Who Is Tony Heller?

Tony FUCKING Goddard
Tony FUCKING Heller

I’m climate change denier Tony Heller. You might know me better by my pen name, “Steven Goddard,” or Twitter handle, @SteveSGoddard. This is my story.

First, you should know that I’m pretty much a nobody in the climate debate. I’m laughed at by all climatologists. I’m not even taken seriously by true climate skeptics. I don’t have a degree in climatology. I haven’t written a single academic paper about climate change and I don’t have a job related to climatology or the weather. What I do have is a blog and a Twitter account. And as it turns out, that’s pretty much all you need to be a somebody in the climate debate.

My blog is a shit stain on the Internet.
My blog is a shit stain on the Internet.

Like a shit stain, my blog is ugly, embarrassing and, as much as you hate to, it’s something you have to deal with. One fellow climate denier described my blog as “the crack house of skepticism.” But enough uneducated morons and right-wing ideologues link to my blog to grant me substantial ranking on Google search results. As a result, any layperson on the Internet who has researched global warming with Google to a fair degree has likely read the bullshit posted on my website where I claim to be able to drive 250,000 visitors to my site every week and have received over 20 million page views as of November 2014. I have also attracted over 4000 11,000 14,000 19,000 Twitter followers with more than 18,000 50,000 84,000 111,000 tweets. And so although a complete nobody in the climate debate, I have a fair amount of influence over thousands, perhaps millions, of impressionable individuals who don’t have a basic grasp of the facts on global warming.

My first notable attempt at refuting climate scientists was in an article appearing on “The Register” website which was reprinted as my first guest blog post on Anthony Watts’ infamous “Watt’s Up with That?” climate denial website using my pseudonym “Steven Goddard.” Though I’m not qualified in any way to perform climate analysis, like many successful climate deniers, I have enough of a background in science and math to appear knowledgeable to the average Joe, but anybody with a serious background in climatology quickly realizes how clueless I am. But I’ve learned you don’t need to be right or truthful to attract an audience. Today’s political climate is rife with rabidly anti-government, free market types that are easy to manipulate and connect with.

My very first foray into climate denial was less than auspicious.
My first foray into climate denial was less than auspicious.

Anyway, in my first guest blog post for Watts, I essentially accused officials at the NSIDC, a government funded organization that monitors snow and ice formation on the planet, of fudging data about the melting arctic ice cap to make it appear as if it was melting more than it was. After going around and around incessantly in the comment section of the blog post and wasting a lot of people’s time with my bad analysis, I ultimately ended up having to issue an apology and acknowledge that the NSIDC was correct after an official from the organization took the time to point out how full of shit I was. Of course, that didn’t stop me from saying other dumb shit on Anthony’s blog because I simply don’t know what the fuck I’m talking about when it comes to the climate. For example, in this post, I make the ridiculous claim that it’s so cold in Antarctica that CO2 freezes out of the air like snow similar to what happens on Mars. Even after it’s pointed out in the comments just how fucking stupid that is and after Watts posted a retraction, I continue to insist I’m right.

The Dooc man had no qualms about spreading my bullshit.
The Dooc man had no qualms about spreading my bullshit.

In 2010, after a two-year stint guest blogging at WUWT, Anthony Watts figured out what an embarrassment I was to his site and fired me from my volunteer position as a guest blogger. So, I did what any denier hungry for a piece of the oil money action would do and launched my own climate denial blog, “Real Climate,” which I supplemented with my Twitter feed a year later. Continuing to post anonymously under my pseudonym “Steven Goddard,” I hammered out piles of pure bullshit making all kinds of baseless accusations against scientists and government officials. It wasn’t until June 23, 2014 that I finally started getting some traction with a post accusing NOAA and NASA of purposefully fudging US temperature data. Of course, it was all bullshit and easily refuted but that didn’t matter. It was choice red meat propaganda and so it got picked up by the corporate shills at Fox News and spread far and wide throughout the right wing echo chamber. I had finally hit the big time and now the world had heard about Steven FUCKING Goddard.

Hitting the big time at Heartland. Let it rain big oil checks!
Hitting the big time at Heartland. Let it rain big oil checks!

But now that I was getting some attention, it became clear that I couldn’t properly capitalize on my new found notoriety by remaining anonymous. So on June 27, 2014, I revealed my true identity, Tony Heller.

My next big break was my speaking gig at Heartland Institute’s climate denier conference held in Las Vegas just a couple of weeks later in July. You can watch my rambling, bumbling presentation at the conference here. Despite my rather underwhelming talk, the event was still a fantastic opportunity to network with other climate deniers and start connecting with others who could help me get paid for spewing my bullshit to my denier lemmings and clouding the climate change debate for my unsuspecting readers.

Since that time, the hundreds of embarrassingly bad blogs posts that would torpedo any real scientist’s career hasn’t put a dent in my career as a professional denier. For example, there was the time I confused sea ice with a glacier on my blog and had to erase all evidence of my post when I got called out on it. Despite my buffoonery, things have actually been going swimmingly. Because fake news has become indistinguishable from real news in the minds of many and because scientific knowledge has been overwhelmed with nonsense, it makes it possible for someone like me to have real influence. My bogus charts have been cited by the likes of United States Senator Ted Cruz and I even appeared and spoke alongside Australian Senator Malcolm Roberts at his press conference in 2016. I’m also now frequently quoted as a climate authority by right wing propaganda outlets like Climate Depot and Breitbart.

Don’t agree with me? You must be a climate terrorist.

I’m looking forward to continuing my work and building upon my reputation as an unapologetic sociopath and fighting the climate jihadists with juvenile insults. I am a rabid partisan and my work is an extension of my extreme right-wing ideology. Do I feel shame deceiving readers with unsubstantiated conspiracy theories, half truths, and ceaseless cherry picking? Nope! In fact, I view all progressives as the enemy and I will gladly say next to anything if I think it will undermine them. And I certainly have no issue with doing all this work for money so please donate today!

