Climate Debate

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

41 Responses to Climate Debate

  1. conrad ziefle says:

    Unfortunately, I had an appointment to run to, so I couldn’t sit through Gerald’s full pontificating about his righteousness and his having the full support of the Church of Climate Priests (approved scientists by the Cardinals in their forum of peer review). I’ll get back to listening when I get back. By the way, there are many very qualified scientists, particularly in medicine, who say the peer review process is corrupted and certainly not a reliable litmus for good science. There is no reason to believe that climate science is any better, given that 97% of all climate scientists entered the profession in the last 20 years with a bias, promoted in their early education, toward the belief that they are saving the world. And also, and unfortunately, as all of us who have studied science know, 75% of the class don’t have a clue, but still pass.

  2. Eli the Pit Bull says:

    Tony presented factual evidence while Gerald appealed to authorities.
    Here’s an example of authority figure in 2022, using the Covid vaccine

    The ratios are amazing

    • Scissor says:

      I agree with your comment. Gerald used one fallacy after another while accusing “deniers” of doing so. That’s typical of the left.

      Tony did a great job. You could tell he was somewhat nervous by the frequency of his drinking water/juice, etc., but he controlled his voice with reason.

      If this were a football game, Tony won 42-0.

  3. conrad ziefle says:

    It’s nice to appeal to “climate scientists”, a field, which I noted above, had few members until recently. The reason for this was a lack of employability, with possibly the only positions available being in academics and government. I think Tony noted in the past that this area of study used to be populated by specialists from other areas of study, such as physics, geology, chemistry, etc. Each of these areas require a great deal of study to gain proficiency, and there is no way that a climate scientist has great understanding of all of them. More likely, it is a superficial understanding, that has been funneled toward climate and atmospheric issues. The next thing is who makes up the flood of recent climate scientists, and who trained them, given the dearth of earlier climate scientists? Most modern climate scientists got into it to save the planet from global climate change. So they are biased at the on set. And of course none of their professors have done anything to level that. Second of all, universities are now just another business that is trying to capture your money. If people want degrees in ridiculous abnormal psychology, then the university will find a way to pump them out. Ditto, climate science degrees, including: climate economics, climate sociology, climate change finance, etc.etc. Most of these will be called climate science degrees, so if plain climate science is a conglomerate of studies, then you can imagine what these degrees are.
    I would trust one physicist with extended studies in radiation more than I would the entire universe of climate scientists.

    • GWS says:

      And most of these brilliant someday scientific aspirants doubtfully ever experienced a warm beer on a hot day, not being of the type to go out in the country when it’s sizzling hot only to discover you have a leaky ice chest and have to pull one from a hot six-pak and then enjoying the fun of opening one and have it foam all over the place while never giving a thought as to what was actually happening right before their eyes — maybe an apple falling on their head would have been more impressive.

  4. GWS says:

    The sound was so bad and my hearing is going and I could understand very little. I hope you will summarize it somehow, Tony. Good luck!

  5. conrad ziefle says:

    This guy doesn’t seem to be able to investigate anything himself. He can’t look up a set of data to verify what is correct and what is false. He just listens to CNN.

  6. spike55 says:

    On science and scientifically supported facts…

    I score …… Heller +10…. Kutney -ve 10

    The poor guy had nothing except scientifically unsupportable mantra.

    CO2 and its production has been a MASSIVE BENEFIT to society and the planet.

    The whole of society and the world’s plant life , hence existence, absolutely depends on it !

  7. Disillusioned says:

    Kutney proved one thing – he is an abject hypocrite drowning in a bubble of the double-standard. He began, right out of the chute arrogantly insulting Tony et. al, saying he always enjoys going back into “the den of denial”, and then he used the term, “climate deniers”. Tony mentioned the monopoly of information with the climate scam and the climate scare industry.

    Then Hugo the moderator read a question by Chris1974 who asked why climate alarmists get mad about any good climate news….

