Who Is Steven Goddard?

My name is Tony Heller. I am a whistle blower. I am an independent thinker who is considered a heretic by the orthodoxy on both sides of the climate debate.

I live in Columbia, Maryland – an amazing city where I can ride my bicycle everywhere through the forest, and never need to get in a car.

I am a lifelong environmentalist. I testified at my first Congressional subcommittee hearing at age 15 in Kanab, Utah, in support of  a wilderness area – very close to the one which President Obama recently set aside. I worked to get the Clean Air Act passed. I worked as a volunteer wilderness ranger for two summers in the Cibola and Santa Fe National Forests in New Mexico. I worked on the Safety Analysis Report for DOE’s nuclear waste disposal site in New Mexico. I probably have the smallest electricity bill in Columbia, Maryland because I am very careful not to waste. I have never turned on my heat or air conditioning.

I have degrees in Geology and Electrical Engineering, and worked on the design team of many of the world’s most complex designs, including some which likely power your PC or Mac. I have worked as a contract software developer on climate and weather models for the US government.

I do not receive any funding other than small donations on my blog, which have worked out well below minimum wage. I have tried to obtain funding, but skeptics with money are terrified of political attacks directed by the White House and/or being targeted by the IRS. They openly state this to me.

My position on global warming:

The claims of 97% consensus are a massive lie. Only 52% of American Meteorological Society members believe that man is the primary contributor to global warming.

The radiative transfer models used by government climate scientists show that going up to 550 PPM or even 1000 PPM CO2 will make minimal difference to the radiative balance of the atmosphere. The knee of the CO2 curve is at about 30 PPM, and additional CO2 has little first order effect. This is because almost all radiation in the CO2 absorption spectra is already being absorbed by H2O or CO2 molecules. Adding more CO2 has minimal effect, because there is not much radiation left to be absorbed. (This is a bit of an oversimplification because of second order effects, but those are also small.) There is no indication from the radiative transfer models used by government scientists that additional CO2 will cause large amounts of heating.

The temperature record of both the US and the world has been massively altered since older versions, almost invariably to create the appearance of more warming, and in some cases to create warming where there is none.

Sea level has been rising for 20,000 years, and is now 400 feet higher than it was when the first humans walked to North America from Asia across the Bering Strait. Most of the apparent sea level rise on the US East Coast is due to the land sinking, not sea level rising. There has been little or no sea level rise on the West Coast.

The weather is not getting more severe. Since President Obama took office, there have been three US hurricane strikes – the fewest of any presidency. While Grover Cleveland was president in the 1880’s, the US was hit by twenty-six hurricanes. The US is currently experiencing its longest period since the 1860’s without a major (category 3-5) hurricane strike. The last one was Wilma in 2005.

Florida is currently experiencing the longest period on record without a hurricane strike. The US tornado count over the past two years has been the lowest in the modern record.

America’s worst forest fires occurred in 1871, when thousands of people burned to death in horrific firestorms around the Great Lakes – on the same day that Chicago burned to the ground.

Is climate change real?

Climate is cyclical and is always changing. People always imagine that they live in the worst of times, as this 1871 article from the Brisbane Courier states.

BkV2czHCQAEkDE0 (1)

10 Jan 1871 – IMAGINARY CHANGES OF CLIMATE. (Pall Mall Gazette.)

If you want to learn more about climate history, I have assembled a large collection of old newspaper articles about the weather below 350 PPM CO2. If you read through this, you will understand that lowering CO2 will not make the weather any better, or worse.

I am more than happy to debate anyone who feels up to the challenge, including the President of The United States. Science works through research and debate – not censorship, propaganda, faith, or intimidation.

About Tony Heller

Just having fun
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

332 Responses to Who Is Steven Goddard?

  1. darwin says:

    Well Tony, needless to say you’re having quite the impact. Please keep up your work, and thanks for the countless hours spent retrieving the historical articles. They are invaluable.