316 thoughts on “Who Is Tony Heller?”

      • they are afraid of the truth , they cant argue with the facts , so they just write shit about him, that’s the sort of Stuff people of low intellectual ability do when they have their back against the wall.

        Liked by 2 people

    • Tony cherry picks? That’s funny because, his whole channel exposes how climate “scientists” cherry pick data to support their theory.

      His latest video, shows how easily they deceive you by where they decide to start their graph date.

      Liked by 2 people

      Reply

      • I am amused by the comments of climate change denier’s. Using their very limited knowledge of the science, they are taking on heavyweights like NASA, NOAA, the UCS and the IPCC.
        They are quite foolish!

        Like

      • Exercise literally any humility, and consider that:

        1. You and Tony Heller are incapable of contributing to a scientific debate due to a lack of intellect and experience.

        2. The only reason you’re trying to debate this is that the reality of the situation makes you so uncomfortable you’ve concluded everything is fine, and now you’re trying to justify that conclusion by any means necessary.

        You’re aligned with people who think COVID-19 and school shootings are hoaxes. Your inability to deal with reality doesn’t change reality.

        Like

    • Another Dumbass, who’s too Stupid to listen to the facts that Tony Heller provides, and check the data which Tony provides

      Like

      Reply

    • Yup, he, like you is a real Pot Holder, I’m just not quite sure what kind of Pot the two of you are holding, be it the smoking type, or the black cast iron stove type.
      Either way your perspectives are limited and tainted by your condition and position, so best the both of you attempt to first gain a Sober, Overview before making trashy, ignorant comments.

      Like

      Reply

    • If you believe any of the Bullshit published by the Daily Maverick in regard to Climate or Climate Change then your understanding of Physics, Chemistry and Mathematics is severely limited as you is your ability to process rational, logical and critical thought.

      Like

      Reply

  4. Rising see levels have been going on since the last ice age. Good luck with stopping it. Perhaps a better solution is to listen to the Dutch. They have been living below the see level building dikes since year 700 due to see level rise.

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply

    • Your education level apparently ended with kindergarten – you are a
      climate denier that is incapable of spelling “sea” – no typos; you in fact misspelled it 3 times.
      (“see” means to view or perceive with the eyes)
      That in and of itself is quite humorous since
      “sea” level was your entire topic of concern!

      Also-You are so far off on your analytics, it is – sad….

      Like

      Reply

      • Your insults are classic climate alarmists rhetoric. The fact sea was spelled wrong, does not invalidate the argument, which is basically what you’re saying.

        I am living in a country that I was not born in and learning the language. I would be thrilled to only make the one spelling error 3 times, you so wrongly condemn.

        Instead of mocking his spelling, prove him wrong. The thing is you can’t, which is why you insulted him.

        Like

      • Alfonso,
        Why don’t you make the same demand of the person he/she was replying to?
        Why don’t you demand that he prove that “rising see levels have been going on since the last ice age”.
        Have you ever wondered what criteria you use to decide whether you accept some claims without question at face value, while demanding rigorous prove for others?

        Like

      • I don’t demand to see his proof sea levels have risen during his time frame, because I have read this and have seen the data that substantiates his claim.

        I do debate climate alarmists and never belittle them. What generally happens is, when they can’t argue my data links, they change the subject. When I call them out, the insults begin to fly.

        You went straight to the insults.

        Like

      • You see an insult in my comment?? Please explain how demanding uniformity of thinking and asking you to question your criteria for acceptance of claims of one side over the other in any qualifies as an insult. You must be a great scientist …. if anyone challenges your theory, just claim they insulted you and hope that makes them go away. One step away from pulling the racist card.

        And if you have seen this data, what is preventing from linking to it?
        (Note: It said DATA, meaning ALL of it, so not another Heller cherry pick.)

        Like

      • You just proved to me you don’t watch Heller’s videos.

        Heller’s videos exposes the cherry picking. He shows the complete data that debunks global warming.

        He also has leaked emails from top climate officials about changing the data, so they can confirm global warming, because the original data didn’t support global warming.

        You need to watch his videos.

        Liked by 2 people

      • Do you understand the difference between DATA and a mere graph? Link me to his source. All you are saying is that you accept his graphs without question …. as expected.

        Like

      • A mere graph?

        Graphs use data to show a trend. Selectively choosing a starting point, can deceptively change the trend to “prove” global warming, when the complete data proves a cyclical trend.

        Heller shows how easily it’s done in this video. Fast forward to 8:06. Classic cherry picking.

        Like

      • Graphs are a representation of data Shot Head, and can be converted back to tableu format data by anyone with an IQ higher than 70.

        Like

      • Why do you keep deflecting? What is preventing you from linking to the data source used by Heller?

        Let’s make your task very clear: Show me the raw data (ie. not from Heller, nor from any blogging site, but from the actual data collector or their appointed representative) which proves the statement “rising see levels have been going on since the last ice age”.

        If you can’t do that, then you are treating Heller as a god whose word should be trusted at all times, without any need to check his sources. Show that your acceptance or denial is not agenda-driven. Alternatively, show that you are a real scientist.

        Like

      • Just because a graph comes from Heller doesn’t invalidate the data. I’m sure you’ll have a problem with my link because it backs what I said:

        Like

      • No, I have no problem with your link at all, for two reasons.
        (1) It quotes the source paper
        (2) It shows that there was no sea level rise after at least 2000 years ago.
        So thanks for taking the time to prove exactly what I wanted proven.

        Like

      • When Heller uses this data you won’t accept it. But you accept it from me. I’ll have to ponder that logic.

        All you would have to do is pay attention to Hellers videos. He gives all his sources.

        No comment on the cherry picking topic?

