• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Idiotic Environmental Predictions

Tony Heller Posted March 28, 2024

“All censorships exist to prevent anyone from challenging current conceptions and existing institutions.” - George Bernard Shaw
Professor Elliot Jacobson which blocked Tony on Twitter, .try to discredited climate the movie saying it has harmful and misleading content. He makes his living pushing climate scam. Rader than debate he want to censor. The movie was excellent. Excellent post by Tony.
 
Tony Heller Posted March 31, 2024

By hiding, tampering, cherry-picking and rewriting data, government agencies have created a completely fictional story about the Arctic.
Hansen, a NASA scientist in 2008, said that the Artic will be free of ice in 5 to ten years, which was repeated by many others. Their predictions were wrong as demonstrated by Tony in the video. In reality, by 2024 the Artic CIS extent was well above the 21st century average.
 
Ooo. I better call 911.

Such a burn.
Just returning the favor. You started the denigrating talk. You were clearly speaking of posting material from Tony Heller. Tell me I am wrong.

You have no intelligent response to someone you dislike, so you belittle them.

Typical.
 
Just returning the favor. You started the denigrating talk. You were clearly speaking of posting material from Tony Heller. Tell me I am wrong.

You have no intelligent response to someone you dislike, so you belittle them.

Typical.
Tony Heller is ignorable and frankly, a joke.

I was speaking of the program that posts on this thread every 12-16 days for the last five years.
 
Tony Heller is ignorable and frankly, a joke.
Wrong. He is quite intelligent, and exposes the lies of the agenda.
I was speaking of the program that posts on this thread every 12-16 days for the last five years.
So you were calling a fellow poster, a bot.

Not very cool at all. What should I call you?
 
John Stossel, April 15, 2025

Climate zealots tell us the end is near. It’s the era of "global BOILING!” says the UN Secretary General.

Climate alarmists say the Arctic will soon be ice-free and cities will be underwater! But what do the facts say?
John Stossel video, corroborate what Tony Heller said in his video “Hidden and Remitting History”, about the artic fictional history.
 
Tony Heller, April 6, 2024

NOAA made a tweet yesterday hoping to scare people about the use of reliable energy supplies, but the information in the tweet showed the exact opposite. They were hoping for an irrational conditioned response.
The video demonstrate that base on NOAA statement you cannot predict the climate base in the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. NOAA information in the tweet showed the exact opposite The obvious interpretation of NOAA tweet is that CO2 is unrelated to climate.
 
Tony Heller, April 29, 2024

Since Climate The Movie was released, the personal attacks I'm receiving have become even sillier than they used to be.
Tony makes an analogy calling Michael Mann the Darth Vader of the climate scam. He attacked Tony participation on the Climate the Movie, accusing him of been anti-semitic. But how come, Tony is a Jew. He call Tony a climate change denier and accused him of misleading his fallowers by demonstrating that the Artic extent in 2024 was above the 21st century average. He accuse Tony of cherry picking when in reality he is the one doing it. Mann says that sea ice continues to decline at an accelerating rate and contribute to sea level rise, when the opposite is really true.
 
Tony makes an analogy calling Michael Mann the Darth Vader of the climate scam. He attacked Tony participation on the Climate the Movie, accusing him of been anti-semitic. But how come, Tony is a Jew. He call Tony a climate change denier and accused him of misleading his fallowers by demonstrating that the Artic extent in 2024 was above the 21st century average. He accuse Tony of cherry picking when in reality he is the one doing it. Mann says that sea ice continues to decline at an accelerating rate and contribute to sea level rise, when the opposite is really true.
Sound like since Mann is such a wimp considering critisism, but deals it out himself, that Tony should file a defermatoon lawsuit.
 
Tony Heller, May 6, 2024

Academia is out of touch with reality to the point where they have become a threat to civilization.
Harvard University is a respected institution, and in this case ignorance is not excuse. The objective of the academics that wrote the paper from the Harvard environmental law, is to create environmental deaths where there is none. Fossil fuel and air conditioner keep people alive. During the heat wave across Europe in August 2003, in France around 5,000 people die as a result of the heat wave. Most of the victims were elderlies living in house and apartment without air conditioner. If fossil fuel delivered were stop, mass deaths and destruction of civilization will occur. Those people are wicked
 
Here's a pdf LINK to the Harvard paper.

