Email Subscribe
Disrupting the Borg is expensive and time consuming!
-
Recent Posts
Recent Comments
Archives
- July 2022
- June 2022
- May 2022
- April 2022
- March 2022
- February 2022
- January 2022
- December 2021
- November 2021
- October 2021
- September 2021
- August 2021
- July 2021
- June 2021
- May 2021
- April 2021
- March 2021
- February 2021
- January 2021
- December 2020
- November 2020
- October 2020
- September 2020
- August 2020
- July 2020
- June 2020
- May 2020
- April 2020
- March 2020
- February 2020
- January 2020
- December 2019
- November 2019
- October 2019
- September 2019
- August 2019
- July 2019
- June 2019
- May 2019
- April 2019
- March 2019
- February 2019
- January 2019
- December 2018
- November 2018
- October 2018
- September 2018
- August 2018
- July 2018
- June 2018
- May 2018
- April 2018
- March 2018
- February 2018
- January 2018
- December 2017
- November 2017
- October 2017
- September 2017
- August 2017
- July 2017
- June 2017
- May 2017
- April 2017
- March 2017
- February 2017
- January 2017
- December 2016
- November 2016
- October 2016
- September 2016
- August 2016
- July 2016
- June 2016
- May 2016
- April 2016
- March 2016
- February 2016
- January 2016
- December 2015
- November 2015
- October 2015
- September 2015
- August 2015
- July 2015
- June 2015
- May 2015
- March 2015
- January 2015
Email Subscribe
Disrupting the Borg is expensive and time consuming!
Disillusionment is a mighty good thing.
It will test the faith of the CAGW congregation. A few weaklings may succumb to data temptation but the rest will emerge strengthened and even more devoted to the struggle with the Devil’s gas.
The National Climatic Data Center was “shocked” at what was going on…
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SjbPi00k_ME
+100
Robert, that was simply precious! :-D
We all look forward to the Climate Science response to these points one by one.
Counting………………….
There won’t be a response. They’ll call it a conspiracy theory and attack people personally. They’ll say their qualifications give them the final word. That’s what is common among academics.
Any decent engineer tests data the way Tony did. If Zeke was correct he could do similar tests and show the biasing but in every debunking I’ve seen alarmists avoid simple data tests. They rely on authority instead which automatically makes me suspect.
One of your all-time best videos, Tony
A straightforward, point-by-point analysis and smack-down
Well done!
This is simple data analysis. It has to get published. There has to be a journal that would publish this. A third party audit of the data and adjustments. If this was done to financial data it would be easily documented and the perps would be prosecuted.
How can I reach out to Tony?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vNzlG_XoEyA&app=desktop
And your point? I assume you are including this link for humor. The comments for the video speak volumes. I just saw this clown on the Roadrunner cartoon that Tony used showing Wile E. Coyote levering a boulder off the edge of the cliff only to have it land on him. This will be the fate of all these climate thugs. There is no other explanation for these guys than they have some ulterior motive $$$.
Ulterior motive from Mallen’s own comments:
1. Tony Heller’s channel is currently growing faster than any other in this space, by far. So don’t underestimate that influence.
2. For reasons best known to YouTube, my videos are shown to Tony Heller fans more than any other single group, so I get a large number of them coming here, and in some ways there is also an opportunity to seek to engage them on the messages they are consuming.
3. Having done a couple of vids that responded to specific individual videos, I thought I needed to take on his most pervasive and apparently persuasive argument.
He’s an opportunist seeking his own advancement, leaching off of Tony like a parasite. I’m guessing anyone can get waylaid by power and influence, but at this point, based on what I have seen here so far from Tony, and from others that seem to thrive on attacking him, there is still integrity at work here.
Yeah, I had to tap out when Mallenformed claimed that Tony gives “no evidence” to back his claims. This is a provable lie, and I do not waste time on liars.
Zeke and a few other decent scientists have called for the creation of an entirely new system of climate network stations, using all the latest technology and knowledge. These stations would be carefully situated and would not require adjustments and tinkering to the data, as all previous “issues” would be addressed and corrected in the design and implementation of the new “reference” network.
I find Zeke to be a pretentious *sshole, but also believe that he is at heart a good scientist. While he defends to the death all of the adjustments and other data manipulations that justify the CAGW alarmism, he also is admitting that the entire climate network of stations, and the data produced, is unfit for purpose.
Isn’t it wonderful that we have unbiased ‘experts’ riding on ‘gravy trains’?
Brilliant as usual Tony. This should be compulsory viewing to all high school and college science students.
Tony: “…the huge amounts of money involved…”
You ain’t seen nothing yet!
Bezos: “…announcement by Jeff Bezos, the world’s richest man, that he will pledge $10 billion to combat climate change…”
https://www.barrons.com/articles/jeff-bezos-10b-climate-pledge-could-spur-giving-01582058364
YES! To fight back Tony should reach out to Tim Pool, who has a total of 1.3 million subs on YouTube (682K for main Tim Pool channel, and 574K for Timcast channel), as whilst he currently believes “in the scientists” on “climate change”, he is very level headed on most subjects (e.g. on transwomen competing in Women’s sports – NO (as I’ve said, why not give them a separate category)!), and I bet that if he was able to make contact, Tim would not only be willing to listen, he would end up being convinced of what we’ve known for YEARS, that we’re being SCAMMED on a MASSIVE level, and he would do an excellent job spreading the word far and wide.
YES! To fight back Tony should reach out to Tim Pool, who has a total of 1.3 million subs on YouTube (682K for main Tim Pool channel, and 574K for Timcast channel), as whilst he currently believes “in the scientists” on “climate change”, he is very level headed on most subjects (e.g. on transwomen competing in Women’s sports – NO (as I’ve said, why not give them a separate category)!), and I bet that if he was able to make contact, Tim would not only be willing to listen, he would end up being convinced of what we’ve known for YEARS, that we’re being SCAMMED on a MASSIVE level, and he would do an excellent job spreading the word far and wide.
Tony…. I engaged a “thumbs-down” viewer in YouTube combox for this video.
His back-and-forth ended with the message below. He characterizes data adjustments very differently and assert that thr adjustments *reduce* warming….. where is he going wrong here? How can we respond to his purported “debunking” of your “hypothesis”?
_________________________________________________
Okay, here’s the proof that debunks Heller.
This is the official NOAA graph, showing the difference between the RAW temperature data and the ADJUSTED (what Tony Heller calls “tampered”) data: https://cdn.arstechnica.net/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/noaa_world_rawadj_annual-640×465.png And, as you can see, the effect of the adjustments to the temperature data over the last century of so is to REDUCE THE RATE OF GLOBAL WARMING. (Adjustment since around 1940 do, very slightly, increase the rate of warming, but insignificantly). So, Tony Heller’s entire hypothesis falls flat on its face. Those naughty boys and girls in NOAA have been doing EXACTLY THE OPPOSITE of what Tony Heller is accusing them: their adjustments are making global warming look LESS BAD than the raw temperatures would suggest.
Those are anomalies. There is no such thing as a raw anomaly. As usual, the faithful have no clue about what they speak.
Also, the graph Tony uses is for the US, which has (or had) the best and most complete record. The global anomaly graph is art pretending to be data.