        Liked by 1 person

      • I read you message wrong like you read the graph wrong.
        No sea level rise?
        It’s been rising for thousands of years. It’s still rising but has tapered off to the 2 mm a year we have today.

        Like

      • How The Fuck did you miss the virtually constant sea rise with a range of between 1.1 and 1.3mm PA over the past +- 2000 , are you Blind and well as Stupid???

        Like

      • You’ve missed the point of my comments. I’d already accepted the graph. But I was trying to force you to think scientifically instead of just swallowing Heller’s claims unthinkingly. Now let’s continue this process:

        Click on the smaller graph “Expansion of the most recent 9 kyr”.

        2 mm/yr is 2 metres/1000 years

        Does this graph show 2 metres of rise in the past 1000 years?
        Or 4 metres in the last 2000 years?

        If not, how far off were you in that claim? Were you even close?

        Like

      • There are too many variables to say precisely how much the oceans are rising. Some tide gauges show sea levels are falling because the land is rising.

        Besides the ice cycle is tectonic plate movement and the millions of tons of debris that washes into the sea everytime it rains. Tons of space dust falls into the sea every day. It all a part of the complicated equation.

        One thing it isn’t, is Co2. This global warming nonsense has to stop. It’s a scam to make money. Your trolling people isn’t helping.

        Like

      • “What generally happens is, when they can’t argue my data links, they change the subject. When I call them out, the insults begin to fly.”

        Who was it who said that?

        Like

      • Well… I asked you twice about the cherry picking link I posted.

        While you haven’t insulted me personally, I see you have insulted others here.

        I’m done. Have a nice day/night wherever you are.

        Like

      • Of course you’re done. You were done when you invented that figure of 2 mm/yr, and didn’t have the balls to admit that you made it up. What you don’t seem to understand is that believing Heller implicitly because he is telling you what you want to hear, while disbelieving climate scientists implicitly because they are not, is the most extreme form of cherry picking.

        Of course, the fact that I’ve shown that your claim about sea level rise was wrong (which you basically admitted to when you changed tack) won’t stop you making that claim elsewhere. You’ll simply take more care not to share the data when asked, and instead assert “Heller said it, it must be right”.

        You people tell yourselves that you are “true skeptics”, when nothing could be further from the truth. It is why “denier” is the only appropriate word for you.

        Like

      • “der See” noun ; lake, sea, pond, loch

        you should get ( your head) out (of your derrier) more oft, grammar ma’rm

        Like

      • “der See” noun ; lake, sea, pond, loch. A possible case of ESL, you asol,
        How many languages do you grasp? Gasp? Rasp?

        You should get ( your head) out (of your derrière) more oft, Mlle. Grammar ma’rm .
        and your mom misspelled “diarrhea”, dear

        Like

      • The thing is, the Dutch have been building dykes for that long. Did it ever cross your mind that Rorudodi might be native Dutch or German because the word for sea in Dutch is “zee” and in German its “See” [which actually means “lake” but you get the idea. Also, people who are skeptical of the data on climate change are not deniers. Climate change is real and always has been. To attribute its principal cause to CO2 is presumptuous and myopic. You would do well to inform yourself regarding what credible climate scientists like Judith Curry have to say: https://judithcurry.com/2019/12/14/the-toxic-rhetoric-of-climate-change/.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Talk about Gross Ignorance and lack of education, you’re It !
        Fools like you are the target of the biggest scam in the history of the planet, given that you think you know something about Climate, when you actually know Absolutely Nothing, but you want sound intelligent, so you agree with the Bogus Anthropogenic Climate Change Garbage purveyed.

        Like

      • Another Gullible believer !
        Please provide the Empirical data that proves CO2 causes any significant warming at any atmospheric concentration before attempting to create a baseless non-argument.

        Like

      • I always get a good laugh when I read posts where the spelling is more important than the message –Sent from my Android phone with GMX Mail. Please excuse my brevity.

        Like

  8. What I find most entertaining about this hit piece is that despite all of the insults, Heller has proved with real sources that back up his assertions.
    Is he 100% right?
    Nope, nobody is but what he shows makes a lot more sense than the “coming ice age global warming climate change” cabal.
    I noticed Heller really made that potholer chump look stupid. He has not only answered that miserable bag of puke but shamed him/her as well.

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply

    • That’s just it, no he hasn’t. Any time Heller cites a “real source”, he’s inevitably LYING about what that source actually said. Every claim Heller’s made has been complete nonsense.

      Like

      Reply

      • Clearly you haven’t watched his videos. Tide gauges from NOAA (that Heller uses in his videos) can’t be misinterpreted. He explains the variations in sites are due to the earth’s natural shifting.

        He also uses historical newspaper articles,that prove global warming alarmists have been active when Co2 levels were low. Global warming is a fraud.

        He proves his theory with repeatable tests.

        Liked by 1 person

      • “He explains the variations in sites are due to the earth’s natural shifting.”

        Did he provide a source for the vertical shift rates at all tide gauges on the planet?
        Or did he “select” a couple of examples?

        You people seem to believe “offer an opinion” is synonymous with “explain”.

        Like

      • Provide an example of false data which Tony Heller used which is false, and then provide the real data which you purport to be correct, and its source !

        Like

      • Please expose all of the lies.
        Prove that he’s not telling the truth.
        I don’t think that you have a clue about the climate and the ridiculous things you are sucked into believing.
        I will await your reply

        Liked by 1 person

      • Says the Liar and Fool himself who is unable to provide a rational argument supported by any proof or critical thought construct.

        Like

    • Uhh, yeah right. Drink that cool aid. You will swallow just about anything. I watched the Potholer vs. Heller videos and you totally mischaracterized the truth, as any casual layperson observing would agree.

      Like

      Reply

      • Heller cleaned potholers clock.
        I watched the response from Tony Heller to potholer and I laughed at the shellacking that he gave potholer

        Liked by 1 person

  10. Thank you for this web page. A friend of mine asked me for an example of “if you can not kill the message, than kill the messenger”. So I sent him the link to this web page.

