The Climate Crisis Narrative & Blatant Propaganda?

This is pretty crazy if true! The claim being made by Tony Heller on his youtube channel is that the scenario described below is one of many examples of blatant dishonesty and hiding of data to distort the facts (for one reason or another).

In this Washington Post article, they appear to be blatantly lying about wildfire data (at least according to Tony Heller in this video):



The video begins by going over claims in a Washington Post article that was written back in 2015. The article claimed that, at the time, over 8 million acres of forest had burned due to wildfires, and then states that there were only only 6 other years in history (all since the year 2000) where over 8 million acres had burned.

2 excerpts from the actual article and screenshot of the article below:

Link to Washington Post article (2015): www.washingtonpost.com... /

...more than 8 million acres have burned in US wildfires in 2015, 8,202,557 of them to be precise.

And:

"There are only six other years that have seen more than 8 million acres burned - 2012, 2011, 2007, 2006, 2005, and 2004 - based on National Interagency Fire Center records that date back to 1960. It is hard not to notice that all of these years came since the year 2000."

He goes on to present a chart going back to 1926, showing many years from the 1920s to about 1952 which show MUCH higher than 8 million acres burned in a year (it looks like many years over 40 million acres were reported burned, and actually every year from 1926 until 1953 were over 8 million acres per year...



However, according to the video, he accessed that data back in January, and since then when he tries accessing it the he gets redirected to a link which states that "federal wildland fire agencies did not track official wildfire data using current reporting processes" and that there is no "official data prior to 1983 posted on this site" - I believe this is the URL he references in the video and here is a screenshot as well URL:



Coincidentally (?), he goes on to point out that 1983 had the lowest reported total acres burned and that may also point to cherry-picked stats and false claims/misinformation.

Interesting to note though, the WaPo article was written in 2015 and apparently the wildfire data was publicly accessible as recently as January 2021, so it should have been easy to refute the claims made in the Wapo article prior to January. One thing I'm keeping in mind...

Anyway, the video continues but I wanted to present the play-by-play of what really caught my attention and to try to get a dialogue here on ATS and see what others think about all this. To me, the blatant dishonesty/agenda-driven narrative is alarming if these claims are true.

a reply to: FamCore

This subject matter was posted recently.

blatant dishonesty and hiding of data to distort the facts (for one reason or another).

They are lying, it is fraud and it should be illegal, they should be in jail.

a reply to: FamCore
Lots of lies with the "global cooling" er "global warming" er " climate change" agenda.
Lots of dirty money with those as well.
New taxes, cap and trade ect...

The only "proof" that climate change is a problem is the manufactured kind of proof 😃

a reply to: myselfaswell

Thank you for posting, I’m just happy it’s already been an active topic and hoping this thread helps bring it more to light for anyone who missed that one!

I want to blast it all over social media but can’t afford to be canceled for pointing out lies told (simply because they are lies that uphold current narratives and the status quo for virtue-signaling culture)

Tony is not just another talking head as he goes back and pulls articles and records disputing the current alarmist narrative. I have actually seen people on this very site try to disparage him yet he presents the records proving what a pack of lies this newest iteration of NWO idiots are trying to push. Glad you found him.

originally posted by: myselfaswell
a reply to: FamCore

This subject matter was posted recently.

blatant dishonesty and hiding of data to distort the facts (for one reason or another).

They are lying, it is fraud and it should be illegal, they should be in jail.

Jail is too good for them.

Can we just neutralise all their carbon?

a reply to: FamCore

No worries. I agree with you that this should be plastered over every media platform, it won't though, which is bad and simultaneously weird.

I still reckon the planet passed through an interstellar cloud of stupidity gas a while back.

originally posted by: FamCore

.....

The video begins by going over claims in a Washington Post article that was written back in 2015. The article claimed that, at the time, over 8 million acres of forest had burned due to wildfires, and then states that there were only only 6 other years in history (all since the year 2000) where over 8 million acres had burned.

.....

Anyway, the video continues but I wanted to present the play-by-play of what really caught my attention and to try to get a dialogue here on ATS and see what others think about all this. To me, the blatant dishonesty/agenda-driven narrative is alarming if these claims are true.

False. The article specifically only considered fire data since 1960. They made no claims at all about fires that happened before 1960, much less in all of history.

The more important question is why wildfires burned so much more acreage up to 1930 than they did afterwards. The simple answer is that not enough people were really fighting them very effectively until then. To fight wildfires effectively you need two things, basically. First, you need enough people whose job it is to fight fires. Secondly, you need effect means to fight fires.