    Kutney immediately bristled about the use of “insult” terms like “alarmist” and “scare industry” – and barely taking a new breath, he again insulted Tony and the questioner from the audience, calling them, “climate denialists”. At the end of his rant about being insulted, he finally addressed the questioner – saying he welcomes good news, but then discounted most good news about climate as misleading or exaggerated. SMH

    Throughout, he kept up a barrage of arrogant insults, throwing around the terms “deniers” and “climate denialism” with aplomb. Then he added another on the pile: “conspiracy therorist,” which he began to use over and over. Kutney also said there are some people out there who believe the moon is made of cheese. ROTFLOL. I thought this was supposed to be a debate about facts – pro and con – about man made climate change. Kutney had a real hard time with that.

    Throughout, Tony calmly kept citing real data. Several times, Kutney said he was unaware of the cited statistics. Kutney’s ignorance, combined with his arrogance, did not play well for him.

    Whenever Kutney was at a loss, he would go back to the appeal to authority fallacy – hailing the impeccable authority of pal review literature, government and globalist organizations, as he continued to ignore most of what Tony said. He kept using the insulting terms “deniers” “denialism” and “conspiracy theory” throughout the debate, meanwhile denying and discounting almost everything Tony cited.

    Kutney denied the problems with the Climategate emails. Without missing a beat, he implied the Climategate whitewash by pals was as pure as the un-driven snow and was to be trusted – case closed. Kutney is so steeped in Climate Change Apologetics and his faith in the IPCC and pal review, he seems to have no idea that he is precisely what he brands skeptics – he is a science denier.

    Tony kept politely pummeling Kutney with real data. Kutney’s approach – to continue with his barrage of insults. Kutney either ignored, discounted or denied most of the data Tony cited.

    Kutney talked about “science” a lot – a lot. But, he never cited any. He cited an isolated, short term weather event caused by down slope winds in 2021 as evidence of climate change. Tony (who is very aware of it) addressed it and explained it. Kutney ignored it. SMH

    As Kutney lost more ground in the debate, he ramped up the insult that Tony is a conspiracy theorist. He kept using the appeal to authority fallacy. He kept using the term “science” but didn’t cite any. He called others sciency. But, that’s what he was. He projected a lot. His way to debate was an exercise in projection. He falsely referred to Tony’s cited facts as “opinion.” Kutney discounted temperatures of the past that didn’t fit with the CO2-warming doctrine. Throughout, he kept hiding behind Cabal agencies, pal review and was completely unwilling to accept new information and data that obliterate the tenets of his religion.

    Calmly and methodically, Tony kept citing inconvenient facts, which left Kutney without an answer more than once. Unfortunately, Kutney is as arrogant as he is ignorant on a lot of facts. Tony won the debate, hands down.

    Excellent job, Tony!

    • arn says:

      One can only imagine the Character of someone who uses underhanded smeartactics in a debate and calls himself scientist instead of politician.

      But at least he dared to debate and didn’t use the term Nazi.
      So this is probably the best we can get from the woke expert
      (and something tells me that this guys official opinion about immigration,transgenderism,open borders,defund the police etc is way different different than it was 10-20 years ago,
      but had a sudden change of heart when he realised that he may lose his job if he does not adjust to the apparatchick system)

    • Scissor says:

      I’m a Ph.D. scientist affiliated with a major institute that is involved in climate research.

      I see the biases in this “science” that are sanctioned and promoted by the drive for funding. Tony described this situation very well with several pertinent examples and Gerald poo pooed him as a conspiracy theorist, how many times, 15?

      Apparently, I must believe also that the moon is made of cheese (green isn’t it?).

    • dm says:

      Excellent characterization of Kutney and Tony.

      The “Climate Brawl” shared the following with 3 similar, recent debates featuring Dr. Steve Koonin. Alarmists emphasized the “sizzle” rather than the science. Alarmists repeatedly resorted to calling realists disparaging names rather than enlightening the audience about what climate “science” has got right over its history. Realists understand why;-}

  8. spike55 says:

    The best response to the word “denier” is to ask what we “deny” that they can provide actual real scientific proof for.

    Invariably you get nothing but crickets…. or mantra/consensus regurge !

    NEVER any science..

  9. Jack the Insider says:

    Jeremiah 5:21
    “There is none so blind as those who will not see”

  10. John Gorter says:

    Well done Mr Heller!