  2. Glacierman says:

    It’s all going to change now. The ride will be bumpy. I appreciate your resolve over the past several years, the satire, and using the absurd to demonstrate the absurd. Good luck to you.

    • Scott says:

      Tony, I am a long-time reader and agree with the vast majority of your posts. I suppose I am among those that feel that your tone at times compromises the discussion, but then again, I feel the same way about my own tone at times. Your frustration is understandable and forgiven.

      Though the events of the past several days have been outside your control and perhaps not the way you wanted, you have pierced the consciousness of the mainstream. The proverbial iron is hot. NOW is the right time to get a book contract. You easily have enough material and the book can correct any perceived shortcomings of “tone.”

  3. Morgan says:

    Watch out for the Cause-o Nostra.

  4. Ken says:

    We need a blog that displays the kinds of facts you cite, without making any political statements. There are plenty of blogs out there that put out similar information, but which also liberally (heh) sprinkle in jibes at the liberal establishment. I have a bunch of liberal and borderline liberal friends who would read a blog of facts if they did not have to wade through a bunch of anti-liberal diatribe.

    Is there such a blog? Your statement here in WUWT comes close to that ideal.

    Personally, I don’t mind the anti-liberal diatribe.

    The point I am trying to make is that the simple facts are enough to eventually turn the tide, but the tide might turn faster if we can convince people who are traditionally liberal but who can still think for themselves by showing them un-varnished scientific facts AND those excellent old newspaper articles that show that none of the “extreme weather”, open Arctic sea lanes, northward species migration, and all of the other so-called unprecedented events are actually unprecedented. Many of those people quit reading when they see read attacks, no matter how well deserved, on Obama.

    So, how about a blog that presents scientific and historical weather/climate information, and leave the political attacks to Fox News?

    • Chip Bennett says:

      So, the shorter version is: squelch freedom of speech/expression, because progressives are closed-minded bigots who cannot separate fact from op-ed?

      Steven/Tony: please keep doing what you’re doing.

      • Ken says:

        No. Leave out the political diatribe because the close-minded bigots react to it in the same way you reacted to my comment.

        • Yoshi says:

          Agreed. Like ole Joe Friday intoned, “Just the facts, ma’am”. While I too, don’t mind the jibes, they would best be served up by others with less important aims. This work can do a better job over a wider area in it’s purer state.

        • _Jim says:

          Hmm … some like certain ‘facts’ while others do not … interesting …

        • It is important to realize that global warming is now 100% politics, and at this point has nothing to do with science.

        • harkin says:

          I agree with Ken. Sticking to science only is a plus. If you do this you will not only rise above the level of the warmists (causa nostra lol), you will also avoid the train-derailing comments such as already exhibited.

          Of course your personality and leanings will shine through but IMO keeping it to a minimum will enhance your influence (as long as you do good science!) while the opposite will impede.

          Keep up the great work – I’m hoping you and Watt find common ground.

    • Catbird says:

      Agree. It would be a lot easier to get my children, who were brainwashed in college, to read and give credence to a blog that’s just the facts without the politics. I sometimes copy things into an email, then delete the political stuff before I send it to them so they’ll read past the first sentence. If they accept the basic facts, they’ll realize that they’ve been lied to and will figure out the politics for themselves.

      • Deda Eda says:

        So you decide what your kids are alowed to read. In other words you do the censorship yourself. Now that’s a triumph of brainwashing! Is this stil USA??

        • If it is your purpose to disrupt the blog with stupid comments like that one, you will soon be spam.

        • Craig Davis says:

          Wow, who knew that facts and science sans political verbiage constitute brain washing. My poor children! They’ve been brain washed by their dolt of a father who was simply trying to get them to read simple science and let them, using their adult minds, decide the politics. All done in the USA!

        • DedaEda says:

          ??? Can you explain to me, what I wrote is so disrupting? I am pointing out the fact that people are more and more conditioned to censor out anything that can be potentialy upsetting to the liberals. Am I the only one who noticed?

