Peer Reviewed Science Vs. History

The primary excuse which been used by climate alarmists and the press to ignore my work, is that it is based on historical accounts, rather than peer-reviewed science. Nearly every day on Twitter people dismiss what I am saying because I use “old newspaper articles” as a source of information.

The City of Cheyenne, Wyoming where I live has been shut down for days because we are buried in snow, and the city only has ten snowplows.  The city government believes it doesn’t snow very much here and the snow melts quickly.

Cheyenne Urban Area Snow and Ice Control Guide 2019

But if they knew the history of the city, they would have known that this also happened in 1949.

The Notorious Blizzard of 1949 |

History has repeated itself, and we have a similar problem.

WYDOT Travel Information Service (Cheyenne)

Here is what peer-reviewed science said last year.

Significant decreases were found in the frequency and size of snowstorms in the global-warming simulation, including those events that produce the most extreme snowfall accumulations.

Climate change could dramatically reduce future US snowstorms: Study: Across North America, warming could shorten snow season by late this century — ScienceDaily

Climate alarmists have maintained this belief for decades.

Robert F. Kennedy Jr.

But the reality is that September-March snowfall has been increasing for 50 years in the Northern Hemisphere, and climate academics and journalists are science fiction writers with no connection to reality.

Rutgers University Climate Lab :: Global Snow Lab – Top 10 NYC Snowstorms – Blizzard of 2016 – New York City Historical Snowstorms & Blizzards – Biggest New York City Snowstorms – Snowiest Winter for NYC – Snowiest Month in NYC history

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

21 Responses to Peer Reviewed Science Vs. History

  1. The real point is, your critics are not honest, nor scientifically competent (to the point of insanity). President Trump has revealed this completely, by their criminal treason against him.

    You are basically complaining about the only voices in the “debate” (political and ideological war).

    Trolls. It is trolls, all the way down.

    • Richard says:

      not Trolls, just very ignorant people
      read Patrick Moore’s book FAKE INVISIBLE Catastrophes and threats of DOOM – the co founder of Greenpeace and he is blocked constantly by the Global Warming / cooling / change / cortex / agenda
      when he spoke out against Gore and other fools Wiki removed his name for history as a co-founder of Greenpeace that is how far NUTS the left is they want to work in George Orwell’s Ministry of Truth where they re-write history

  2. Richard says:

    FYI Robert Kennedy Jr is a moron- listen to his stands on GW Keystone and Fossil fuels – he is really clueless

  3. Jeff L. says:

    These idiots are basing their policy on predictions from a “simulation” (model) that has been continuously demonstrated to not match reality. History (including recent history like right now) is useful to validate the outputs from the models upon which the policy is based. If the model does not match reality, then it should not be used to drive policy.

  4. Leonard+Harris says:

    I well remember when I started working in the City of London as a young graduate back in 1970, and my 55 year old manager telling me that there are two kinds of people in the world. The first kind will always immediately acknowledge any mistake they have made and promptly undetake remedial action. The second kind will never ever acknowledge any mistake of theirs and go to extraordinary lengths to cover them up. If that fails they will assert even where it is manifestly illogical that the mistake did not have any adverse consequences and therefore did not matter, or exist! Clearly he had seen people in his time similar in every way to the modern day climate alarmists.

  5. richard c merrill says:

    I would love to give you some support on twitter but I refuse to participate there or FB.
    They won’t get my support of their agenda (or adding to their ad revenue)

    Before TV weather announcers starting using “models” in place of real forcasting. All weather forecasts were based on observational history. Bobby j doesn’t understand how observational science works. I’d like to see his diary of cape Cod weather. Bet it covers about one sheet of paper.

  6. Lynette Ackermann says:

    Matthew Ehret watched Tony’s videos and no longer believes in human-induced climate change and said so in an article. Tony’s message is being heard, even if it takes time.

  7. Steve Cooksey says:

    Anymore, peer reviewed means the people doing the review were taught and indoctrinated by the same communist professors. They draw a conclusion and then collect data that only agrees with their conclusion. It has nothing to do with real science. President Eisenhower warned us.

  8. Felton Suthon says:

    “Notes on the State of Virginia” (1785) by Thomas Jefferson noted the mildness of winters at the time, but mentioned that older citizens recalled winters with heavy snow. When I was at the University of Virginia in 1976-1980, snow started in November and ended in March. In 1979, there was a heavy snow in October that knocked out power in Charlottesville and cancelled a World Series game in Baltimore. The modern resident of Virginia does not see the same cold or volume of snow – now I am one of the aged who recalls different winters.