    Like

    Reply

    • Really, we only spot one Ignorant, and that is you !
      If you are going to start the Anthropogenic Driven Climate Change BS argument, at least start by establishing a sound basis for your argument, like providing the Empirical data which proves that CO2 causes warming at any atmospheric concentration.

      Like

      Reply

  12. Hmmmmm….who wrote this piece.? I can’t bring myself to give any credibility to a person who condemns another for using a pen name and then refuses to sign hisvown article.

    Like

    Reply

  14. Typical of Climate alarmists, they chastise those who open themselves up to debate, yet can’t muster the same energy to disprove what Tony has to say in a open forum. What we get though, is an immature attempt at mocking somebody who’s actually trying to cut through the nonsense and get people to see reason. It’s funny how since I was a kid we’ve been told about the harm to the O-Zone, then it was global warming, which then became Climate change. You’re starting to run out of excuses kids…..

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply

    • Go argue with flat-Earthers, people who think vaccines cause autism, creationists, and every other moron before running your mouth here.

      Holy shit, ozone layer depletion and radiation retention by CO2 are completely different, unrelated phenomena. How are you this goddamn stupid.

      Like

      Reply

  16. I am a climate scientist with 40 years of experience and I find Tony Heller to be a refreshing bit information bashing the embarrassing climate alarmism that is so prevalent in our disappointing daily news cycle…There is no measurable anthropogenic influence on our current global climate satellite data.

    Like

    Reply

    • Oh really? What is your degree and from which institution did you get it? Then link me to a paper you have authored. Because I can’t find a single reference to a climatologist with your name.

      Like

      Reply

      • Given that you hide behind a Pseudonym, your criticism isn’t worth the time you spent writing it.

        Like

  20. “And so although a complete nobody in the climate debate, I have a fair amount of influence over thousands, perhaps millions, of impressionable individuals who don’t have a basic grasp of the facts on global warming.”…

    …and yet, all of the allegedly competent experts repeatedly deny Heller/Goddard’s invites to debate, on at least one occasion throwing down the race card. You’d think if these “experts'” motivation was truth and the well-being of society, and they were truly confident their positions would hold up to logical scrutiny they’d be lined up to debunk Mr. Heller/Goddard to his face in front of as many folks as possible.

    Liked by 2 people

    Reply

      • Curious if you consider John Stossel a nobody. Agree with him or not, he’s been in the investigative journalism field for 50 years and he couldn’t get any of them to join a debate with folks from Heartland either. EVERYONE has an agenda. I’m not a real scientist but I’ve known a few over the years and they are always very stubborn, often annoyingly so, and quite eager to argue their point. If the climate crisis data was THAT compelling at least one of them would jump at the opportunity to prove it, if not for Heller’s relatively meager 62k followers, at least for the hundreds of thousands, if not millions of folks who’d see it if Stossel moderated it.

        Wake up, man. It’s about money and power, not the well being of humanity.

        Liked by 1 person

    • And the astronomers won’t debate with the flat-Earthers. Curious!

      You’re so goddamn stupid it makes me physically uncomfortable.

      Liked by 1 person

      Reply

      • Another Idiot who can’t even create a grammatically correct Pseudonym enters the fray.
        It’s obvious that you’ll believe anything.

        Like

    • Because Heller/Goddard is simply an online troll. He’s not worth giving the time of day, let alone debating.

      Besides. Science isn’t about debate, it’s about data. A the “winner” of a debate isn’t decided by who has the facts on their side, but by how persuasively they argue their case. But in science it makes no difference what rhetorical skills you have. No matter how persuasively you argue that 2+2=5, it still equals 4.

      Like

      Reply

      • Science is a debate you Moron, it is a debate of Factual Evidence and Critical Consideration, something you obviously know Nothing about, and is the primary reason why people like you should be seen, but not heard.

        Like

      • Data? Tony and the warmists are all using the same data. But Tony shows it and presents it clearly, while the warmists hide it and lie about it for political reasons.

        Liked by 1 person

  21. I’ve been following this climate non-debate for some time now. Honestly, Tony Heller is one of the most credible sources out there. If he weren’t they would not be trashing him and making the efforts to minimize his videos. Thank you Tony for continuing to fight the good fight.

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply

    • Oh I see … so when deniers trash the comment section of videos containing real climate science, they are telling everyone what a credible source they are responding to …. it that how your ‘logic’ works?

      Liked by 1 person

      Reply

      • Please look up the meaning of the word “Logic”, as you have exposed the fact that you don’t understand its meaning, nor do you have the ability to apply it.

        Like

      • Real climate science? You mean the science that says CO2 was 2000 ppm during the Jurassic and Triassic yet the reptiles, early mammal and birds thrived as did all the plants? Never heard that from Al Gore

        Like

  22. Tony’s goal has always just to track what we know about our climate history in order to force an honest conversation. I commend him for his diligence and honesty to the facts. To prove groupthink has always had seriously negative repercussions

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply

  23. So Tony has you worried, clearly he has hit a nerve and triggered you sufficiently for you to create this page.
    Real scientists and truth seekers would never undertake such a character assassination. As they say, the truth hurts. Your actions simply create further doubt with regard to AGW.
    I hope he sues your arse for defamation.
    You ought to be ashamed, but people like you have no shame, You simply exist through ego and malevolence.

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply

      • I’m loving reading your stuff Tren. So passive-aggressive!

        So, I just thought I’d troll you the way you clearly troll those you disagree with.

        Just for the record, the first chat with Alfonso was fascinating. Interesting how you feel you have the right to “demand”, when others simply “request”.