        • _Jim says:

          Most likely a case of the wrong ‘reply’ being clicked, worst case it was a case of ‘slightly mis-directed fire’ on own forces …

        • DedaEda says:

          Thanks Jim! I will be able to sleep tonight, after all… :0)

        • This is nothing, Deda Eda. I was told that under heavy fire during the Great Patriotic War the sinus values used by the Soviet artillery units were reaching all the way to 3.

        • Brian H says:

          Where did “allowed to” come from? You drivel onwards from that to censorship. He is offering information without political comments attached.

          That’s why your post is junk.

        • harkin says:

          When you’ve gotten to the point of declaring that something presented as strict science is “brainwashing”, you need to seek help.

      • tom0mason says:

        “Educate and inform the whole mass of the people… They are the only sure reliance for the preservation of our liberty.”
        “An informed citizenry is the only true repository of the public will.”
        — Thomas Jefferson

    • Send Al to the Pole says:

      There’s a decent point in this, but for all of us who love the political part of the blog, removing that would diminish its appeal. Maybe a different site than this one. They’re already foaming at the mouth over this blog.

      My other point is that their ideological delusions are the very cause of the AGW scam. They need a slap upside the head to come back to earth.

      • That. Basic cause and effect relationship.

      • Ken says:

        You might be painting all liberals with the same broad brush. I have a couple of very intelligent friends who are teetering on the edge. I am afraid to send them to you excellent blog not so much because of the criticism, but the tenor of it. You really don’t even need the criticism, because the facts speak for themselves. The old newspaper clippings alone are worth a thousand times their weight in gold.

        I hope you don’t take me foe a liberal apologist. My long-time hero is George Will, a rightfully prominent conservative voice.

        Also, I apologize for calling this blog WUWT in my first post, above. I am an old VN vet. That is my excuse.

        • Eric Simpson says:

          I am afraid to send them to you excellent blog not so much because of the criticism, but the tenor of it.

          Ken, I’d like to thank you for your brave input here, which you do even at the risk of ridicule. Indeed, there was a time where even I was often reluctant to link to this site where otherwise I would have promoted it, because it seemed just too political and so the science / climate part wasn’t coming off as credible as it could.

          In addition, it behooves us to try characterize the opposition as politically motivated, and as far as them trying to do the same to us, don’t make it easy for them.

          And it’s true that a couple years ago almost all skeptics were conservatives (as conservatives were more open to the skeptical message), but now more and more left leaners are coming around, and of course we shouldn’t exclude them because we can’t fully win this debate until those of all political persuasions agree.

          But the truth is that their is if fact a strong ideological basis underlying the warmists and their creed. So that’s something that needs to be identified when it is relevant to the climate change issue. But straight out advocacy of Republican / Democrat issues that have nothing to do with climate change (and also realize that half the readers here are not from the United States), my feeling is that that is best left to the conservative political blogs in the US, of which there are literally thousands (!), but there is only one Real Science climate blog that offers a dramatic punch that even wuwt can’t.

        • Ken,

          Your friends may be honest Liberals but it is the experience of many of us here that the word has been hijacked by some of the most illiberal scumbags. I can and do have fruitful discussions with Classical Liberals. I’ve never had one with Progressives, Commies and Nazis regardless of their self-selected nom du jour. I wished that real Liberals put up some fight before they relinquished their name to the totalitarians but I also suspected that a number of them did not mind since it gave them more power to reach their goals. The end justifies the means, and all that crap …

          Oh, my excuse is that I’m old and cranky because I’ve seen too much of this. And I won’t apologize. The hundreds of millions dead don’t give any room for politeness.

        • omanuel says:

          Likewise old and cranky.

          I want to see benefits harvested from 2009 Climategate e-mails before going to the grave.

        • Brian H says:

          The blog has a history, too. The accumulated content of the posts, known to most readers, takes us well beyond the “Golly, this is new!” stage of writing. Not to draw conclusions would be disingenuous posing.

    • Ken says:

      … are NOT unprecedented. My bad, again.

    • Leon says:

      I agree and have, on a personal basis, said the same thing to Tony.

