In the below short video Tony Heller completely debunks the whole “climate change” scam by exposing the cherry picking of data that these scientism “scientists” manipulate to stoke fear.Become a paid subscriber: support the “Do NOT comply.” It’s 8 cents a day.
👏🏻 Thank you for sharing this! I am collecting information like this to share with colleagues in the Sustainability world have been duped by climate hoax. I feel alone ... as a long time environmental (plastic pollution) activist who does not subscribe to the climate hoax. 
I'd like to jump in here, I did watch the Planet of the Humans doco yesterday, which has some quite interesting research. Moore is not in the film. I don't share at least one concern the film maker has - that CO2 is a danger to life on the planet. Also, I don't buy into the general Malthusian presumption the maker agrees with. Our main problem is psychopathic controllers of the planet, who through business and politics are the main problem.
The makers says for instance near the end that we humans are on an infinite growth curve, but in fact at present most nations that use petroleum are at zero or negative population growth. The interesting research he came up with is that trees are being burned to generate electrical energy and this is called Biomass. Biomass dwarfs wind and solar. Yes, the green political industry on the one hand taxes your fuel and now cow farts but, gets green credits for burning wood. In fairness, wood is actually a sustainable energy source, where CO2 is recycled into more 'biomass'.
Better watch the video and you'll know. It won't take much more than 7 minutes of your time, but at least for my part, I found it worthwhile to see the cherrypicking that can be (and is being) done with statistics.
I share your concern about plastic pollution which of course is very real especially the micro particles that seem to be everywhere now. I am trusting that these are inherently inert but the big stuff is a major problem to which I have no answer or suggestion. I guess to be aware is the start of seeking a solution?
Yes Alex, I believe this to be true although I haven't researched it yet - I will get to it shortly - thank you for highlighting this important issue - there could be hope after all.
I think James Corbett’s series ‘How Big Oil Conquered the World’ and ‘Why Big Oil Conquered the World’ are very good primers into the Climate Change agenda. Highly recommended.
I welcome all criticism on this substack, but I would appreciate if you disagree with anything or find offense to make a cogent argument as to the reason(s) for your dislike(s).
Heller has to date not offered a single misleading statement or dataset that I could find. He has been on point about everything, irrespective of his political leanings.
Whether Heller is a jerk or not, he points out the common statistical fraud used by the 'warmists', that of ignoring historical context. And it really is fraud, going back 20 years and more. Climategate was the self admission by the climate researchers that they were having trouble hiding the temperature decline, so they had to fudge the historical data to make their political masters happy. Hide the Decline then became a meme, and a catchy song on youtube.
Yes we do all need 'some truth' for sure, but it sounds like you just started looking at the climate thing. Fair enough, but your contention that climate change is not a fraud needs some nuance. The climate does change, but the phrase lazily refers to man made or 'anthropogenic' climate change. The climate was predicted to change along cooler lines, in the northern hemisphere, about 30 years ago by some people like Robert Felix, in his book, "Not by Fire, but by Ice". HIs contention was that we are long overdue for a cold spell in countries like Canada, and Europe. He aggregated across many scientific disciplines the concept that solar changes drive climate change, and in the last 20 years we have seen the solar cycles drift towards what we now seem to be in - a grand solar minimum. As Felix described, the waning magnetic fields from the Sun are causing similar here on Earth, which causes the climatic shifts in the jet stream and a large increase in underwater volcanic activity - which warms oceans, which increases precipitation in some areas where increased snowfall pushes ice age activity. Crop losses are a standard feature of a GSM but the politicos have worked to reinforce that eventuality.
One of the sublime concept of climate change chatter is the concept of a greenhouse gas, of which water we are told is the major contributor. Only thing is, there needs to be a greenhouse effect in order to have greenhouse gases. The GHE breaks a few rules of physics, and someone forgot to tell the climate researchers doing their computer models. CO2 is closely related to O2, one could say they are mutually reinforcing. Look to the Sun Richard, that's where the future will be determined. Meanwhile, don't forget to pay the carbon tax, because for sure that will correct the climate.