        Anyway, you are clearly a troll. Everything you write reinforces that. Your knowledge of the subject matter is almost based on faith rather than science…

        …and as a famous scientist once said

        “Now here is the currently popular narrative concerning this system. The climate, a complex multifactor system, can be summarized in just one variable, the globally averaged temperature change, and is primarily controlled by the 1-2% perturbation in the energy budget due to a single variable – carbon dioxide – among many variables of comparable importance. This is an extraordinary pair of claims based on reasoning that borders on magical thinking. It is, however, the narrative that has been widely accepted, even among many sceptics.”

        …and no, I’m not going to source it. I don’t need to. I have included enough text for you to do it yourself.

        Have fun.

        J

        Liked by 1 person

      • Well it’s obvious you are one of the Morons who voted for the Demented Fool who currently wanders the halls of the WhiteHouse.

        Like

  25. The whole of so-called “climate science” relies on the illogic of the fallacy of “begging the question”. All climate models assume anthropogenic-carbon-induced global climate change in attempting to prove anthropogenic-carbon-induced global climate change and, surprise surprise, the models consistently fail. Climate science just doesn’t fly. It is not science: it is science fiction.

    Climate science is a hoax based on a fallacy, but I will happily concede that the lack of credible science does not imply that anthropogenic-carbon-induced global climate change does not exist. Only time will tell that. So far the unadulterated climate data says no. History agrees. And alarmist predictions keep failing.

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply

      • Really, you definitely aren’t the sharpest crayon in the box !
        How many components make up the Greenhouse effect ?
        Name them, and list their concentrations.
        It will assist you in gaining some real perspective.

        Like

    • Spot On, these fools attempt to use circular logic to prove their case without first proving by way of Empirical data, that CO2 causes any significant warming, which means that their argument has no foundation.

      Like

      Reply

  26. HOW TONY HELLER, CLIMATE SCAM ARTIST, FOOLS YOU:

    ON NASA AND NOAA FUDGING DATA MYTH:
    https://climatefeedback.org/claimreview/hosted-by-former-australian-senator-tony-heller-repeats-false-claim-that-scientists-fake-the-warming-trend/
    IT WAS HOTTER IN THE 1930S MYTH:

    HOW HE MISREPRESENTS GRAPHS:
    https://tamino.wordpress.com/2018/08/08/usa-temperature-can-i-sucker-you/#comments

    ON ATMOSPHERIC PRESSURE CAUSING WARMING:

    TEMP LEADS C02/MILANKOVITCH CYCLES:

    NASA TIME LAPSE VIDEO OF ARCTIC ICE REBUTS HELLER LIES:

    HIS JUNK SCIENCE:

    ON SNOWFALL CHANGES:
    https://tamino.wordpress.com/2017/01/01/tony-hellers-snow-job/
    SEA LEVEL RISE FAKERY:
    https://blogs.agu.org/wildwildscience/2016/03/27/you-can-fool-some-of-the-people-all-of-the-time/

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply

    • Really, we only spot one Ignorant, and that is you !
      If you are going to start the Anthropogenic Driven Climate Change BS argument, at least start by establishing a sound basis for your argument, like providing the Empirical data which proves that CO2 causes warming at any atmospheric concentration.

      Like

      Reply

      • Please provide the Empirical Evidence that CO2 causes any significant warming at Any atmospheric concentration, and I’ll believe your BS!!!

        Like

      • So where is your Empirical Evidence to prove that CO2 causes any significant warming, no matter what the atmospheric concentration.
        I don’t want your coincidental hearsay Bullshit, I want the measured Empirical Evidence.
        Until you provide such, you are nothing but a Moron and Denier of Actual Science and Scientific endeavour, and merely a Cretin who will believe anything!

        Like

    • So Pete, you consider NASA to be a credible source of information???
      The Political Organization from which a “Scientist” from the “Rocket Propulsion Lab” recently chained himself to a building crying about climate change.
      Mentally Deranged Nutter, not a Scientist, Pete, and WTF was a “Scientist” from the Rocket Propulsion Lab doing talking BS about climate, is his job not to study improved Rocket Propulsion Systems???
      No wonder NASA is incapable of launching rockets into space anymore without the assistance of Space X.
      You don’t hear any of the climate BS emanating from Space X, now do you???
      I guess Elon Musk and his people are not easily swayed or distracted by Political BS.
      The very NASA to whom you attach credibility Failed to launch a rocket last year in June 2021, despite assistance from Space X, due to a miscalculation by NASA employees, which delayed the launch until June 2022.
      So how many other miscalculations have NASA made, especially in regard to climate???
      Let me give you an example of another back tracked NASA climate calculation Failure.
      In March 2020 NASA released a bulletin confirming that they had Actually Measured Sea Level rise over a period of 16 years, and found the Total Rise over the period to be 0.55″, or in simpler metric terms, 14mm, which, divided by 16 to determine an annual average amounts to 0.875mm per annum, which is a Far Cry from their previous claims of 3mm Plus per annum, or worse.
      So you still think NASA is a credible Scientific study institution???

      Like

      Reply

  27. Hilarious page! You guys are clowns. The dead giveaway is the infantile name calling. Do you really think this stuff is persuasive? Heller provides graphs, context, all the info is in the open. The only effective way to counter him is to show how he is wrong. When you lead with dumb insults you show everyone you don’t have an argument. Case closed.

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply

    • “You guys are clowns. The dead giveaway is the infantile name calling.”

      It’s amazing you managed to type this without feeling embarrassed.

      Like

      Reply

  30. When the evidence is against you, attack the messenger. Obviously, Tony’s information is accurate or these snowflakes wouldn’t have spent so much time and energy building this site.

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply

  31. Tony is my hero.

    Dude has awesome logical skills and has caught out sneaky rat turds that continue to try to bend the logic in climate science to create fear-porn.

    We are in a Covid-19 fear porn #CASEDEMIC today thanks to the same turds and he is at it again helping everyone discover where they are lying *and* promoting suffering and death so they can create more fear-porn.

