New Video : “It’ll Start Getting Cooler, You Just Watch”

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

29 Responses to New Video : “It’ll Start Getting Cooler, You Just Watch”

  1. Lanny Silver says:

    We done Tony.
    You appear to be doing the research and your home work.

    But is anyone listening??

    Where are those that are making all these claims? Where are their rebuttals?

    Your articles make great news stories. Why are none of the news networks

    picking it up?

    • Donna K. Becker says:

      The Epoch Times might be interested in Tony’s research.

    • Colorado Wellington says:

      I assume your question about the priorities of the Democrat Party‘s network media organ is rhetorical.

      We may just as well ask why in 2013 the Russian Communist Party’s official newspaper didn’t write about the dozens of millions killed by Stalin and instead celebrated the 130th birthday of the murderous Communist empire builder.

    • Gator says:

      “Earth Doing Fine” doesn’t sell mullet wrappers, and doesn’t give authority to governments that journaleftists wish would lord over everyone else.

  2. Lanny Silver says:

    Is anyone even interested in history and good hard work research??

    Its hard to believe no one is coming forth to dispute your claims……

    One has to wonder if there is any real intellectuals anymore.

    Sad, very Sad.

    Keep up the good work Tony. Your work is a breath of fresh air.


  3. Robert Noble says:

    Excellent video.

    I’m amazed how you can always find relevant articles. I’m guessing that you subscribe to some service that allows you to pull them up. I imagine it must be expensive. Thank you for your dedication to spreading truth.

    And, I like your yard sign more than the other ubiquitous sign that I see in BoCo (rhymes with “loco”) and even neighborhoods in Longmont (the right side of Boulder Cty). I remarked to a friend in the Prospect area of Longmont (should have been named “Dogpatch”) that the BLM signs won’t help you a bit if the BLM or Antifa types decided to torch the neighborhood.

  4. Ken in Arizona says:

    Tony, I’m in the middle (or beginning) of downloading all your youtube videos.

    Is it possible to purchase hard copies (e.g. have you burned DVDs or thumbdrives of your content)?

    Also, where else are your videos (bitchute, lbry, minds, newtube, etc), and have you considered using another platform (not YT) as your video source on Realclimatescience?

    Thanks tremendously for your work. Keep it up. I’m going to write my own version of why I’m not a climate alarmist (as soon as I get thru some of my writing on why I am not wearing a mask nor getting a vaccine).

    Ken in Tucson

  5. Brian D says:

    Cold and snow records dropping like flies the past few days with -29 in Potomac, MT being the coldest temp in the lower 48 so early in the season. Just you watch is right. Watch what happens next month. More of the same coming, after this warm up back to avg temps happens.

    Btw, can finally see comments. Don’t know why I couldn’t that past few days, but OK now.

  6. Ian Pickering says:

    Please forward your email to me we need to talk
    You are amazing. My email

  7. Anon says:

    I am not sure I understand California:

    Hoarding House Fire Horror – Sacramento, CA

    Here California officials are eager to blame the owner (who probably has a psychological condition) and don’t mention a thing about Climate Change. So, I hope this guy is allowed to use Climate Change as a defense at his trial. It must be a lot more challenging to be a hoarder in California, due to Climate Change, than hoarders living in less impacted areas of the country.

    Some progressive documentary producer should take up this guys cause and do a documentary about the increased hardships and stigma faced by hoarders in the new climate era. I think it would break new ground in the fight against climate change. IMHO

  8. oldefarte says:

    If you go to the Oregon Dept. of Forestry website (, you can see a record of all the acreage burned in wildfires since 1900. What you will see is a history of immense fires culminating in the years 1937 and 1939 (the latter incl. the infamous “Tillamook Burn” which blackened almost half the Oregon coast). There were few fires during WWII, but they began to pick up in the wake of the war as people returned to the forests. However, energized, in part, by the horrendous fires of the 1930’s and the Japanese incendiary balloon attacks of the latter war years, Oregon, thereafter embarked on a rigorous fire abatement and forest management program (I well remember the extensive thinning, salvage logging, controlled burns and forest floor vegetation and fuel clean-ups that were carried on back then. The result was that, by the 1960’s our fires were far fewer and far smaller than ever, a situation which persisted well into the 1980’s, until… the Spotted Owl. Supposedly, this little bird could only survive in old growth forests full of rotting logs and other debris on the forest floor. To accommodate the owl (and happy to do so, because it freed a lot of state money for more “popular” uses), the State stopped all of those vegetation management schemes. The results were unmistakable – by and since the late 1980’s, our forest fires have begun to burn increasing amounts of acreage as fuel loads increased every year (even so, these latest fires were not even the worst in the last 5, let alone 25 years, despite the breathless reporting on them and it is likely the acreage burned in 1939, alone, was as great as all the acreage burned in the 70 years since the end of WWII combined). Meanwhile, unheralded, the Spotted Owl transferred its habitat to old barns and began eating field mice. The State, however, continued to accommodate its supposed habitat needs. By contrast, CO2 and local or even global temperatures seem to have little correlation to the fires (tho’ the fires broke out during our one hot period, in fact, this summer was surprisingly cool and quite late to arrive and early to leave).

