What Are Their Names?

Someone posted this comment on my most recent video.

“Got into an argument with a person about climate change today….he said for every Tony Heller he has 100 scientists that say the opposite….I told him I believe in quality not quantity….thank you for your high quality information tony.”

My observation is the climate scam is being promoted in academia by a very small group, like Michael Mann and Katharine Hayhoe who are quoted over and over again.  If you get in a discussion like this, I suggest asking the other person to name their “hundred scientists.”  They will be lucky to name two of them.

When the publication  “100 authors against Einstein” was published he responded :

“”to defeat relativity one did not need the word of 100 scientists, just one fact.”

“In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual.”

– Galileo Galilei

“Have no respect whatsoever for authority; forget who said it and instead look what he starts with, where he ends up, and ask yourself, “Is it reasonable?””

– Richard P. Feynman

Michael Crichton said :

“the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus. There is no such thing as consensus science. If it’s consensus, it isn’t science. If it’s science, it isn’t consensus. Period.”

I’ve been trying to find a climate scientist who is willing to debate me live.  So far none of Barack Obama’s 97% of (millions of) scientists have been willing to do that.

11:48 AM · May 16, 2013

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

18 Responses to What Are Their Names?

  1. rah says:

    That concept is older than the scientific method itself.

    Ibn al-Haytham
    1091 – 1161
    “The seeker after truth is not one who studies the writings of the ancients and, following his natural disposition, puts his trust in them,” the first scientist wrote, “but rather the one who suspects his faith in them and questions what he gathers from them, the one who submits to argument and demonstration and not the sayings of human beings whose nature is fraught with all kinds of imperfection and deficiency. Thus the duty of the man who investigates the writings of scientists, if learning the truth is his goal, is to make himself an enemy of all that he reads, and, applying his mind to the core and margins of of its content, attack it from every side. he should also suspect himself as he performs his critical examination of it, so that he may avoid falling into either prejudice or leniency.”

  2. My preferred approach has been to start from a standard thermodynamics textbook and show, through logical argument, that the ‘science’ on which the narrative is based, is garbage. The only counter to this is to show that what has been taught to students over the past fifty years is wrong, or there is an error in the argument. I am still awaiting a refutation. Appeals to authority or ad hominem attacks are frequent, but merely prove that they have lost the argument.

  3. Ivan Wainwright says:

    I would love to see an honourable adversary, but I have stopped hoping for it. – Ayn Rand

  4. Billyjack says:

    In the Church of Warming, government “scientists” are little more than clergy.

  5. Dave N says:

    Truly great scientists are becoming rarer these days because they need to be working on something that absolutely no-one else is, otherwise they’d be infringing on the establishment. Yes, it has been like that for centuries; it’s just now rapidly becoming much, much worse

    • The work of truly great scientists would never be accepted for publication, because it would not conform to the current dogma.

      • David G says:

        And it starts well before that these days at the application for funding level, which is controlled by the clique who doing the “acceptable” science, churning the same stuff year after year.

  6. Lynne Balzer says:

    It’s a paradox that in this age of sophisticated technology that’s greater than anything we could have imagined 50 years ago, we are immersed in a sea of stupidity that thinks the earth is flat and can’t recognize a woman when they see one.

    • John Sutcliffe says:

      In Australia, during a Senate inquiry, the chief medical officer was asked to define a woman, he would not answer the question but put it on notice. Murphy is the man managing the COVD pandemic, why do we pay these people, we have to pay mandatory tax, and our money is handed out according to left-wing dogma. Link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oFnWYfJHfbc

  7. Walter L. Wagner says:

    Toto (Tony) always pulling back the curtain to expose the charlatan(s).

  8. Disillusioned says:


  9. Marko says:

    The only way to defeat propaganda is relay the truth at every oportunity, as often as it is needed and as loudly as it is needed to cut thrugh that signal coming from the most evil places.

  10. Tom Goldie says:

    99/100 law professors say men can get pregnant, too.

  11. Adam says:

    You only have to look towards people like Dr David Bellamy RIP, Judith Curry and so many more who’ve had their careers ruined because they wont parrot the narrative.
    And those that do, peer reviewing (old school tie buddy network), receive handsome grants with papers published.


  12. Adam says:

    ”I’ve been trying to find a climate scientist who is willing to debate me live. So far none of Barack Obama’s 97% of (millions of) scientists have been willing to do that.”

    I had read somewhere when obama said that he actually only asked 77 ‘Scientists’ and only a few were climate disciplines


Leave a Reply

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