    Like

    Reply

  32. I’ve been an atmospheric scientist for 38 years, analyzing global weather/climate and forecasting crop yields and energy use as well as studying climate change:

    You will note that I have much more in common with Tony Heller’s views than differences:

    https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/27864/

    My opinion of this site is that its a display of hatred, intolerance and disrespect for somebody that you disagree with. It’s a blatant violation of the scientific method, which INTENTIONALLY calls for an open RESPECTFUL discussion and disagreement in scientific views, so that all parties can question their own work.

    Liked by 2 people

    Reply

    • It’s embarrassing that you try to gloss over the idiotic bullshit Tony Heller says with the vague phrase “somebody you disagree with.” Go to his site, and apply 10% of the scrutiny you apply to others. He calls thousands of people frauds and liars, but you’re here bitching and moaning like an impudent moron.

      Liked by 1 person

      Reply

      • I would just like to pint out that this site is self-documenting.

        You need no skin in the game to figure out who is slathering on the insults and accusations as well as how the slathering is groundless.

        Let’s say 30 years from now people somehow realize that Tony Heller actually is a fraud. This site will then be seen to have prevented the realization with all of the fake logic applied and the personal attacks.

        I’ve already scrutinized Tony Heller many times. I would be proud to point out to him wherever I find out he is wrong. I would do so in a heartbeat. The only thing is, he’s a beast of logic and while I’m sure he is human and has flaws in his reasoning as well, he has far fewer than I do.

        This spew-hater rage-monster that continues to fling monkey-dung instead of good arguments, well, he is a special case of logically-challenged.

        Like

      • If anybody is an embarrassment, you’re it !
        The irrationality in your comment is astounding.
        Take an aspirin and call your doctor in the morning.

        Like

  33. I have watched some of Heller’s videos. While his data appears to be accurate, he deliberately uses logical fallacies, cherry-picks, and generally misrepresents the data in order to create disinformation and propaganda. He also slanders the reputations of climate scientists and activists. I have some knowledge of the climate crisis, so I can see through his BS. Heller completely bamboozles uninformed and gullible people because he’s got some science background and he’s a pretty good con man.

    Like

    Reply

    • Clearly you haven’t watched his videos. He doesn’t cherry pick. His videos EXPOSES cherry picking by climate alarmists.

      He also debunks newspaper article claims of recent record temperatures, with archived newspaper articles, showing the same or higher temperatures when Co2 levels were low.

      All his data is easily confirmable online.

      Liked by 1 person

      Reply

      • It’s a long story, but here’s a general example. Tony Heller has repeatedly referred to the cold and/or snowy weather in some location, and implied that it shows global warming is not real. Now, even someone with the most cursory understanding of the climate, knows that global warming does not mean it’s warm everywhere. And yet, this is the most common misunderstanding I hear from climate deniers, many of whom heard it from a Heller video. It shows that they have not a clue, and Heller deliberately preys on their ignorance.

        Like

      • Almost missed this, but look back at Alfonso’s comment about the “My Gift to Climate Alarmists” video. First, when scientists calculate the global average surface temp, they take measurements at thousands of locations worldwide throughout the year. Then they calculate one average temp for the entire globe for each year. The video refers to a graph of the days where the temp was above 90F in the town of Waverly, OH. It’s erroneous to compare the weather in one of thousands of locations with the GLOBAL temp. Also, any number of natural factors such as El Nino, changes in solar irradiance, and volcanic activity, etc. can affect the weather in any one location, as well as the global temp. In addition to natural factors, human-induced factors such as CO2 emissions and deforestation, started to cause AGW back around the 1940’s, which is why scientists sometimes use this starting point. They want to show where AGW started. And yes, scientists can tell the difference between how natural and human-induced factors affect global temps. They have determined that natural factors are not the main cause of the current warming period. Human-induced factors are the primary cause. Nobody is trying to hide or deceive, except for Heller, of course.

        Like

    • You’re very good at copy and paste BS !
      Justify a single instant where Tony has provided false information, with a clear example, and provide your purported correct data and source.

      Like

      Reply

    • Heller uses the existing fake argument which is “cherry picked” which favours the AGW argument and years it apart with real facts and data.
      So who’s actually doing the “Cherry Picking” ?
      I guess you’re just to stupid to rationally consider or understand what Tony Heller is actually saying and the facts and data he provides, given that for people like you, it’s far easier to believe BS, than figure out the Science and Math facts and truths.

      Like

      Reply

  35. Whoever is the author of this blog should realize that he/she does his/her arguments no favor by resorting to ad hominem attacks or the liberal use of expletives to support his/her case. I have a great fondness for using the F-bomb and other similar “discouraging words” but never when I’m trying to construct coherent, rational discourse on scholarly matters.

    Like

    Reply

    • They’re not trying to have a discourse. They’re trying to, and succeeding, in mocking an absolute moron — which is why there are so many morons here whining about insulting their fellow moron.

      Like

      Reply

      • You must be extremely tired of your own mere existence !
        Your Gab has proven that you are nothing but the characterised type you are tired of.
        If you had an IG higher than 70 you would have figured out that Tony Heller makes absolute rational, and scientific sense in his arguments, yet you haven’t provided a single bit of thereof.

        Like

  38. This website is disgusting. Tony’s information about the historical climate is producing anxieties in those who’ve been chanting the “CO2 is bad” mantra . Anybody with a working brain can see that “climate science” is not equipped to predict long-term climate changes. This is proven by published historical records of numerous climate-change predictions that never materialized. But some “scientists” seem to never learn from their mistakes. They may be humble for a week or two after one of their predictions fails, but then they typically return to their confident, arrogant personas as they make bold new predictions. Instead of demonizing fossil fuels and subsidizing wind and solar power generation, we should be more economical in our energy consumption and should be building more nuclear power plants and working to make them as safe as practicable. Meanwhile we should pray that our electrical grid, fed mostly by the the burning of coal and natural gas, remains robust and adequate for our power needs. All it takes for one to love coal and natural gas is a three-day electrical power outage in August.