    SO, that’s the historical data, here’s the anecdotal evidence. Just north of the California-Oregon border, I-5, the main N/S hwy runs parallel to Hwy 99, the old, main N/S road on the US West Coast. North of Ashland (home of the Oregon Shakespeare Festival) the space between those two roads is a “greenway”, with a bike/hiking trail, which runs along Bear Creek, a tributary of the Rogue River, which is fed by the Siskiyou Mountains to the south and east of Ashland. It is mostly wooded, a splendid, little green “Eden” which runs all the way to Medford, the county seat. It was that area between the roads which burned under the designation of the “Almeda Fire”. Between Medford and Ashland, the small towns of Phoenix and Talent lie along (and in) that greensward area. It was those two towns which furnished Oregon its “Paradise” this year, with the “Almeda Fire” almost obliterating both towns in a reenactment of what happened in Paradise, California last year.

    Yesterday, 10/26/20, I had cause to drive to Ashland and got to see close up the devastation. It was horrible. It looked like the aftermath of a war and places I had been wont to patronize were no more, just one more chunk of char amidst the wreckage. But here’s the thing – this is a famous pear growing area (Fruit of the Month Club started and is still located here) and periodically within the greensward area or adjacent to it are a number of large, mature orchards, closely spaced trees, lined up like cordwood, just waiting to burn. They didn’t. Everything around them did, but… the orchards didn’t burn. And the one thing you notice, in comparing the burned forest areas with the adjacent orchards is that there is evidence outside the orchards of a plentiful fuel load on the ground, but orchardists don’t allow that kind of thing to clutter their orchards, where the ground between the trees is kept swept and trimmed. It would be hard to imagine a more compelling illustration of the proposition that “vegetation management”, as Trump calls it, has more to do with these fires than any putative “global warming”.

  9. D. Boss says:

    Assuming there is a Trump win next week, wouldn’t it be great if Trump could appoint Tony Heller as the Climate Truth Commissioner – and expose the lies and corrupted science as he does so eloquently and thoroughly here….

    With a bigger audience, more could be done to “deprogram” the brainwashed masses.

    On the other hand, the deep state would wage intellectual and ad hominem war on such a position in vicious ways….

  10. Henry Buser says:

    There is a sunspot minimum that is supposed to last 20 years and lead to colder weather for 20-30 years. Can you look into this? I remember seeing an article about the guy that has figured this out from tree rings.

  11. Bob Hoye says:

    Outstanding charts.
    Outstanding sleuthing of news archives.

  12. Michael Abbott says:

    I picked this up on another site. I hardly understand a word of it except that CO2 doesn’t heat the Earth.

    If anybody here is in this field, I would be grateful if they would post a Janet and John version so that I can understand it. Fits in very well with what Tony is experiencing.

    • Petit_Barde says:

      The Wien’s law defines the wave length corresponding to the maximum energy density emitted by a body at a given temperature.

      According to the Wien’s law, the wave length of 15 microns corresponds to the maximum energy density emitted by a body which is at a temperature of -79,5°C.

      The IPCC claims that the 15 microns wave length range of the emission – absorption spectrum of the CO2 induces global warming.

      In the Principia Scientific article, it is claimed that according to Wien’s law, such wave length of 15 microns is the main wave length emitted by a body which is at -79,5°C and therefore, according to the thermodinamics second law (the Clausius statement which says that the heat transfer goes only from a warmer body to a cooler one, not the opposite way), this emission can’t warm a body which temperature is greater than -79,5°C.

      Since most of the earth surface and the troposphere (the atmosphere from the ground up to the tropopause) is at a temperature which is greater than -79,5°C, they conclude in the Principia Article that the CO2 emission of 15 microns can hardly heat anything on earth and in the lower atmosphere and thus that the IPCC claim is wrong.

    • Anon says:

      Hi Michael,

      I will try to make this as simple as I can, but it is quite complicated if you are not familiar with spectroscopy, so I will give it a shot with some common analogies, as best I can.

      Basically, the article is saying two things:

      1] Carbon Dioxide can absorb radiation from the Sun at all 4 of the molecule’s energy levels (absorption bands). A property of molecules is that due to their structure they absorb radiation as specific energies. For example, sunscreen ingredients specifically absorb UV radiation and thus protect us from sun burn (whereas other molecules don’t have this property). And a property of all objects (the Sun and the Earth) is that they emit radiation according to a black body curve, and that is based solely on the object’s temperature.


