climate scientism. You mention other factors – fertilizer/chems/machinery/tech. etc. all things that the alarmists also attack and that we will have to manage without in a fossil fuel free world. As yields increase, more land can be set aside as habitat for wildlife, in the alarmist’s world inefficient farming will oust wildlife. Also alarmists wish to industrialise the countryside with vastly inefficient windmills and solar panels that are enormously land intensive and destructive to habitat and wildlife.

      Your thinking is broken.

      • Dion MacDonald says:

        Mr Grimnasty, don’t tell me what alarmists think, demonstrate your opinion in a coherent factual manner. Can you categorically demonstrate that corn yields have increased due the increased levels of CO2 in the atmosphere? Has the increase been due to anthropogenic intervention of natural occurring CO2? If its a combination what percentages are attributed to each? What affect has fertilizers, modern technology, innovation had on crop yields?
        If, as this video blog professes, there is a correlation between crop yields and CO2 why is there no facts presented. I cant blindly accept an opinion without facts. And by facts a mean conclusive peer reviewed research or by an expert in the field (pardon the pun!).

        • Gator says:

          Can you categorically demonstrate that corn yields have increased due the increased levels of CO2 in the atmosphere?

          Absolutely!

          I first performed this experiment in 1977 with soybean plants. Each reiteration of the experiment always garnered the same results and never varied, more biomass, healthier plants and faster growth with additional CO2.

          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P2qVNK6zFgE&feature=player_embedded

          Don’t be a science denier Dion. This is basic science, it has been taught in grade school science classes for generations, and is not in dispute (unless you count nutters). CO2 is plant food, and NASA has proven that the Earth is greening as a result of higher levels of CO2.

          Results showed that carbon dioxide fertilization explains 70 percent of the greening effect, said co-author Ranga Myneni, a professor in the Department of Earth and Environment at Boston University. “The second most important driver is nitrogen, at 9 percent. So we see what an outsized role CO2 plays in this process.”

          https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2436/co2-is-making-earth-greenerfor-now/

          And by facts a mean conclusive peer reviewed research or by an expert in the field…

          Bigfoot has “experts”. Do you believe them too?

          Life is too short to be someone else’s gullible fool Dion, you can do better. Try harder.

          • Dion Macdonald says:

            Gator; take a big breath and now read what I have previously written. Do I deny plants can benefit from larger yields from CO2? No I don’t. Do I deny science? No. So I’m not sure why you are twisting my post to suit your agenda, the fact of the matter is that in the video blog there is no evidence presented that CO2 attributed to higher corn yields . Leaving me the viewer to think it could be just about any other factor or a combination.

          • Gator says:

            So you continue to deny the fact that CO2 is greening the planet, and increasing crop yields. Even after I shared results of my own experience and experiments, and after I provided supporting evidence from NASA. Good to know!

            Now I can rightly dismiss everything else you post as you are in fact a science denier.

            My agenda is the truth. Sorry that butt hurts your world.

          • spike55 says:

            “the fact of the matter is that in the video blog there is no evidence presented that CO2 attributed to higher corn yields .”

            Your ignorance of basic biology is quite funny.

            Do keep digging deeper into it.

            EXPOSE yourself.

            http://www.co2science.org/data/plant_growth/dry/z/zeam.php

        • spike55 says:

          Dion, you are invited to produce a paper that shows empirically that increased CO2 causes warming

          You know, Actual data, not models.

          Put your sceptical “beliefs” to the test, see if you are actually sceptical, or just a brain-washed vassal to the AGW scam.

          Your childish rants are meaningless, and contain absolutely zero scientific content.

          • Dion Macdonald says:

            Ok I’m going to say this for the last time…. the video blog does not produce any evidence to suggest the increase in corn yields is due to increases in CO2. I’m not denying that CO2 isn’t greening the planet but when you make a statement back it up. Simple. The replies I have had by spike55 and Gator are really odd and it’s strange they misinterpret my basic observation that the video blog by Tony doesn’t back up the claim. Simple! And Gator the link you posted talks about soy beans growing in a controlled environment, not corn. But it did lead to some interesting info on corn that when grown in a controlled environment under increased CO2 grew bigger and faster as well as remarkably using less water. But here’s the kicker the corn was less nutritious.

          • Gator says:

            Dion, if Tony made a video that claimed the Sun rises and sets daily in Atlanta Georgia, would you need him to provide “evidence”?

            Get lost, you anti-science troll.

          • Gator says:

            But here’s the kicker the corn was less nutritious.

            Not big on reading comprehension either?