  11. Richard says:

    OK so if Climate change is real- what can Governments do??? Take Trillions and do nothing
    FIRST They should do is prove CO2 is the evil gas not based on AL GORE BullShip
    then when the governments- can stop a rain shower, thunderstorm a Tornado or a Hurricane then they can buy an Ikea weather control machine for billions that will do nothing
    money grab is all it is

    • arn says:

      They would take trillions and use them to compensate for climate change effects,
      by building more reservoirs and water pipelines and replacing cheap fossil fuels with cheap nuclear power.
      Instead they waste billions on useless propaganda legions called scientists and economy wrecking tools that make the already too expensive unreliables even more expensive.

      On the other hand they have established the term postmodernism
      and to create a postmodern society an economy wrecking scam like global warming has to exist – including bizarre “solutions” that don’t work because they were designed to fail.

      • GWS says:

        Don’t forget the 10+% for the ‘big guys.’

      • conrad ziefle says:

        I went back to Colorado State to get a graduate degree in “Solar Energy” because at the time (1978) it was the center for those studies. I had the good sense to change to “Energy Conversion”, a broader view of all energy sources. In any case, the need for a clear energy policy became clear to me, and I have never seen it at any time since I graduated. The best, was probably Trump reducing the restraints on the fossil fuel industry. The worst is probably now, where ignorant politicians take Draconian measures which have horrible effects on people’s lives worldwide, while not leading to a stable, abundant energy supply. Clearly, we need to transition in an orderly fashion to a nuclear power based energy supply. I’ve been waiting 45 years for the politicians to agree on this and to begin working toward it, but it is too complex for their slick brains.

  12. dm says:

    Kutney claim: It is wrong to cite 100 yr. old articles about climate and science because science moves on.

    Reality: Comparing climate alarmist forecasts 60, 50, 40, 30, 20 and 10 years ago with reality, refutes climate alarmism and humiliates climate alarmists. So, climate “science” has moved on from ice ball earth to global warming, man-made climate change, climate emergency …

    Kutney claim: Because almost all published & peer reviewed climate studies promote alarmism, alarmism is the science.

    Reality: If reality refutes outcomes discussed in the vast majority of studies, by definition, the process underlying the content is NOT science.

    My 2 cents: Because climate models retain key flaws, they are NOT scientifically structured. Key flaws include exaggerating CO2’s warming effect (by 2x to 4x), understating water vapor’s temperature effects and distorting cloud cover’s temperature influence. Furthermore, they can NOT adequately mimic some recurring natural phenomenon–like ocean current oscillations–because such events are too poorly understood at this time. An example is the “Pacific Blob”. The Blob diminished sea ice cover and profoundly warmed land temperature readings near the Bering Strait.

  13. Tim Spence says:

    Without doubt Tony won the debate and the only question is how many people did he debate because Kutney was getting his answers from another screen.

  14. dm says:

    Tony, pls write a commentary about the use of “triggering” words throughout the debate. Keyword searching a written transcript should reveal how many times Mr. Kutney used “denier”, “conspiracy theory” and other disparaging terms. Ditto, your use of “alarmist” and “alarmism”. My hunch is Kutney used such words / phrases many, many more times than you. What is the bigger point? Mr. Kutney relied on personal attacks rather than science.

    Peer review: Peer review has been considered dubious for many years by academics. It is NOT the gold standard implied by Mr. Kutney. The insight comes from my daughter, who has an Ivy League PhD. in a physical science. Peer review is considered dubious because further review shows disturbing shares of approved studies (the share varies by discipline) were faked. Fakery is initially overlooked because too many reviewers merely glance at submitted studies rather than thoroughly examine data and analysis.

  15. alf says:

    Gerald does not need facts, never mentions any other then, that there a 10’s of thousands of climate scientists on his side. What a brillient mind

  16. Scissor says:

    Gerald throws out one lie after another. For instance, he said that no one has ever stated that climate change has created extreme weather. Seriously?