Here's the opening statement:

CLIMATE HOMICIDE: PROSECUTING BIG OIL FOR CLIMATE DEATHS
David Arkush* & Donald Braman†

Prosecutors regularly bring homicide charges against individuals and corporations whose
reckless or negligent acts or omissions cause unintentional deaths. Fossil fuel companies
learned decades ago that what they produced, marketed, and sold would generate “globally
catastrophic” climate change. Rather than alert the public and curtail their operations,
they worked to deceive the public about these harms and prevent regulation of their lethal
conduct. They funded efforts to call sound science into doubt and confuse their shareholders,
consumers, and regulators. They poured money into campaigns to elect or install judges,
legislators, and executive officials hostile to any litigation, regulation, or competition
that might limit their profits. Today, the climate change that they forecast has already
killed thousands of people in the United States, and it is expected to become increasingly
lethal for the foreseeable future. Given the extreme lethality of fossil fuel companies’
conduct and their longstanding awareness of the catastrophic consequences, should they be
charged with homicide? Could they be convicted? In answering these questions, this Article
makes several contributions to our understanding of criminal law and the role it could play
in combating crimes committed at a massive scale. It describes the doctrinal and social
predicates of homicide prosecutions where multiple corporate actors have engaged in conduct
that endangers much or all of the public. The Article finds that in jurisdictions across the
United States, fossil fuel companies could be prosecuted for every type of homicide short of
first degree murder, a charge it does not evaluate. It also concludes that prosecutions could
offer highly effective remedies and that prosecutors should be motivated to seek them.


Don't know about you, but that's crazy.
 
Here's a pdf LINK to the Harvard paper.

Fossil fuel companies
learned decades ago that what they produced, marketed, and sold would generate “globally
catastrophic” climate change.

Don't know about you, but that's crazy.
There is so much uncertainty that the climate sensitivity of added CO2 is completely unknown,
much less that it with certainty could cause global catastrophic climate change!
Even the most fundamental measure Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity (ECS), in invalid, as the
CO2 level can never double abruptly!
Studies to simulate CO2 level increases like Humans emit, produce MUCH lower climate sensitivities.
The time lag between a carbon dioxide emission and maximum warming increases with the size of the emission
1750347104416.webp
This simulation contains the data that would all but remove the idea of catastrophic CO2 caused climate change.
In the simulation for 100 GtC (389 ppm to 436 ppm) peaked at 0.2K, they ran the simulation out to 1000 years.
This would be a 2xCO2 sensitivity of 0.2/ln(436/389) = 1.75, so 1.75 X ln(2) = 1.21C per doubling.
It also means that there is almost no warming in the pipeline!
In addition the simulation itself is based on the idea that added CO2 ALWAYS causes forcing by reducing the OLR, which is not happening.
 
There is so much uncertainty that the climate sensitivity of added CO2 is completely unknown,
much less that it with certainty could cause global catastrophic climate change!
Even the most fundamental measure Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity (ECS), in invalid, as the
CO2 level can never double abruptly!
Studies to simulate CO2 level increases like Humans emit, produce MUCH lower climate sensitivities.
The time lag between a carbon dioxide emission and maximum warming increases with the size of the emission
View attachment 67575581
This simulation contains the data that would all but remove the idea of catastrophic CO2 caused climate change.
In the simulation for 100 GtC (389 ppm to 436 ppm) peaked at 0.2K, they ran the simulation out to 1000 years.
This would be a 2xCO2 sensitivity of 0.2/ln(436/389) = 1.75, so 1.75 X ln(2) = 1.21C per doubling.
It also means that there is almost no warming in the pipeline!
In addition the simulation itself is based on the idea that added CO2 ALWAYS causes forcing by reducing the OLR, which is not happening.

You miss the point of Harvard Law's paper. They weren't trying to argue the case that CO2 is a greenhouse gas
and should cause "x" amount of global warming, They want to arrest charge try convict and sentence to death
people who work in the gas, oil and coal industry. Arkush, Braman & the Harvard Law Review are crazy.
 
You miss the point of Harvard Law's paper. They weren't trying to argue the case that CO2 is a greenhouse gas
and should cause "x" amount of global warming, They want to arrest charge try convict and sentence to death
people who work in the gas, oil and coal industry. Arkush, Braman & the Harvard Law Review are crazy.
I got the point, but the law especially criminal law, has a high burden of proof, one that I think
the current science is lacking.
 
Harvard University is a respected institution, and in this case ignorance is not excuse. The objective of the academics that wrote the paper from the Harvard environmental law, is to create environmental deaths where there is none. Fossil fuel and air conditioner keep people alive. During the heat wave across Europe in August 2003, in France around 5,000 people die as a result of the heat wave. Most of the victims were elderlies living in house and apartment without air conditioner. If fossil fuel delivered were stop, mass deaths and destruction of civilization will occur. Those people are wicked
Fossil fuel emissions kill many many thousands of people each year, not even debatable amongst the medical community.
By comparison, my 89 degree, high humidity, day is being air conditioned cool by my home's rooftop solar array, and no monthly bills.
"Destruction of civilization" is a bit of a stretch, don'tcha think?
 
Fossil fuel emissions kill many many thousands of people each year, not even debatable amongst the medical community.
By comparison, my 89 degree, high humidity, day is being air conditioned cool by my home's rooftop solar array, and no monthly bills.
"Destruction of civilization" is a bit of a stretch, don'tcha think?
How do you die from fossil fuel, inhaling carbon monoxide or something?
 
Back
Top Bottom