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply

  39. Well said. Now see this.

    A Constitutional solution is to assemble as in the 1st amendment on your state. With; people that will do the work; people that will form a Lawful grand jury and bring a true bill against these evil doers. On Oregon we bring Article I Section 1. We need; people to populate a VII amendment jury of peers to bring forth a verdict that has no appeal in law in Our Article III one supreme Court claiming original jurisdiction. There may be other solutions!! However, this one works; it is we the people in assembly, forming a civilian court of record, implementing Ex Parte Milligan which nullified Lieber Code/martial law.. DOJ, FBI, USMS, USMC, STATE OF OREGON all acquiesced and defaulted. Will you help your state assemble? You have a pulpit. It only takes 45. Americans on a state in a minimum of 21 days.. It took us 2.5 years. Invite all non evil Americans. It only takes 45 people, no persons.. all the best of every good fortune for the good, ronvrooman38@gmail.com

    Like

    Reply

  40. You tell us about them, and prove cause without speculation like the argument of Idiots which tells us that Covid-19 is linked to Climate Change !

    Like

    Reply

  42. Well if you actually read anything about Tony heller you would know he has credentials and instead of debating him you try criticizing his character. Typical of zombie leftists who can’t think for themselves

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply

  43. “Goddard” went off on me for posting a simple comment to one of his posts, where he was using the term “Continental Drift”. As a geologist myself, I merely pointed out (very politely) that he might want to revise this to use “Plate Tectonics” which although very similar to Continental Drift, provides both a mechanism for the movement of continents hypothesized by Wegener, and corrected certain major problems with Wegener’s originally proposed model (e.g., the true edges of continents are not “shorelines”, continents do not float across the oceans, the oceans ARE plates or portions of plates).

    Instead of engaging with me politely, he called me a “f*cking idiot” – and that was it. Subsequently I discovered on his website a rather elaborate “defense” of his use of the term “Continental Drift” which is just a bunch of semantic nonsense. It is true that Continental Drift theory did inform later developments which led to Plate Tectonics, but today we call it “Plate Tectonics” for a reason – our knowledge has progressed and our model has improved. This is not to discount Wegener’s contributions, but bloody hell, use the proper model name!

    Point is, Heller made me seriously question his probity. No human being is perfect, but his tortured reasoning in just this one example, is why I don’t regard him as a reliable source of anything.

    Like

    Reply

    • I’m replying to the email I got from Snowdog. Tony Heller called it continental drift, you said that’s wrong, it’s plate tectonics and continents don’t float over oceans. Tony is right, you are an idiot. Continents, made of silal, are much lighter than mafic ocean basins, so yes, the continents do float over ocean plates. Idiot.

      Like

      Reply

      • Sorry, I used an older term. Silal is the old word, not used much anymore, for silicon and aluminum. They are calling it felsic these days. Sorry again. Mafic (magnesium and iron) is still used.

        Like

    • I’m replying to the email I got from Snowdog. Tony called it continental drift. You said that’s wrong it’s plate tectonics and continents don’t float over oceans. Tony is right, you are an idiot. Continents, made of silal, are much lighter than mafic ocean basins, so yes, the continents do float over ocean plates. Idiot.

      Like

      Reply

    • Please provide the comment from Tony Heller in which he called you a F… Idiot, because personally I don’t believe you, at all.
      If the comment came from me, yes, I would have used that terminology, but I don’t believe that Tony Heller would use such terminology!!!

      Like

      Reply

  45. Whoever the asshole is that wrote this pathological diatribe, he knows what it takes to appeal to his fellow reality-deniers.

    Like

    Reply

  46. Why does it still say that Heller’s blog is called Real Climate (which is a real climate science blog run by some top climate scientists)? Heller’s blog is called realclimatescience dot com. and of course there is no real science at it.

    Like

    Reply

    • Really???
      Says the Fool with Zero knowledge or qualification in any of the “Sciences”.
      Try putting forward Proof/Evidence of any information or data Tony Heller has provided that proves him wrong rather than running your Ignorant mouth, you Moron!!!

      Like

      Reply

    • Funny thing to say. In my experience Tony spends all his time presenting ‘science’. Other people’s ‘science’. Your ‘science’ I would imagine. They very sciience you claim is not there.
      And then what he does is show how it doesn’t accord with the present and/or the past records.
      Is about all I ever saw him do.

      Like

      Reply

      • Heller is spreading disinformation and propaganda to discredit the science of climate change. He’s a smooth-talking big oil shill, who preys on the uniformed. The average global surface temp is an average of thousands of measurements taken worldwide throughout the year. It’s one average for the entire planet for the entire year. Heller routinely tries to mislead people by comparing the average global surface temps with a sample of the thousands used to calculate it. For example, he might compare the record of Greenland temps with the record of global surface temps. This is of course, erroneous.

        Like

      • Lie. He doesn’t work for big oil. Lie, climate change is not a science. Atmospheric physics is a science. Meteorology is a science. Geology is a science. Climate change is pure politics and mostly lies. They say sea level rise is accelerating which is purely a lie. Sea level rise is exactly the same as its been for over 300 years which is as far as our measurement go back. No acceleration, zero, nada, zilch, nichts.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Heller is smooth talking? He backs all his claims with data from NASA, NOAA and other agencies.

        Like

  48. For the Benefit of Cognitively Challenged Brian and other Alarmist Fools, I have the following ;
    First off Brian, you lodge multiple accusations against Tony Heller, but fail to cite a single information piece or video of his with detail within which he supposedly does what you accuse him of, which renders your comment to be nothing more than that of an Ignoramus with a Big Stupid Mouth.