  17. conrad ziefle says:

    I finally listened to the whole thing all the way through. It seems to me that Gerald is a strong believer in government and the righteousness and incorruptibility of government, and the idea that peer review science is the gold standard, which also is the belief in the incorruptibility of the quasi-governmental consortiums and the fairness of these toward conflicting views. Gerald believes that power and money do not corrupt, and that organizations do not gravitate to exclusionary practices. Meanwhile, human history shows that human nature will do that. I bet that many of the Cardinals who voted to condemn Galileo were smart enough to know that he was right, but voted to condemn him to protect their positions. I wonder how many scientist supported “spontaneous generation” even though they felt Pasteur was right. Gerald is right, that science does correct itself, but the question is how long does it take. Gerald could not point to one example of actual evidence that supports his belief in these governmental type groups; he could only say over and over that they are self-correcting and would not sink into group think, or consensus. That was his single argument. The problem is: Are any contrarian scientists ever funded? Hence, how do they get the opportunity to develop ($$$$) a contrarian paper to be reviewed? What would happen to consensus if a certain amount of funding was required to go to diversity; not diversity of color of the author, which the scientific community is arguing for with a straight face; but rather, true diversity of opinion. After all, over and over again, it has been the contrarian that changed the view of things over the long haul, not the peer consensus groups.

  18. CAD says:

    Among the vast majority of carbon copy climate communicators they really truly believe the models represent reality. So there is no conspiracy, only ignorance. I shall call this an “ignorance theory”.

  19. Disillusioned says:

    Yesterday, there was something about Kutney that was disturbing. He doesn’t come across as an authentic innocent/naive believer. After perusing Kutney’s tweet page, then watching the debate a second time, I find him to be pompous, insufferable and quite manipulative. He claims he says nothing about consensus, but that’s exactly what he bases every bit of his supposed beliefs on – the consensus opinion of those he refers to as climate experts, apparently no matter how absurd their opinion/conclusion may be.

    There doesn’t seem to be much, if any skeptic in him, and appears he will dismiss any/all data that are counter to the predictions of the crowd with which he has chosen to be aligned. That alone would make him a “science denier.” He comes across as very unscientific, and he seems to work very hard to get others to “convert” to his, uh, beliefs.

    It appears he is in the biomass business.
    If I am not mistaken, biofuels are one of the government-funded alternative fuels. He has written a book on the politics of climate change and why Kyoto failed. He appears to be all-in with the climate change machine. I think he aligned himself with what he saw as a sure bet and he is, or needs to be making at least something from it.

    For whatever reason, I think it would be very, very difficult for him to acknowledge any dissenting data that would put cracks in the AGW scam.

  20. Robert Austin says:

    Kutney checked off all the boxes on climate alarmism. Peer review as gold standard, appeal to authority, climate scientists universally honourable people questioning their work are “deniers”, climategate emails “stolen”. Kutney has a PhD in chemistry so is no more qualified to be a “climate scientist” than Tony or Michael Mann (or Al Gore, ha ha). Dismissing Steve McIntyre as not a climate scientist showed his particular ignorance of the hockey stick affair. The proxy temperature constructions were primarily statistical exercises for which McIntyre was eminently qualified to critique. Kutney started out somewhat congenially but gradually turned dismissive and insufferable. I commend Tony on remaining calm and collected throughout the “debate” in spite of Kutney’s condescension.

    • Scissor says:


      At about 1:19:45 Gerald stated that Tony said he had the same degree as Michael Mann. This is a lie by Gerald. Tony did not say he has the same degree.

      Tony said that he is a geologist with same background as Michael Mann (~1:14:45).

  21. Allan Shelton says:

    Tony won that so called debate hands down. Tony 100% Kutney 0%
    Kutney never debated. He just kept pontificating which showed his ignorance.
    Tony provided facts which Kutney could not accept and made ridiculous statements that Tony was some sort of conspiracy theorist.
    IMO Gerald Kutney is a complete believer that CO2 is causing global warming and will not accept any evidence to the contrary.

  22. conrad ziefle says:

    Tony, Could you post the whole Angstrom thing? I know I’ve seen it somewhere, but can’t find it now. Also, what the rebuttal of his conclusion was, because it seems that what he said exactly matches the current understanding about CO2 emissivity of specific wave lengths. I did like your statement that CO2 had absorbed all that it could at about 2/10,000, or 200/million. I was wondering about that. It’s almost as if people think that more CO2 will just “spill” over into other bandwidths, like water in an over filled bucket.

