At The Top Of The Hockey Stick

Katharine Hayhoe says earth is catching on fire due to a one part per ten thousand increase in atmospheric CO2 over the past century.

A century of unprecedented man-made global warming has left temperatures 0.0 degrees above normal.

Climate Reanalyzer

The extent of sea ice on earth today is higher than 1990, when the first IPCC report was published.

Arctic sea ice melt over the past eleven days has been the slowest since 1997.

OSI-420 |

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

29 Responses to At The Top Of The Hockey Stick

  1. Mikey0 says:

    I had to look up just who this kook is. She’s dumber than a hockey stick. LOL.

  2. Mallen Baker says:

    Tony, who pay you for all this nonsense?

    Why do you continue poisoning the world?

    • tonyheller says:


      Perhaps you could be more specific about which of the information I provided you consider to be nonsense?

    • Adelino Fernandes says:

      It looks like you are not smart enough to understand what Tony says. So, keep your mouth shut, please.

    • Steve says:

      Mallen, I hope you respond to Tony Heller and pin him down to facts. You have a chance to save planet Earth. Don’t be a coward and run away.

    • The end is near and yet so far!

      We all must dance and we all will die!

      • Mike says:

        Well, the one thing that Malen seems to do very well is demonstrate the total lunacy of the Climate Cult. Entertaining to say the least.

    • Gabriel M Cisneros says:

      I’ll answer your first question since it doesn’t really merit a response from Tony. Most skeptics are self funded, much like yourself. Why this would change the balance of the argument borders on adhominim attack, something which you yourself have warned against. (I have watched quite a few of your videos) As far as “poisoning the world” is concerned, most of Tony’s arguments are based on archival news and data that show that nearly all of the claims for “unprecedented” heat, draught, fires, flooding, sea levels, ice extent and other climate miscellanea, are bogus. One person’s poison is another’s fresh air!

    • Richard says:

      Mallen are you another FACT Hater, maybe try another source
      Patrick Moore founder of Greenpeace has factual book out Fake Invisible Catastrophes and Threats of Doom Paperback – January 20, 2021
      Michael Shellenberg the darling of the environment

      FEED your mind

    • Why me buddy? says:

      Fraudster. You are very slippery sir. My question is why?

    • arn says:

      Come on Mallen.
      You at least try in your vids.
      But in this case just a primitive hit and run.

      I guess you are still superimpressed by all
      the failed predictions,climate gates
      or the fact that neither the polar bears nor arctic ice disappeared though it was at least predicted half a dozen times and as always nothing happened in those years

      Considering your age you are 100% aware(if your brain didnt go full Biden) that experts sold global cooling in the 70ies
      before they went full AGW(climate science can only survive with extremism)
      and you also know very well that the sealevel ,coast lines
      are about the same and that Al Gores documentary has been proven 100% BS.
      Which is no surprise as Manns hockeystick was created by mixing tree ring data with temperatures.

      What impresses me most is that you believe that there will be some kind of co2runaway effect though hundreds of millions of years with co2 much higher than today were not able to do cause such an effect.

  3. JFK warned us about these controlling movements …

  4. Gene scow says:

    Well, I tend to agree with the proposition that much of AGW fear is overblown. I have donated significantly to this site and am inclined to do so again. I keep looking for the overall case on a very complex topic and read many of the postings on as well as associated youtube videos.

    Unfortunately, graphs like the above “extent of sea ice on earth” prevent me from making a case since it really appears cherry-picked – 2 points compared… throw a trend line on it, and it would seem to counter the agw skeptic view. Picked 2 points to compare.. highest recent measure vs lowest measure from older time period.

    Making a nerd-ish case using stats can’t come across too nerdish.

    There are so many aspects to this topic that answering alarmist stories one by one can be valuable but it isn’t enough. This all needs to be built as part of a larger case of things that really matter as people try to make sense of the debate.

    I recommend that this web site be arranged in a format that shows current analyses within the context of the 10 or 20 big themes of AGW. The heap of links is very confusing for users and most visitors just get lost straight off.

    Point, counterpoint sort of analyses might be useful too but must fairly represent points on both sides. The other side doesn’t need to be wrong on every point – not every alarmist story is a false alarm… just need to be balanced and honestly thorough and I believe that we can win the day.

    I do love the web site that shows a huge list of AGW predictions with timing highlighted… pass/fail fashion.

    The science is on our side but we must do better!

    • Willybillybob says:

      I guess I shouldn’t say anything except thanks for helping keep this site going and also thanks for your suggestions about site organization. My biggest complaint is that this site and the information presented here does not get adequate exposure. If we had real science teachers in our high schools, this site would be a major source of instruction, either to show the class how, through critical thinking they can see its fallacies or how through research and critical thinking it shows that the global warming claims have no legs to stand on. I solidly think the later, but you know any teacher who presented this material to his class would be reprimanded or fired. That is scary. My mentor told me back in the 1970s that we were headed into a dark age and to save any history books so the information would not be totally erased. I don’t know how he could see it that far back. Lastly I understand the value of the cherry picked two points. It shows numeric irony. The ice is thicker now than the year when they decided11 it was endangered. If you want a multiyear comparison, the graphs show current year vs the mean, as well as 2-3 standard deviations.

  5. David A Nichols says:

    Facts? What facts? We don’t need no stinking facts! We have an agenda!

  6. Greg W Smith says:

    So, is she fibbing, or just stupid? Or both?

  7. Martin says:

    In the sea ice graphs above, I find it odd that the medians are based on data 1981 to 2010, whereas the maximums and minimums are for the period 1979 to 2020

    • Willybillybob says:

      Good observation. Possibly this data is not readily available and what you want would require hours of additional work. And maybe there truly isn’t much other data, unlike when NASA, NOAA, and the US government truncates data that is inconvenient. I would like to know if additional ice data is available, even if it is spotty.

  8. Malen Baker says:

    My dear friend, my boy man:

    The end is near and yet so far!

    We all must dance and we all will die!

    Where mortal man looks like pan.

    Pan I said


    Eggs will fry and I am high!!!

  9. Peter Carroll says:

    I think her name is misspelled. It should be Katharine, Hooha.

Leave a Reply

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