In the 1800s through the early 1900s wildfire fighting was strictly a volunteer operation. It wasn’t until about 1935 that the US Forest Service emerged as the lead agency for controlling wildfires and instituted a policy of aggressive suppression of fires. They required all wildfires to be extinguished by 10:00 AM on the morning after they were first spotted. That started to solve the problem of whose job it was to fight wildfires.

The means of fighting wildfires basically consists of roads (to get to the fire location), motorized vehicles (to get fire fighters and equipment there quickly), and equipment (like bulldozers and tankers) capable of having a significant effect on the fire. None of that existed in significant quantity before the 1930s.

That’s why the acreage of forest burned by fire declined steadily from then until 1960. That’s probably why the Washington Post article only considered data from 1960 to the present.

"Climate Change". The climate has always been changing and always will. To think that a ball of iron, rock, and gas revolving around a star that revolves around a galaxy will never change is beyond stupidity.

I would bet anything environmental policies changed towards forest management with controlled burns being stopped in many places like California. They in turn suffered the worst wildfires in their history for this stupidity that continues to this day.

Disband and shut down the UN and all this bullcrap goes away , and we witness the return of REAL science.
Not made up science and scientists (and I use that term very loosely in this case) for hire .

originally posted by: 1947boomer

originally posted by: FamCore

.....

The video begins by going over claims in a Washington Post article that was written back in 2015. The article claimed that, at the time, over 8 million acres of forest had burned due to wildfires, and then states that there were only only 6 other years in history (all since the year 2000) where over 8 million acres had burned.

.....

Anyway, the video continues but I wanted to present the play-by-play of what really caught my attention and to try to get a dialogue here on ATS and see what others think about all this. To me, the blatant dishonesty/agenda-driven narrative is alarming if these claims are true.

False. The article specifically only considered fire data since 1960. They made no claims at all about fires that happened before 1960, much less in all of history.

The more important question is why wildfires burned so much more acreage up to 1930 than they did afterwards. The simple answer is that not enough people were really fighting them very effectively until then. To fight wildfires effectively you need two things, basically. First, you need enough people whose job it is to fight fires. Secondly, you need effect means to fight fires.

In the 1800s through the early 1900s wildfire fighting was strictly a volunteer operation. It wasn’t until about 1935 that the US Forest Service emerged as the lead agency for controlling wildfires and instituted a policy of aggressive suppression of fires. They required all wildfires to be extinguished by 10:00 AM on the morning after they were first spotted. That started to solve the problem of whose job it was to fight wildfires.

The means of fighting wildfires basically consists of roads (to get to the fire location), motorized vehicles (to get fire fighters and equipment there quickly), and equipment (like bulldozers and tankers) capable of having a significant effect on the fire. None of that existed in significant quantity before the 1930s.

That’s why the acreage of forest burned by fire declined steadily from then until 1960. That’s probably why the Washington Post article only considered data from 1960 to the present.

so you don't even consider the part where the trend seen in the chart is dishonest and that seeing the past history in full tells a drastically different story? Do you mainline the koolaid, or do you snort it?

a reply to: 1947boomer

In other words, you didn't watch the video and refute the claim that the Biden administration, certain media companies and/or other powers that be are methodically creating a narrative based on incomplete data (and potentially intentionally hiding historical data that goes against their narrative)? Got it.

a reply to: FamCore

except for the one guy, it seems the klimate kult has nothing to say about this.

a reply to: FamCore

This is a surprise to anyone?

They use "dark science" to claim this climate BS. AKA, the hypothesis isn't testable nor is their underlying data subject to peer review like every single other scientific statement of "fact"

a reply to: FamCore

There is absolutely nothing about our federal government that can be trusted in these times. It has become a total den of corruption and deceit.
The Republic is lost.

Of course climate changes. Idiots. It was cold yesterday and it's bloody colder today. Hence change.

a reply to: FamCore


Well, since the 'real' climate crisis involves the ongoing magnetic shift on the Earth and crossing of the galactic current sheet with resultant micronova of our Sun, and associated crustal shift does not include anything about carbon dioxide or global warming, I guess I can understand why they may be having trouble grappling with it. *crickets*

a reply to: FamCore

Between Biden, Kerry, AOC, "We all gonna die!" & Greta "Mein Kampost, it's all just a quick march towards Marxism.

Anyone who says different is either a fool or a liar.