Wonderful response. They have been forecasting the apocalypse for decades or more. Here is a selection to support your contention - of course it's the sun cycle - I never listen to the 'experts' because, my trainers, many years ago quipped: "An 'ex' is a has-been, and a 'spirt' is a drip under pressure"
Richard, if you read Robert Felix's book, he was an architect who amassed data over many disciples, the fundamental incongruity that novices like we humans are unaware of - is that Ice Ages that primarily affect the northern hemisphere start with a warming of the Arctic. As the arctic warms, caused by geo magnetic affects (the underwater volcanoes), the bulk of Canada starts to see colder snowier winters. When the ice sheet measuring a few kilometers high and extending to Seattle existed, Alaska was habitable. Alaska has trees, northern Quebec does not.
Richard, the arctic is an ocean, correct? Take a look at the Antarctic, is there evidence of it getting colder and snowier year after year?
I would not argue against the evidence of potential warming but my question is how far is this caused by humans. And looking at what appear to be irrational targets like animal methane makes me wonder how much political energy is driving this agenda.
I prefer to attend to ways of adapting to climate changes as they occur but there are other drivers causing much more damage to the planet - such as our industrial processes dependent on hydrocarbon fuels:
👏🏻 Thank you for sharing this! I am collecting information like this to share with colleagues in the Sustainability world have been duped by climate hoax. I feel alone ... as a long time environmental (plastic pollution) activist who does not subscribe to the climate hoax. 
this substack has covered following doc that you should watch:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zk11vI-7czE
I'd like to jump in here, I did watch the Planet of the Humans doco yesterday, which has some quite interesting research. Moore is not in the film. I don't share at least one concern the film maker has - that CO2 is a danger to life on the planet. Also, I don't buy into the general Malthusian presumption the maker agrees with. Our main problem is psychopathic controllers of the planet, who through business and politics are the main problem.
The makers says for instance near the end that we humans are on an infinite growth curve, but in fact at present most nations that use petroleum are at zero or negative population growth. The interesting research he came up with is that trees are being burned to generate electrical energy and this is called Biomass. Biomass dwarfs wind and solar. Yes, the green political industry on the one hand taxes your fuel and now cow farts but, gets green credits for burning wood. In fairness, wood is actually a sustainable energy source, where CO2 is recycled into more 'biomass'.
Biomass is probably sustainable on a smaller scale, when 95% of humanity is liquidated as per Ted Turner's wishes, or WEF goals.
Is this to show the fake climate hoax? Reason I ask is I have a hard time watching anything with Michael “Turd” Moore!!
Better watch the video and you'll know. It won't take much more than 7 minutes of your time, but at least for my part, I found it worthwhile to see the cherrypicking that can be (and is being) done with statistics.
Which 7 minutes of the 100-minute video? I can't spare 100 minutes.
I share your concern about plastic pollution which of course is very real especially the micro particles that seem to be everywhere now. I am trusting that these are inherently inert but the big stuff is a major problem to which I have no answer or suggestion. I guess to be aware is the start of seeking a solution?
Hasn't it been shown recently that solar ultraviolet radiation degrades at least some plastics into harmless gases (no biology involved)?
Yes Alex, I believe this to be true although I haven't researched it yet - I will get to it shortly - thank you for highlighting this important issue - there could be hope after all.
I am sending this video to my grandsons.
Tony Heller has been on this for years. He's an absolute star.
Incredible. Enlightening. Thank you
I think James Corbett’s series ‘How Big Oil Conquered the World’ and ‘Why Big Oil Conquered the World’ are very good primers into the Climate Change agenda. Highly recommended.
https://www.corbettreport.com/bigoil/
Agreed 💯 All of his work is outstanding
Fantastic video. What a great, and short debunk. Critical to get people off this scaremongering climate insanity....
Heller hasn’t posted anything except data and facts. Not sure why anyone would call him a propagandist unless they still live deep inside The Matrix.
That said... I also like his data processing app : Unhiding The Decline https://realclimatescience.com/unhiding-the-decline-for-windows/
As I always say “Know, thyself” (meaning validate through yourself not “experts”).
