I get almost all of my information from official government sources, newspapers and scientific publications, and Media BIAS/Fact Check says my sources are unverifiable quackery.

Real Climate Science – Media Bias Fact Check

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.


  1. ledag says:

    Tony, you’ve been exposed!
    Thanks to these people, now I know that your website is not aligned with the “Scientific Consensus” of fraud, deception, fear mongering, Marxism, corruption, and common idiocy.
    How dare you?!!

  2. GeologyJim says:

    Another “Badge of Honor”, Tony. Keep up the great work!

    Laugh out loud at their assessment ” In general, Real Climate Science is opposed to Real Climate Science”. Clever trick on the part of MB-FC to use capital letters to try to legitimate the propaganda of NOAA-NASA-CRU and the rest.

  3. gregole says:

    This is one criticism of this blog I cannot fathom…

    But it goes to show that the alarmists and climate suckers have nothing but words and word-play. I have seen not a single refutation of the factual presentation of temperature manipulation for example. Name calling? Yup. Facts and arguments? Nope.

  4. G W Smith says:

    Boy are they afraid of you! Big Time! Truth hurts the fallen! Keep it up!

  5. Steve Case says:

    Took me a while to find the big red & black
    bars at the top. Forest & Trees I guess (-:

  6. Robert Austin says:

    If you said that the sun rises in the east and sets in the west, they would “fact check” it as “quackery”. I, and I am sure others have had the experience of quoting directly from IPCC reports and still been dismissed as a denier. Fortunately I am retired so am somewhat impervious to retribution for incorrect views. One can only keep doggedly plugging away as you certainly have. I salute you!

  7. arn says:

    If they’d apply those same standards to climate science
    they could only call it 100% conspiracy as
    result of data tampering,ice age scare,the non existing sea level rise that missed its target by more than 99% and all the other 1000 failed predicions.

  8. Disillusioned says:


  9. Bruce of Newcastle says:

    Fun they just proved NOAA and their ilk are pseudoscience quacks.

  10. Ted Rodgers says:

    PLEASE find an alternate to Paypal. They have begun joining in the political cancellation (see Rebel News in Canada). The locomotive is gaining steam and it will be ploughing through everywhere. I already cannot watch some of your videos due to a scam copyright claim that prevents me viewing “sensitive” material with your dogs in my country.

  11. Michael Spencer says:

    I’m sure that Judith Currie will be thrilled to see that rates only as ‘Strong Pseudo-Science’ rating, when ‘No Tricks Zone’ has achieved your high rating of ‘Quackery’!

    On the other hand that illustrious source of the ‘97% of Climate Scientists say’ – ‘Skeptical Science’ is rated “VERY HIGH”.

    I think those ratings rather sum up the accuracy of ‘Media BIAS/Fact Check’ as being approximately 97% fraudulent nonsense!

    (And well done Tony in earning such an accolade as you have! Obviously you’re ‘rattling cages’ …..)

    • Michael Spencer says:

      P.S. I meant to say that ‘Skeptical Science’ is supposedly ‘VERY HIGH’ pro-science.

      And big pink one just flew past, using its ears as wings and its tail as its propellor, whilst going ‘Oink! Oink!’

      • Michael Spencer says:

        And it’s good to see that DeSmogBlog is also supposedly ‘VERY HIGH’ pro-science.

        I really wonder how these people are able to sleep at night! (The late un-lamented Herr Doktor Josef Goebbels would have been very proud of them!)

  12. Dave N says:

    No surprise there.. nearly all “fact-check” sites are left leaning and ironically their assessments are untrustworthy. The IFCN is a joke, as verifiably demonstrated by one of the only reliable fact-check sites (who actually mostly just point out IFCN members errors), Zebra:

  13. Dr. Colin Barton says:

    On this basis The Nazi propaganda minister Herman Goering would get a very high rating for factual reporting and Einstein a low rating. But what would I know in that I am a mere experienced geologist and engineer like Tony Heller and am in awe of his computer engineering skills in dealing with real data in an exemplary scientific way.

  14. KI says:

    Given your sources, then, this seems a ranking of the media.
    Not unreasonable, in that case.

  15. alf says:

    should be some way of holding them liable!!!!

  16. Russell Cook says:

    They have no less-than-zero levels for “Conspiracy” or “Pseudo-Sci”? How could they then give a rating to such places like the PBS NewsHour (the most trusted news outlet evah!) or Schmidt & the Mann’s RealClimate site?

  17. Dan says:

    “This is a video story narrated by Tony Heller, that claims the solutions for climate change are the same as communism”

    A very difficult task…

    Christiana Figueres (UN):
    “This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time, to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the Industrial Revolution,”

    “This is probably the most difficult task we have ever given ourselves, which is to intentionally transform the economic development model for the first time in human history.”

    • arn says:

      Miss Figueres must have known about Covid and the Green New Deal
      years before they existed.
      I wonder how.

      I also wonder how a nobody can declare such a massive,world transforming thing ??
      As the only way that her announcement succeeds would be a massive global conspiracy amongst top politicians,top billionaires ,top bankers
      and the owners of the MSM.

  18. Terry Shipman says:

    This angers me greatly. As I was getting my history degree from Arkansas State University in the early 1970’s I was taught that there were two aspects to the study of history. First are the facts of history and second there is the interpretation of history. For instance, it is a fact of history that the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor in December of 1941 but there are different schools of thought on what led up to the attack. One even holds that FDR knew the attack was going to take place (which I absolutely reject). This is where the interpretation of history comes in. I have in my college textbook library a book called, “Interpretations of American History.” A fact of history is stated then essays of different schools of thought follows. It is completely legitimate to have different opinions about the facts of history.

    Tony, what you do is gather the facts of history. You search out newspaper archives and other sources so you can report what happened in the past. This is what any good historian would do. These sources exist for anyone to look at. What you do is simply point people to them. There is no way this can be fact-checked as false unless the critics can prove these sources don’t exist. Good luck with that. For instance the critics are trying to claim that scientists really didn’t say in the 1970’s that the earth was descending into a new glaciation period. You have proved, by the historical record, that YES THEY DID. For me it is not just history since I lived through that time. I know first hand what was written about the cold.

    You are challenging the Ministry of Truth and not letting them shove the facts of history down the Memory Hole- and they can’t stand it.

Leave a Reply to Michael Spencer Cancel reply

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