Ice Doesn't Lie - But Climate Scientists And Politicians Do

I gotta share this guy while he's still over there. Is it not the best channel out there debunking global warming agenda? It may be IMO.
He runs a site too. Plenty of data, lotta work put into each vid.
Rumble channel Rumble channel

a reply to: PapagiorgioCZ

Tony is one of the great ones, who refuses to be silenced!

The level of data manipulation by those pushing their agendas is criminal.

a reply to: PapagiorgioCZ

that was very informative. If his facts are factual, it seems there are some issues with what has been used as "data" to perpetuate this. I'll be interested to hear the opposing viewpoints WITH LINKS to this.

originally posted by: network dude
a reply to: PapagiorgioCZ

that was very informative. If his facts are factual, it seems there are some issues with what has been used as "data" to perpetuate this. I'll be interested to hear the opposing viewpoints WITH LINKS to this.

I urge you to do your own research, but after I watched the first video of his I came across, I did some research trying to see if I could find him not being truthful and I couldn't. He is using the data that those he is criticizing made public and showing how they have either lied from the start or are lying now. Because their past data and scientific reasoning doesn't match up with their new pseudo science predictions.

The reason the NASA graph he focuses on doesn't seem to make sense is because it's showing the "temperature anomaly". It's been a while since I looked into this but from memory the temperature anomaly is the amount of temperature variation measured by instruments around the world. Also, it's not just showing land temps but the combined land and ocean temperature anomalies.

In my opinion, the real reason the temperature anomaly rises so sharply over the last 100 years is mostly due to the increased number of measuring devices put in place over the last 100 years. Freak temperature anomalies are much easier to detect when you have millions of devices around the world. Ocean temps also change much more rapidly than land temps, the majority of the measured warming actually comes from the ocean.

It's quite hard to find graphs showing the raw temperature and not the temperature anomaly, it's also difficult to find the raw land temperature data without the ocean data merged with it. Most of the raw land data I have found shows very little long term temperature changes. Here are two of the more interesting charts I came across when doing research into this a topic a few years ago.

This shows the avg mean temp measured by all USHCN stations:


This chart from the EPA shows U.S. Annual Heat Wave Index for 1895–2015:


The argument is that since the ocean absorbs most of the extra energy generated from greenhouse gases we need to be worried because it's causing the ice caps to melt and warming the Earth, even if land temps aren't rising at a worrying rate. However I would argue the arctic ice goes through melting stages fairly quickly, and if you look at the satellite images from NASA going back several decades there's no change in the how far the ice reaches each winter.

One of the clips in the OP's video also shows how there was an ice age scare only a few decades ago due to unusually cold temperatures and growing ice formations. There's just way too much misdirection and obfuscation of the truth when it comes to climate change science for me to take any of it seriously. I just can't take pseudoscience seriously, and that's what a lot of this feels like to me. The rising oceans thing is so bogus I wont even get into it.

originally posted by: network dude
a reply to: PapagiorgioCZ

that was very informative. If his facts are factual, it seems there are some issues with what has been used as "data" to perpetuate this. I'll be interested to hear the opposing viewpoints WITH LINKS to this.

It's a mixed bag. Some of the things Tony Heller says are quite true.

Some other things he says are challenged. Like when he says "NASA lies" about the data, that's a biased statement. NASA may itself have some bias, but if you take Heller's claims and check them with NASA, they can most likely show you how they made the calculations to support the data they present. So, it's not really true that it's a "lie" if they can support their data.

However there are changes made to data for reasons they say are justified, and it really takes significant effort to dig into those changes to see if they are really justified or not.

One of the key points in the video in the OP of this thread is that sea level rise is not being influenced by human activity. Based on my research, I think Tony is correct about that. So that's a bit of a problem for climate alarmists who say that sea level rise is being accelerated by human activity when that doesn't appear to be the case.

On the other hand, temperatures do seem to be going up, and probably from human activity, and it could be just a matter of time before this is reflected in sea level rise. So again it's a mixed bag. I don't really trust what Tony Heller says, even though some things he says are true, and I don't really trust everything NASA says, even though some things they say are true. I think NASA can likely justify the data they present though someone might take issues with the way they have adjusted the data.

These are some specific links getting into some specifics of Tony's past claims as you requested, but I think much of what he says in the above video is true (except again with the clarification that "NASA lies" is probably not justifiable, maybe some people don't agree with their adjustments to the data though).

Tony Heller repeats false claim that scientists fake the warming trend

Tony Heller - An unfortunate record

Tony doesn’t appear to have learnt from his mistakes, despite his scientific and technological background. Back more than a decade ago he was using selective data and simplistic analyses based on a poor understanding – and somehow thinking this allowed him to correct the experts. He is still doing the same.