            Crops grown in the high-CO2 atmosphere of the future could be significantly less nutritious…

            The effect climate change might have on the nutritional value of crops

            https://www.nationalgeographic.com/news/2014/5/140507-crops-nutrition-climate-change-carbon-dioxide-science/

            Your silly claim is just more doomer fantasy. And as with every other doomer claim, there is no evidence of a problem. The alleged decrease is nutritional value is so small, that the increase in biomass offsets it.

            Why is it that you anti-science doomer never tell the whole truth?

    • Vegieman says:

      You almost sound like a lawyer. What you are disregarding as opinions are solid historical accounts that should be a wake-up to reasonable people that believe that the “crazy climate” we are experiencing now is somehow different than the climate they experienced then – at “low” CO2 levels. The positive information associated with the health and wellbeing of humanity is just that. Positives to counteract all the negatives being spewed by the alarmists that are claiming that human health, mortality, crop production, etc. are all going down the tubes because of AGW. And you aren’t questioning their claims? If you were really on top of things, you’d see the fraud in what you are blindly accepting as truth. The information you are coming against is the sound reasoning being used by Tony to expose the disinformation and sensational fearmongering being heaped on the masses. You sound like you too could be reasonable if you weren’t so caught up in the detractions of “experts” (i.e. con artists).

      • Dion MacDonald says:

        Vegieman, what solid historical accounts are you referring to? These are just new paper clippings of some natural disasters fro some small local newspapers of the day written by who? They prove nothing more than that fires happened. I just cant see the relevance of why they are presented in the video blog. No one is denying fires never happened. There’s no sound reasoning here. Sound reasoning presents coherent facts. I’m not taking any sides here, I’m just pointing out that this is sloppy reasoning, poor research rolled into some incoherent opinion.

        • Vegieman says:

          Dion, I guess you don’t acknowledge history unless it is researched and reviewed and approved by a peer. My understanding of history is that it is what it is (I feel pretty safe that there has been no collusion to alter the information reported in the many articles cited here. Tony provides the links to the sources.) What “facts” would you have that aren’t provided. The use of the historical evidence makes the point that the so called extremes and many other lies we are being told we are experiencing aren’t really true after all. Why are the “scientists” not gathering all of the facts? What are they trying to hide? Someone has an agenda and they are not interested in truth. The evidence presented, whether analogical, anecdotal, demonstrative, documentary, or statistical, is all in use here and makes a very compelling argument that something stinks. Don’t you find it strange that the presumption being pushed is crisis, disaster, misery; everything is dire because of imagined man made climate change. No, the default condition is that we have a history of cyclical climate conditions that are manifested in weather events that are being methodically twisted into a story that promotes despair, unrest and ultimately chaos. Et tu, Brute?

    • spike55 says:

      ” he’s 16 years old.”

      and how old is Greta..

      you are a brainless HYPOCRITE, Dion

    • spike55 says:

      Poor Dion.

      DENIAL of known and measured FACTS

      CO2 increases crop yields.

      And your petulant whining will not change that fact

      GET OVER IT. !

    • spike55 says:

      “What are the claims of sea rising at Bondi? ”

      LOL, claim is that sea levels have been and will continue to rise catastrophically.

      Those claims are provably WRONG as is basically every claim from the AGW farce.

      You have the brains of a stunned mullet, Dion.

  5. Robert Gipson says:

    “Nothing can now be believed which is seen in a newspaper. Truth itself becomes suspicious by being put into that polluted vehicle. The real extent of this state of misinformation is known only to those who are in situations to confront facts within their knowledge with the lies of the day.”

    – Thomas Jefferson

    • Mark Luhman says:

      I get the paper daily, I really wonder why if they are not bending the facts to fit their preconceived notions, they write articles with no useful information.

  6. Mark Luhman says:

    Idiots still shoot TV out in the desert today. Not that many years ago I had to clean on up someone shoot up in a creek, with other trash they left behind, far to many people don’t understand leave no trace! Tonto National Forest had to draw up rules restriction shooting to targets and clay pigeons. That to bad water bottles full of water explode so nicely when hit by a rifle, clean up no big deal, the idiots tend to ruin it for everyone else.

  7. Logic n Reason says:

    Might I recommend an excellent book backed up by scientific analysis of data – The Mythology of Global Warming by Bruce Bunker. Much of it could have been written by Tony! To be honest, as a non scientist ( who got fails in all three sciences at high school!) some of the equations etc went over my head but Bunker tries to make it as simple as possible and much of the data matches the facts that Tony puts across in his videos. He highlights the dishonesty and fraud at the centre of the whole climate change scam and he is especially scathing about Al Gore. Gore has to be the biggest con man since Bernie Madoff – in fact bigger because he’s convinced a whole generation from school children to politicians to MSM to buy the Kool Aid of global warming. The book is on Amazon Kindle.

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.