By Paul Homewood
Tony Heller with his usual inimitable video on the latest attempt to censor anybody who disagrees with the “settled science”:
Comments are closed.
 | oldbrew on Climate Professor Thinks We Sh… |
 | Gamecock on Climate Professor Thinks We Sh… |
 | glenartney on Climate Professor Thinks We Sh… |
 | julianflood on Climate Professor Thinks We Sh… |
 | Edmund Burke on Storm Ravages World’s La… |
| Gamecock on Greta’s Halo Slips |
 | ann farmer on Climate Professor Thinks We Sh… |
 | JohnAM on Biggest Solar Farm In Wales… |
 | Micky R on Climate Professor Thinks We Sh… |
 | marksullivanhome on Greta’s Halo Slips |
NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT 
The ad worked fine but not the video.
Here’s the link:
https://realclimatescience.com/2018/08/new-video-the-climate-clown-show/
Not a surprise that Tony is censored by the Guardian – exposing themselves to being so expertly filleted by him is clearly intolerable to their intellectual vanity.
Here’s another absolute whopper.
Greenhouses typically have CO2 content between 800-1300ppm yet this ‘study’ claims there’ll be a ‘loss of nutrients for millions’. Shameless BS on stilts yet again. (see link below)
https://www.theguardian.com/science/2018/aug/27/climate-change-will-make-hundreds-of-millions-more-people-nutrient-deficient
http://www.omafra.gov.on.ca/english/crops/facts/00-077.htm
Some years ago, soon after the Fall of the Berlin Wall, the Left simply gave up caring about reality. Rather than change their minds, Leftists just stopped feeling they need to justify anything they believed in a rational and logical way.
Over time that has mutated into the belief that you can basically say anything you like and claim it is true, if it supports your beliefs. Because your beliefs are right, and thus virtuous, and how can something that is virtuous be untrue?
As a scientist I would caution that there is really no such thing as “settled science”. It is pointed out in the video. In fact, part of the Scientific Method, which used to be taken seriously, is that things will be revisited and retested.
In just my own field of botany, people have looked at specimens collected by Banks & Solander on Cook’s voyage with chromosome squashing, then pigment analysis, and now DNA. New species of both plants and animals are being discovered.
Be very, very suspicious when someone tries to tell you something is “settled” and there will never be anything new to learn. That is a closed mind and NOT a scientific mind.
shared and dloaded the video in case YouTube jumps on this bandwagon
Maybe the science is a little too settled to be science
https://tambonthongchai.com/2018/05/06/consensus-science/
I have great respect for Tony Heller’s work, but he does get careless and he does get carried away. He does chose his battles well, usually, and supports them with data, though it can be argued that he cherry picks his data – who doesn’t? In this video he attributed a headline to the Guardian that was from the Cincinnati Enquirer, Fine, everyone is entitled to mistakes. He also lately likes to try to compare everything to his perception of Hitler’s Germany. I find that sad because I don’t really think he understands what truly happened in the ’30s to start with. When one operates from a closed mind in some areas, it becomes suspect whether the mind Is closed in others. I will accept his faults for the good things he does in fighting the closed mindedness of climate catastrophism, and wish he would choose to spend more time in the present and less time in misrepresenting the past.
Tom O, the headline to which you refer was from the Cincinnati Enquirer but just below the writer’s/reporter’s name the Guardian is identified (presumably as the source of the article).
Think you’ll find that The Cincinatti Enquirer was merely reprinting an article that had previously been published by the Manchester Guardian, the clue being in the credit tag underneath the author’s name (British environmental science writer) Nigel Calder! So don’t think we can fault Tony for that reference.
Mack: I suspect you are giving away your age. The Guardian has not been the Manchester Garden for many many years. It has however, become more biased over time on the AGW issue. Regards Peter
For ‘settled science’ read ‘settled dogma’.
Meanwhile Dellers has one of his acerbic articles about the green blob’s attempts to deny a platform to sceptics of the “settled science”:
https://www.breitbart.com/london/2018/08/28/shut-up-climate-deniers-explains-the-guardian/
Of course there is no such thing as “settled science”. However using this as a mantra to justify denying any bit of science that one does not like is plain silly. The only ways to topple any currently established theory is to come up with reproducible data/observations that contradict it or to find an alternative theory which is wider in scope and is consistent with more observations.
In the case of AGW, the behaviour of the outgoing long wave radiation flatly contradicts the theory, as I have pointed out before. However, this does not mean that the theory is necessarily completely wrong. It merely means that CO2 probably accounts for less than half the warming actually observed. There is other evidence that suggests this as well.
The weakness of the sceptic case is that no one has yet come up with the alternative theory. One possibility is that the earth is now behaving a bit more like a black body than hitherto. However, there is no evidence for this.
“…currently established theory…no one has yet come up with the alternative theory…”
One wonders, theories about what, exactly?
“It is a familiar truth that the solution of any one problem involves the solution of many more; nay, that nothing more than omniscience could suffice to answer all the questions implicitly raised by the seemingly simplest inquiry…we are insensibly drawn on… into wider and wider fields of inquiry…until the point from which we started has almost disappeared…”
Sir JAMES GEORGE FRAZER
HON. D.C.L. OXFORD; HON. LL.D., GLASGOW; HON. LITT.D., DURHAM
FELLOW OF TRINITY COLLEGE, CAMBRIDGE
Alas, there are many alternative theories! Hence the confusion and the ability of the CO2 warming lobby, to win the argument…. always ignoring the bureaucratic, political and commercial benefits arising from the dangerous warming hypothesis based on CO2 models. Why can’t solar and water vapour influences on climate (which is….) be modelled by
computers??
Sonja: The AGW stuff is a set of hypotheses – nowhere near a theory. The alternative explanations are also hypotheses. It is odd that non scientists think that settled science can be based on hypotheses rather than Laws. In any case as many people have said science is never settled in any field. Regards Peter