  23. mark jones says:

    As I am sure has been pointed out many times before here the real “climate denialists” are those who deny the scientific and historic facts, such as this Gerald Kutney character, and in regards to the dubiousness of “peer review” alluded to above I recently saw evidence from Canadian investigative journalist John Robertson on YouTube showing that hundreds of “peer-reviewed” scientific papers from dozens of journals in the last few years have had to be removed or disavowed because it turns out they are not properly peer-reviewed. How many alarmists’ papers would be the same?

  24. TEWS_Pilot says:

    I would have to disagree with Mr. Kutney in that, if your opponent uses evidence and continuously points out that government agencies and bought and paid for scientists are corrupt who must produce only “Climate Crisis” supporting reports, HE hasn’t LOST the argument, he has forced HIS opponent to DEFEND all of their CORRUPTION.

  25. TEWS_Pilot says:

    I don’t know how much of this will actually post or be allowed by the moderator, but I think it is worth sharing anyway.

    Shame on Mr. Kutney for alibiing the Climategate FRAUDS who WHITEWASHED their own investigation by using many of the CLIMATEGATE FRAUDS on the “investigation” panels. The exposure of the FRAUD in the “Hockey Stick” graph was done by a STATISTICIAN who PROVED that the graph had been created by FRAUD. He didn’t have to know ANYTHING about “Climate,” he is an expert in STATISTICS and presenting DATA in graphs or tables, and he proved the graph was a fraud by using data from WHITE NOISE and creating a hockey stick graph.

    Understanding The Climategate Scandal
    Published on March 6, 2019
    Written by John O’Sullivan

    Climate Scientists Discussed Ways To Make The 1940’s Warmth Disappear
    From: Tom Wigley
    To: Phil Jones
    Subject: 1940s
    Date: Sun, 27 Sep 2009 23:25:38 -0600
    Cc: Ben Santer
    So, if we could reduce the ocean blip by, say, 0.15 degC, then this would be significant for the global mean — but we’d still have to explain the land blip. It would be good to remove at least part of the 1940s blip, but we are still left with “why the blip”.

    The gatekeepers at “science” journals are absolutely real. We all remember Phil Jones words about stopping skeptics papers from being published: “.. “I can’t see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin [Trenberth] and I will keep them out somehow — even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!

    From: Phil Jones [Director of the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) and a Professor in the School of Environmental Sciences at the University of East Anglia University of CLIMATEGATE fame].

    To: Many. Nov 16, 1999

    “I’ve just completed Mike’s [Dr. Michael Mann] Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie, from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline.”

    Michael Mann hid the post-1960 decline in the temperatures, as measured by Briffa in his paleoclimate studies using tree ring data. Mann claimed that the decline didn’t match the surface temperature record, and simply erased it.

    Over 250 noteworthy Climategate 2.0 emails
    11 years ago Anthony Watts
    Tom Nelson has been busy slogging through the over 500o emails in CG2, kudos to him. Here’s what he has collected so far:

    A list of my last 250+ ClimateGate postings:

    This one is my favorite exposure of the FRAUD.

    HIDE THE DECLINE…Climate Change over the past 1000 years per the IPCC×332.jpg

  26. GWS says:

    How this guy got to the position that he has attained baffles me to no end. Never answers questions, just complains about the other side, and leans on established authority for all credibility. All great thinkers have had to jump over men like him to get anywhere. Hanson and Mann would do the same thing. The left is pathetic. — Tony, you need some stronger meat!
    Al the best!

  27. Ulric Lyons says:

    There is some high level professional double-think going on with the claim of rising CO2 driving Arctic warming. The consensus of circulation models predict increasingly positive North Atlantic Oscillation conditions with rising CO2 forcing. The same models which the UK Met Office use to predict drier UK summers with rising CO2 forcing, which has failed since 1995 as the simmers have become on average wetter.
    Positive NAO drives a colder Arctic, and it also drives a colder AMO.

Leave a Reply

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