Climate Change scam and depopulation go hand in hand! https://rumble.com/vmk8yh-population-control.html
Brilliant video!!!! Cherry picking data.
Let's not forget that "How to lie with statistics" was the recommended instruction manual for the covid plandemic.
I welcome all criticism on this substack, but I would appreciate if you disagree with anything or find offense to make a cogent argument as to the reason(s) for your dislike(s).
Heller has to date not offered a single misleading statement or dataset that I could find. He has been on point about everything, irrespective of his political leanings.
Whether Heller is a jerk or not, he points out the common statistical fraud used by the 'warmists', that of ignoring historical context. And it really is fraud, going back 20 years and more. Climategate was the self admission by the climate researchers that they were having trouble hiding the temperature decline, so they had to fudge the historical data to make their political masters happy. Hide the Decline then became a meme, and a catchy song on youtube.
https://youtu.be/tIQ70is-RPM?list=TLPQMTkwODIwMjKg3K8EN0jovw
Yes we do all need 'some truth' for sure, but it sounds like you just started looking at the climate thing. Fair enough, but your contention that climate change is not a fraud needs some nuance. The climate does change, but the phrase lazily refers to man made or 'anthropogenic' climate change. The climate was predicted to change along cooler lines, in the northern hemisphere, about 30 years ago by some people like Robert Felix, in his book, "Not by Fire, but by Ice". HIs contention was that we are long overdue for a cold spell in countries like Canada, and Europe. He aggregated across many scientific disciplines the concept that solar changes drive climate change, and in the last 20 years we have seen the solar cycles drift towards what we now seem to be in - a grand solar minimum. As Felix described, the waning magnetic fields from the Sun are causing similar here on Earth, which causes the climatic shifts in the jet stream and a large increase in underwater volcanic activity - which warms oceans, which increases precipitation in some areas where increased snowfall pushes ice age activity. Crop losses are a standard feature of a GSM but the politicos have worked to reinforce that eventuality.
One of the sublime concept of climate change chatter is the concept of a greenhouse gas, of which water we are told is the major contributor. Only thing is, there needs to be a greenhouse effect in order to have greenhouse gases. The GHE breaks a few rules of physics, and someone forgot to tell the climate researchers doing their computer models. CO2 is closely related to O2, one could say they are mutually reinforcing. Look to the Sun Richard, that's where the future will be determined. Meanwhile, don't forget to pay the carbon tax, because for sure that will correct the climate.
Wonderful response. They have been forecasting the apocalypse for decades or more. Here is a selection to support your contention - of course it's the sun cycle - I never listen to the 'experts' because, my trainers, many years ago quipped: "An 'ex' is a has-been, and a 'spirt' is a drip under pressure"
https://www.theburningplatform.com/2022/07/17/wrong-again-50-years-of-failed-eco-pocalyptic-predictions/
Richard, if you read Robert Felix's book, he was an architect who amassed data over many disciples, the fundamental incongruity that novices like we humans are unaware of - is that Ice Ages that primarily affect the northern hemisphere start with a warming of the Arctic. As the arctic warms, caused by geo magnetic affects (the underwater volcanoes), the bulk of Canada starts to see colder snowier winters. When the ice sheet measuring a few kilometers high and extending to Seattle existed, Alaska was habitable. Alaska has trees, northern Quebec does not.
Richard, the arctic is an ocean, correct? Take a look at the Antarctic, is there evidence of it getting colder and snowier year after year?
I can agree RS that the sun has a major effect and maybe climate change is beyond out control? Thus adaption might be the best strategy?
We are entering a grand solar minimum which is the real climate control knob.
Can you suggest anything better?
I would not argue against the evidence of potential warming but my question is how far is this caused by humans. And looking at what appear to be irrational targets like animal methane makes me wonder how much political energy is driving this agenda.
I prefer to attend to ways of adapting to climate changes as they occur but there are other drivers causing much more damage to the planet - such as our industrial processes dependent on hydrocarbon fuels:
https://austrianpeter.substack.com/p/the-financial-jigsaw-part-2-the-end?s=w
And a proposal for adaption:
https://austrianpeter.substack.com/p/the-financial-jigsaw-part-2-localisation?s=w