I don't think there's any one source out there that I completely trust on climate science. I think there's some bias on both sides of the issue. So, don't trust anybody completely is my advice (including me, I don't claim to be any expert on this topic). But, I think temperatures are getting warmer and I think we humans and our CO2 emissions are responsible for at least some of that increase. Why that doesn't appear to be affecting sea levels, I don't know, but I think Tony is right that we are not really seeing that effect in sea level data for some reason.

One self-professed renegade I listen to is Freeman Dyson. In his opinion there is absolutely no doubt that climate is changing and that humans re definitely responsible for part of the temperature increase. However he's not convinced that it's the disaster some people are making it out to be, pointing out that more CO2 is good for plants in some cases. So he doesn't deny human influence on climate change, but he's not really convinced by some of the alarmist claims out there.

a reply to: PapagiorgioCZ


Never forget

a reply to: Arbitrageur

One of the key points in the video in the OP of this thread is that sea level rise is not being influenced by human activity.

Measuring "sea level" is problematic. It is commonly believed that oceans are like the water in your bathtub, nice and flat. When you add water, the ring around the tub rises at the same rate. This is a misconception. There are many influences on sea level: distance from the equator (centripetal force), proximity to large land or ice masses (gravity), winds and currents.In some places the shoreline is subsiding while in others it is uplifting...you begin to get the idea, but the ocean is not a bathtub.

Sea level rise is not only affected by the loss of glacial ice, it is also affected directly by warming. Warm water is "bigger" than cool water. So, as the oceans warm (and they are), sea level rises. I've experienced this directly. Over the past five or six years the islands have been surrounded by an area of exceptionally warm water. As a result our tides have been significantly higher (both high and low tides). So much so that where it was once a very rare occurrence for my seawall to be inundated, it now happens commonly. I've been living here for 25 years but only recently has my yard started being eroded by the ocean. This is not coastal erosion, I live on a protected bay, no wave action and the island did not suddenly sink a foot. Also, while the tide gauge records do show a gradual rise back through the mid 1950s in my location, they also bear out my experience, the rate of rise is accelerating. Dramatically, in this locality.

We also have satellite measurements of sea level. Very accurate measurements which are not affected by changes in topography. These data also show an acceleration in the rate of sea level rise. The average acceleration is not great, which doesn't make it obvious, and the signal can be elusive but it is there. I have little doubt.
www.sciencedaily.com...

originally posted by: Phage
We also have satellite measurements of sea level. Very accurate measurements which are not affected by changes in topography. These data also show an acceleration in the rate of sea level rise. The average acceleration is not great, which doesn't make it obvious, and the signal can be elusive but it is there. I have little doubt.
www.sciencedaily.com...

This is from your source:

Although this research is impactful, the authors consider their findings to be just a first step. The 25-year record is just long enough to provide an initial detection of acceleration -- the results will become more robust as the Jason-3 and subsequent altimetry satellites lengthen the time series.

I can buy that, as I said I'm convinced temperatures are going up so I expect to see sea levels rise but the historical data just didn't show a correlation of sea level increase with CO2 increase, but as I said it may be a delayed correlation. That talks about just finding an initial detection of acceleration.

Look at this screenshot from the OP video at time index 5:00:

Tony Heller isn't making this up, it's the same graph as on the NOAA website:

Atlantic City Sea Level Trend-NOAA

That's from Atlantic City but you can find numerous other graphs of sea level like that showing a steady increase more or less for the past century. If you plot CO2 increase on a similar time scale, you might naively expect to find a correlation where sea level rises because of the CO2 increase, but CO2 has been increasing for decades and that graph shows the last few years above the trendline, which could be signs that the increase in sea level is accelerating, it's not really clear in that particular graph or others like it.

Yes measuring sea level is complicated, and one location is not representative of global sea level, but as I said Tony Heller is biased, so he will pick out selected data like this which is true, but ignore other data which doesn't fit his bias, like maybe satellite measurements. Actually I think part of his complaint about how NASA changed their sea level trend graph was that they used satellite data to do it. He also infers politics is involved in the change since the dramatic change in NASA's graph on sea level took place since Biden took office. Heller shows this NASA graph from immediately before Biden took office, in January 2021, time index 3:12:



Then he shows this NASA graph from April 2021 which is different, and he highlights the satellite data, time index 3:22:



So providing these are what NASA actually showed, are we to infer then that the NASA graph in January 2021 was not accurate? The graph from this month certainly looks considerably different.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

Look at this screenshot from the OP video at time index 5:00:

I'm very familiar with that website. The trendline is a linear trendline. It show the average rise over the entire range of data. It says so right there.