  9. Dan says:

    Thank you Tony for helping me prove my point to the English “change maker” that your work very effectively points out the misguided (or purposefully misleading) peer reviewed “science” that seems to ignore verifiable history. Those who discount your work never actually address your points, they instead create straw-man arguments or deflect from your point.
    Thank you for all the work you have done and continue to do!

  10. G W Smith says:

    Whenever the winters keep getting milder and milder, nicer and nicer, that’s a signal to hunker down; because it’s going to turn the other way eventually: and you don’t want to get caught off guard.

    Remember: The world goes round and round. The weather goes round and round. Everything is cycles within cycles within cycles.

    Remember the cartoon: “Working can wait, This is paradise having no work to do, and taking it easy too; Working can wait.” — Then it snows. — Democrats.

  11. Stephen Due says:

    Science is about facts, not peer review. If people do not understand this basic concept they are not worth the conversation.

  12. David G says:

    Speaking as a “just retired” scientist (cancer research), and sitting here working on my last manuscript for publication, I can say on reflection that peer review was once a very sound and worthwhile exercise. It was meant to be “independent”, anonymous, and done by not only one’s working peers, but included those who are likely to be your critics. What resulted from that was a range of detailed analyses of your data, usually with a range of low support to somewhat better support, and a large collection of improvements suggested or demanded that were frequently very valuable. Some of my papers were rejected outright, and probably correctly. Indeed, the mantra was “big claims need big evidence”. We once thought we had found the “cure for cancer” for example- at least it seemed to cure mice, but not humans unfortunately!
    Over time in some disciplines peer review has become more a “club” review consisting of reinforcement of “group think”. A good example is seen the Climategate affair, which everyone in the discipline should read about. It is also worth remembering that a specific degree qualification in Climate Science has not existed until only recently, with a few US Universities offering the course from 2020, I believe (correct me if I’m wrong). Until now, “Climate Scientists” have been a mixed group of physicists, meteorologists, biologists, horticulturalists, computer modellers etc etc.
    On top of that, “climate science” is the current “Plat du jour”. In fact, a PhD student in “dietary- related epidemiology” told me last week that he was strongly advised to put the words “Climate Change” somewhere into his grant application, simply because it would give him a much greater chance of funding! Where will it all end? Unfortunately, further erosion of the public’s respect for science, I’m sad to say.

  13. Loren says:

    “Old newspaper articles” = Factually reported evidence…..something they can’t refute when it blows the lid off their lies. No wonder they hate it!

  14. Gabriel Cisneros says:

    The Global Warming crisis is a propaganda war. Just like Covid19 is/was. This means that “unprecedented” must be employed in every description of sea level, weather event, wild fire, and their ancillary effects on all life forms. Tony’s tonic is to demonstrate that within the period of time in which these observations were dependably made, there have always been not only extreme events but often events even more extreme than any we have experienced in our lifetimes. Add to that, a very credible argument for temperature records manipulation by NASA and NOOA, and it starts to make the argument for a crisis look massively fabricated out of whole cloth. Then their is the absolute failure of predictions for catastrophic scenarios (Atoll islands disappearing, dead reefs, climate refugees, massive hunger, NY underwater) at which point one has to swallow a level of absurdity that only well funded climate scientists can believe. Long story short this is a cultural fabrication located beyond the predictive ability of science that many smart people want to believe is true. And the final solution to use a horrible allusion if for Western Civ has to pay “reparations” to the South and East because of a moral imperative – that could even have some merit – but has NOTHING to do with CO2 emissions per se. Give em Heller, Tony!

  15. Jay Hendon says:

    This criticism, i.e. “old records not relevant” clearly demonstrates how genuinely ignorant of science these critics are. Apply this to any other area – investing for example. Suppose an investment advisor’s old records of picking good investments were as bad as the predictive records of the junk science touted by the “warmists” – would that record simply be ignored? I doubt it. Of course, if more recent predictions were dramatically improved, that might be a game-changer but I see no evidence of any improvement whatsoever.

  16. scott allen says:

    This is why modern science is broken and possibly will never be fix.
    In 2007 a researcher discovered that the cell line he thought he was using for breast cancer was infact a skin cell line. By 2014 over 860 peer review research papers had been published using the wrong cell line. All of these papers should have been retracted or withdrawn. Guess how many were…..
    As of 2020 papers are still being published using the wrong cell line and those 860 are still be cited by other researchers in support of there research.
    “Continued use of MDA-MB-435, a melanoma cell line, as a model for human breast cancer, even in year, 2014”

    But then we are following the “science”.
    This is actually criminal…. but its science so nothing will get done.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.