    Like

    Reply

  49. Having read some of your earlier comments Brian, you really have contradicted yourself and exposed both your own conflicting positions and Ignorance.
    To start with, your comment about the Climate being a complex matter, and why Tony Heller’s comments were supposedly invalid, means that you failed to understand the Simplicity of what Tony Heller was Exposing.
    It is Climate Alarmist and Liars who have Oversimplified Climate and the influences Thereon, which they fail to understand, but think they can slot a few variables into a model and make accurate predictions.
    It is Alarmism and Fools like you who are Totally off Kilter with it’s lack of Understanding of the Complexity of the Climate System, Not Tony Heller.
    By the way, to keep it simple, to start with, I haven’t seen you produce the Empirical Evidence that proves any mass influence of CO2 concentration on temperature/ warming at any atmospheric concentration, you merely accept that it is so because Alarmists and Political Liars would have you believe it is so.
    So in keeping it simple, in order to establish a basis for All Climate Alarmism supposedly driven by CO2, I need that Empirical Evidence from you, without which, your whole argument is baseless.

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply

    • Back on comment 33, I provided some scientific lectures on climate change. The Earth’s climate has been, and always will be changing naturally. The sun’s energy reaching the Earth’s surface (insolation), volcanoes, and greenhouse gases are the main factors in forcing climate changes, and all three are always in play. It’s not just CO2; it’s all three all the time. And all three are always changing and interacting. When the Earth’s orbit moved it further from the sun, as it does periodically, insolation dropped, causing an ice age, and CO2 levels had little effect even if they were very high because the sun was the dominant factor. As the Earth’s orbit moved it closer to the sun, insolation increased, the ice melted, plant life flourished and absorbed atmospheric CO2 causing it to decline. For the past 11k-12k years (Holocene Period), insolation and CO2 levels have been relatively steady, but since about 1860, CO2 levels started to rise. Around 1940-50, CO2 levels had apparently risen high enough (300 ppm) to start AGW. And around1980-90, AGW had risen high enough to cause climate change. Right now CO2 levels are about 412 ppm and rising 2-3 ppm per year. If somehow we could reduce the CO2 level back down to the 1950 level of 300 ppm, AGW would probably stop and plant life would still thrive. If we had started 30-40 years ago, we might be there today. But, it’s too late now.

      Like

      Reply

      • Bullshit, please provide the proff that the difference between 300ppm of Atmospheric CO2 vs 412ppm of CO2 makes any difference to temperature. Please provide the Empirical Data and experimental methodology.
        You still haven’t provided any scientifically determined criteria and their foundation for the ideal atmospheric CO2 concentration being 300ppm or the ideal earth temperature period being 1870 to 1900.
        You’re a fullin Copy and Paste Clueless Bullshitter, and the Copy and Paste so-called lectures you supposedly provided in the paste confirms your Cognitive Dissonance, in that you are attempting to Bullshit without substantiating Evidence, but merely Copy and Paste hearsay, and you thought that I would believe you.
        I note further from your Bullshit ramblings that you have no base Mathematical, Statistical, Physics, Chemistry or Geography knowledge, background or training, because if you are so pathetic as to think that there are only three influences on Earth’s climate or are sadly one of the most ignorant fools on the planet, and your inability to rationalise and reason in regard to the failed methodology for determining the Global Average Surface Temperature you put forward Confirms my statement.
        You’re a wannabe climate hacker just like Michael Mann.

        Like

      • AGW started in the 1940’s? Explain the brutal heat that killed millions in 1921 across Europe and Asia… and the year without winter in the 1880’s.

        Like

  50. Yes, Brian right now I’m Cherry Picking, just some of the trash from your comments, given that there is So Much Trash in your comments, I thought this one might awaken you from your Stupor.
    For the term Average Surface Temperature to have even the most vague of meaning, the following has to occur ;
    1. The Whole surface of planet has to be divided up into blocks of no larger than 100 miles2.
    2. The temperature within this blocks across the whole surface must be measured Simultaneously at Exactly the same Time and Location, Every Day for at least a year.
    3. To determine a Climatic change, this has to occur over a period of Several Years.
    4. In order to benchmark a Climatic change, this has to compared to Exactly the same characteristic data produced over the period 1870 to 1900, as determined by the IPCC to be the Ideal Average surface temperature period.
    5. A set of Scientifically Determined criteria needs to be established and justified for the period 1870 to 1900 being the ideal Average Surface Temperature period.
    Without ALL of the above, comments about Anthropogenic Climate Change and it’s potential harm/dangers are Absolute Horse S…
    Assumptions, factoring, weighting, adjustments, estimates and any other BS excuses used by Alarmists are Invalid BS and do not cut it in determining or attempting to attach mean to the garbage which the current assessment of Average Global Surface Temperature given the vast Expanse over which it occurs and Mass variation over short distances, and large time span, and the minute amount by which temperature is supposedly varying.
    So until you or any other climate Alarmist can produce data with accuracy to the tolerance which I have set out above, you are ALL merely BS’ers.

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply

      • Which just goes to show How Fucking Dense you are if you think the methodology you put forward could ever vaguely provide an accurate result.
        Read my methodology again to gain some perspective you Shit Head.

        Like

      • You really are as thick as Pig Shit and incapable of applying you mind through critical thought.
        The only thing you are capable of is copying and pasting irrational Bullshit!!!
        You have not even attempted to answer to the position of historical readings, nor in regard to benchmarked comparisons or how they could have been determined vfor the period 1870 to 1900 with even the slightest accuracy using the laughable methodology you put forward with your copy and paste trash.
        Nor do you address how it has been determined why the Grossly Inaccurate assessment of Global Average Surface temperature for the period 70 to 1900 is the ideal temperature period, nor have you addressed the issue of the criteria used to determine this, no you merely continue to parrot meaningless Bullshit, like the Fucking Idiot you are.

        Like

Leave a Reply to cashman57 Cancel reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

Gravatar
WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. ( Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. ( Log Out /  Change )

Cancel

Connecting to %s