In order to display an acceleration a polynomial function would be applied.

a reply to: Phage
Yes, but, visually, the fit to the linear trendline doesn't look too bad.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

Yes, when one is looking a rate change of less than a mm/year^2 it would be difficult to discern on a meter scale.

a reply to: Phage

I've experienced this directly. Over the past five or six years the islands have been surrounded by an area of exceptionally warm water. As a result our tides have been significantly higher (both high and low tides).

What islands are you talking about? The land mass of small islands can rise and fall very quickly, and every single example I have seen of land being taken by rising sea levels are small islands which have always had rapidly changing shore lines. I've lived on the coast of Australia my whole life and the tides are exactly the same as when I was a kid, and looking at the chart for Sydney which is provided in the OP's video, it seems there has been very little change in sea levels, at least on the east coast. We also need to keep in mind that Australia is believed to be slowly sinking, although I doubt it's happening quickly enough to account for the slight upward trend in this graph. Melting ice probably does account for most of the upward trend, but it's clearly not as bad as we are led to believe. It's very easy show small islands with quickly changing tides, but the reality of the situation is clearly something different.

a reply to: ChaoticOrder

What islands are you talking about?

The ones where I live. The Hawaiian islands. The eastern end of the chain, with its much younger islands, is subsiding somewhat rapidly. The others, not so much.

Oahu, where I live, is pretty stable. I don't know if you consider Oahu to be a "small" island but there is no indication that it suddenly began sinking.
pubs.er.usgs.gov...

I grew up in a house about a quarter mile from where I now live, also on the water. And, as I pointed out in my first post, it is an erroneous assumption to think that sea level rise will have the same effects everywhere on the planet.

Ice is melting. Oceans are warming. Sea level is rising.

a reply to: Phage

The ones where I live. The Hawaiian islands. The eastern end of the chain, with its much younger islands, is subsiding somewhat rapidly. The others, not so much.

Doesn't that suggest it is specific land masses changing and not the sea level, otherwise all the islands would be going under at a similar rate.

a reply to: ChaoticOrder

I said Oahu is stable. And apparently you missed my first post in the thread as well.

Oahu is where I live. The tides are higher now than they have been since I remember and since the tide records started. In particular, over the past 5 years or so they have been much higher.

This tide gauge is quite near my home but I don't need it to tell me what's happening. My yard is being eaten by the bay. That didn't happen before.


The fact that some land masses are subsiding (and some are rising, but Oahu is not doing much of either) does not change the fact that sea level is rising. Satellite measurements, which are not affected by the movement of land masses, show that sea level itself is rising and doing so at an increasing rate.

Giant land masses rising and sinking across the globe is going to affect the sea levels.

The recent changes in data to try and scare the uninformed is dangerous and should be looked into. Enacting new policies and legislation and practices to combat a problem that isn't there could cause issues of catastrophic proportions.

You shouldnt be able to notice couple of mm of sea level change in couple of years. Maybe it's the wind or the currents. Or your memory.🙂 Or the local land is eroding and sinking. How can they measure it through all the grass?
Maybe there's another explanation but you'll miss it because the mainstream is fake and lacks ideas.
It's not a bathtub yet an alleged 0.8 mm change or acceleration is enough to push a political, financial global agenda, to control the industry with CO2 tax and deprive us of cheap energy. Is it not close to a statistical error? 0.8 mm - yeah right. Measured from space. How is it done? A laser beam on top of a wave or the bottom of a wave? It's ridiculous. I'm not a scientology believer. And if it's rising like this there's nothing we can do about that. I came across Randall Carlson's theory of cosmic floods and there's a good evidence of the shores being hundreds of feet lower in the past. Move higher or buy a pair of rubber boots.

Speaking of CO2. It used to be much higher. CO2 and temperature dont correlate. Ideal concentration for plant growth is 5x higher. All the CO2 from fossil fuels was once in the atmosphere. It's organic and carbon neutral. 😀 We better burn it all including all the plastic as there's billions more people to feed.
We shouldnt be forced to have these talks. It's not a thing. They have to make stuff up to pay the rent.

It's sea surface temperature anyway. Most of the oceans are still chilled down from the last ice age. It takes time. Many many thousands of years to absorb a degree. And they ignore the solar forcing, cosmic ray cloud formation, cloud albedo and that water reacts to global electric current.
Channels like this or SuspiciousObservers make more sense than mainstream science.
I wouldnt quote sciencedaily.com like a bible.

a reply to: ChaoticOrder

Good catch. Indeed it's "temperature anomaly". Devil is in the detail. It still makes no sense as he's pointing out in the context. The heat wave and global drought that starved millions of people in 1921 shows no anomaly on the graph. Similarly for 1970's cold.

They may be able to play with terms and numbers and actually defend it but I call it purposely misleading. It's happening with Covid CDC numbers too btw.