Climate Brawl Debate: Tony Heller vs Gerald Kutney

November 29 at 11:00 AM MST

“The United Nation’s 27th Conference of the Parties recently held in Egypt has shown renewed interest in the subject of climate change. Is the debate settled as the IPCC and Peer Reviewed Consensus suggest? Should we move towards energy sources that are based on lower emissions? Is Fossil Fuels killing the environment or an overall benefit for all mankind? Or is it just about politics and money? These are the questions that will be explored in the Climate Brawl Debate.

Arguing in favour of the motion is Gerald Kutney.
Gerald Kutney is an elected Fellow of the Royal Canadian Geographical Society, a former adjunct professor at the University of Northern British Columbia and taught the graduate course Climate Change and Global Warming. He has presented several guest lectures at Carleton University on climate change denial. In early 2019, Gerald took the initiative to launch the hashtag #climatebrawl on Twitter to confront climate deniers head on with facts, science and arguments.

Arguing Against the Motion is Tony Heller.
Tony is a member of the C02 coalition, a geologist, teacher, verification engineer and the host of the climate contrarian website, Tony hosts a Youtube Channel where he regularly tries to deconstruct the climate change narrative. According to Tony, “Global warming is indeed Mann-made, by Michael Mann and James Hansen. But it has nothing to do with climate or science”

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

17 Responses to Climate Brawl Debate: Tony Heller vs Gerald Kutney

  1. arn says:

    Finally someone to debate.

    It wouldn’t be wrong to ask Mr Kutney to explain some basic things.

    How climate science was able to switch from one extreme(ice age) to another(AGW)?
    And why in both cases they blamed humanity ( aerosols,global dimming,co2)

    Why there never was a runaway greenhouse effect ,
    though we had millions of years of much higher co2 concentrations?
    (How was it even possible for this planet to cool down)

    Why have all predictions,that are easy observable,completely failed?

    Why should this prediction be real after ALL expert predictions(extinction have totally failed?

    What does make Americans(or Anglo-Saxons)so extremely superior that they are always the ones who start all these failed doomsday and wars(which also always turn out to be fake)

    How many fake predictions does it take to change Kutney’s mind?
    Is there even a limit.

    How many days would it take for climate scientists to lose their Job
    if they’d dare to refuse to go along with the AGW narrative.

    • rah says:

      Ask how come they still predict catastrophic warming when the hot spots in the troposphere have failed to materialize? I mean the physics their models are based on demand that those hot spots be present for the runaway feed backs to occur.

      • arn says:

        They still predict the most hilarious and complicated stuff,while even their most basic predictions are a total failure,
        therefore i do not think that they even give a damn if the troposphere andexist the hotspots exist –
        and as soon as something proves them wrong they’ll ignore it.

        The main reason they went for a climate change scam
        is that the father of chaos theory used weather as main example to prove his theories –
        and the most interesting(&useful) thing was,that you can get completely different results by changing tiny parameters.
        It is way too easy to get all the results you want with minor adjustments and ‘mistakes ‘ while pretending to do science.

  2. rah says:

    And ask when the Arctic is going to be virtually ice free in the summer months and how that is going to happen when year after year the summer time temps in the Arctic have been at or below the 30 mean?

  3. rah says:

    “Why there never was a runaway greenhouse effect ,
    though we had millions of years of much higher co2 concentrations?
    (How was it even possible for this planet to cool down)”

    And why during the Cambrian explosion when CO2 ran from 7,000 ppm to 3,000 ppm what there not life destroying ocean “acidification”?

  4. Michael Peinsipp says:

    Tony shows facts, past facts and all of his predictions have/are coming to reality.

  5. Peteo says:

    I’d assume Mr. Kutney will be forced to use altered data trends and facts to support his conclusions. Any way to prepare what these trends might be? Tony, your data sets you’ve openly published and allowed us all to access have been superb!

    • arn says:

      I would assume that Kutney would use rhetoric tricks of permanent interruption,diversion and evasion,
      and trying to pin the discussion down on irrelevant stuff and nitpicking.

      But let’s wait and see wether he is interested in an open dialogue or wether he will try to play mindgames
      (and I’m pretty sure a supersmart guy like him can easily explain us deniers why the earth is getting greener and greener and crop yields are rising and rising (until they sanctioned fertilizer supply) and why we get more and more snow since they announced the end of snow.
      And he may also explain what is so desirable to have the perfect >300 ppm co2 weather which killed tens of millions of people just in asia in the 1870ies)

      • conrad ziefle says:

        I’m reading this book, The Moral Case for Fossil Fuels. He isn’t as technical as Tony but has a good generalist overview, that most thinking people could understand. He makes the point ad infinitum, that fossil fuels have fueled the well being of most of the world’s population. You could content that everyone who has a decent life can attribute it to fossil fules, and those who don’t, well they would already be dead were it not for fossil fuels. the corollary, which I like is: Fossil fuels didn’t make a benign world into a dangerous place; they made a dangerous world into a more benign place.

  6. perrin.laurie says:

    “Speak the truth (with)in love” – God bless and strengthen you, Tony.

  7. Peter Carroll says:

    What the hell is, “Peer Reviewed Consensus”? Albert Einstein said, “Genius abhors consensus because when consensus is reached, thinking stops. Stop nodding your head”.
    The IPCC and their ilk are no more than a bunch of nodding heads.

  8. tom says:

    hopefully, it starts trending on Twitter i posted it several times on different posts.

  9. Kent Clizbe says:


    Can you please post a separate notice, with a link, of the time/place/details of the venue of this event?

    I’m not seeing it here.


  10. Francis Barnett says:

    “Gerald Kutney is Managing Director of Sixth Element Sustainable Management, a renewable energy technologies consultancy, and was until recently Adjunct Professor of Environmental Sciences at the University of Northern British Columbia, Canada.”

    4 minutes with Gerald Kutney

    Just follow the money !

  11. Disillusioned says:

    Anyone wanna wager the biofuel promoter won’t be relying on statistics that are full of biomass? Glad this is happening. It is an opportunity for a wider audience to be introduced to/become aware of tampered data.

  12. Geir Aaslid says:

    Why does Gerald Kutney argue pseudo-scientifically most of the time? Consensus is not a scientific argument, it is a political one. It only takes one observation to prove the consensus crowd is wrong.

    Same with the denial argument, mostly used by those who themselves deny the influence of the sun on our climate.

    Peer review can be a quality control, it can also be gatekeeping or the result of groupthink. However at the IPCC, they are entirely free to disregard any criticism from peer review and their own expert reviewers.

Leave a Reply

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