      So, what the article says, is that the Sun has the power to produce radiation (photons) with enough power to excite all 4 energy levels of Carbon Dioxide, because it is very hot. However, the Earth is much cooler and thus has only enough power to excite the lowest energy level of Carbon Dioxide (@ 15 microns). And 15 micron absorption and emissions predominate in objects that are much cooler than the Earth’s average temperature of 288K. Thus, the Earth emits only a small amount of radiation at this frequency and furthermore, this has a cooling effect. The closest analogy I can give for that is: let’s say you have a red hot coal from your fireplace, and you have the idea of transporting that to the Sun’s surface, with the idea of increasing the temperature of the Sun (it sounds like a plausible idea). However, what will happen is that you will cool the Sun instead, because the Sun is much hotter than the red hot coal you brought to it’s surface. (heat will flow from the Sun to the coal)

      2] The article further postulates that there is a limit to any green house effect that carbon dioxide might have, and that is not based on how much carbon dioxide there is but on how much absorb-able radiation there is. So, to use the sunscreen analogy again, sun screen comes with a potency number (SPF), that describes the amount of protection you will get. So, at about SPF 50, you have almost complete protection from the Sun, as the sun screen will absorb all of the incoming UV radiation, before it gets to your skin. So, if you are wearing SPF 50 and I am wearing SPF 50000, there will be no difference in the amount of protection. Another way to think about it is with UV blocker sun glasses: if you are wearing sun glasses that block 100% of all UV light, will wearing two sets of sun glasses block more UV? No! So, what the article is saying is that at a certain level of carbon dioxide, all of the radiation is absorbed and continuing to add more carbon dioxide will have no further effect (just as wearing SPF 50000 or two sets of UV blocker sun glasses will not either), so you can add as much carbon dioxide as you like.

      Hopefully, the above two explanations give you the “gist” of what the article is saying, however, more scientifically mind folks here may object to some of the analogies and simplifications I made. (apologies in advance to those folks)

      I hope that helps…

    • D. Boss says:

      Michael Abbott asks for some simplification of an article on Principia regards CO2. That article is really not a great refutation of the nonsense view that CO2 is causing global warming and it’s all man’s fault.

      There’s lots of better, and often simpler articles on that website, and on WUWT.

      CO2 does do a teensy bit of warming of the atmosphere – but it’s NOT a greenhouse. It is a blanket – which can only slow down the escape of heat from the ground.

      The problem is, there is a humongous elephant in the room of this consensus nonsense. (aside, Science does not operate by consensus – one experiment can destroy any theory. Politics runs by consensus) The elephant in the room of this “man caused CO2 is making things hotter” nonsense is water vapor, and liquid and solid which resides in the atmosphere.

      Water vapor is many times more powerful as the earth’s “blanket” and while CO2 is at around 400 ppm, water vapor concentration in the lower troposphere is on average 23,000 ppm at 26 deg North latitude.

      So they say water vapor is perhaps 4-5 times more powerful than CO2, and it is at least 50 times more prevalent in atmospheric concentration. So water vapor does the blanket effect some 200x more than could CO2.

      The CO2 argument has been shown to be a ruse many times, many ways, the above elephant in the room argument only one of many.

      If you wanna know why the bandwagon has been hitched to this narrative – see this essay:

      There is an agenda behind the climate change cult. And it is Anti-Human, and Socialist/Marxist in nature.

      The other excellent way to get a layman’s grasp of the Climate Cult nonsense is to watch a presentation by one of the founders of Greenpeace, Dr, Patrick Moore, who left the organization in the 1990’s when it became a political action group:

      the title of his lecture is:
      “Patrick Moore – Should We Celebrate Carbon Dioxide?”

      Not only is CO2 not the boogeyman, it is the essence of Life on this planet. And it’s been declining for millions of years. Plants require CO2 to live, and below 150 ppm CO2 all plant life would die – meaning no oxygen production, and of course the food chain breaks down.

      We should celebrate that we are releasing some of the long sequestered carbon back into the atmosphere – as plant life wants to be at levels 3 times what they are now.

  13. jb says:

    1. Is it better to have many small fires over an area over a span of years, or 1 major one at once?

    2. Can it be assumed that a forest will grow back healthier — or even the same — as before? Can’t a previously non-majority species come to dominate over a previously majority specie? Here, I am thinking about fir trees and aspen: If a fir forest burns down, is it possible for it to be replaced (naturally) by an aspen forest. If so, is this a positive outcome?

  14. George Alter says:

    I was just looking at Karl et al (2015) that came out just before the Paris meeting to debunk the “pause”. They reported on “updated” surface temperature data from NOAA to show that the “pause” was just a mistake. Am I correct in assuming that this “updated” data refers to the tinkering with historic temperature data that you’ve been reporting?

  15. Jason says:

    Tony are there any restrictions on re-posting your videos? I am launching a news site and would love to have your content embedded.

  16. stewartpid says:

    Tony – second Alberta ski resort with their earliest opening ever!
    October 28, 2020
    Lake Louise Ski Resort
    7 runs, Glacier Quad Chair, Grizzly Gondola, 2 carpets, and almost 2500 feet of vertical with 3 routes down.
    Our earliest opening on record! Favorable weather conditions have greatly assisted with our winter preparations.

  17. rah says:

    I never thought I would see snow covered tumble weeds rolling along but that is exactly what I saw on US 54 in the New Mexico desert on Wednesday!

  18. Jozef says:

    Tony, is one influence to strong California fires, perhaps important, which you didn’t mention. It is cold jet stream from north and strong winds from it, see this video:

Leave a Reply to jb Cancel reply

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