    • Ernest Bush says:

      We already have that blog. It’s called Watts Up With That. There are many others out there, but Anthony’s blog got the traction to become huge in the science blogosphere. Steve’s (Tony’s) blog has begun to attract increasingly worldwide attention for his efforts. Why would he change his direction now? It would make no sense.

    • Chad Bergen says:

      The problem is it is in fact a narrow group of people doing the scamming and they are political activist government employees, and the public: who are in fact educated in schools vastly predominated over, by Democratic Activist government employees.

      • Chad Bergen says:

        *and the public hears them, and Democratically run, NGOs; a public who are in fact educated in schools vastly predominated over,

        above, sorry

  5. On your twitter bio and on the Heartland conference site it says you live in Colorado. Recent move?

  6. James Anderson says:

    Maybe this will encourage others in the field to step out from the dark and tell the truth about what is happening. Thank you for all that you have done and will do in the future. Keep it up and don’t relent.

  7. Latitude says:

    …it took a long time to get used to calling you Steven on here
    now I have to change again….at my age!

    I don’t think so……

  8. emsnews says:

    Yes, you have finally…FINALLY…gone global. And now stand on the edge of a cliff with an army of enraged Bilderberg rich guys desperate to give you a very hard shove.

    They shoved my father, Aden Meinel, off that cliff! And he was a founding scientist of NASA and AURA! So beware, they are dangerous indeed. Fame doesn’t protect.

    • _Jim says:

      Aden Meinel – Interesting …

      From Wiki:

      Aden B. Meinel (November 25, 1922 – October 3, 2011) was an American astronomer. He retired in 1993 as a Distinguished Scientist at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory. He also held the rank of Professor Emeritus at the University of Arizona College of Optical Sciences. His research interests have included upper atmospheric physics, glass technology, optical design, instrumentation and space systems.


      • emsnews says:

        And he could get NOTHING about the sun causing cooling published in the final 5 years of his life! I was stunned and still am very angry about this.

  9. Keep up the great work Tony. (Steve)

  10. Why the coming out, not that your true identity was hidden? I appreciate all your hard efforts. Isn’t it funny how the “deniers” and “conservatives” are more likely to be the true environmentalists as well as the true liberals/progressives? (in a classical sense)

  11. Robertv says:

    Nice to meet you Tony.

  12. Crashex says:

    After Watt’s discussions about you revealed your ID in the Reason post I expected this post was coming. Your skill at getting attention to posts with inflammatory humor or derisive comment has worked well to get you attention, but may not play as well going forward. Although Adam Carole is making it work. You’ve done well to raise the flag on a bevy of issues. And your tireless research makes you well armed for the debate. I hope your efforts make a difference.

    Good Luck. You’ve stirred up the hornet’s nest and now they have a target. You’re going to need exceptionally thick skin now.

  13. Bob F says:

    Well done, Tony.

  14. Joseph says:


    When/where next month? I’ll be in the DC area in July.

  15. A C Osborn says:

    Hello Tony, thank you for all the hard work you have put in over the last few years. it has been a privelege.

  16. philjourdan says:

    Too many Tonys so I will continue to refer to you as Steven.

    Great Bio. Thanks for sharing.

  17. Norm says:

    Because of you and your blog a lot of people I know have gotten really pissed at me. I have enjoyed every single minute of it Thank you! Stay with it Tony!
    PS I wish I could have been in a bar in Liverpool when Suarez bit the Italian. The reaction must have been so funny.

  18. Miboupop says:

    Hi, courage!

  19. Joseph says:

    Tony, if I may ask, why did you hide your identity in the first place? Either way, congrats on the speaking and good luck to you.

    • Joseph says:

      And how did the people at Reason, or who ever was consulting Reason, know your name?

      • _Jim says:

        Anybody who has made a donation to this site, at least using PayPal, would become aware of SG’s real name … it would have ultimately come out, as it did, but this was not ‘rocket science’ as the saying goes. I would not be mentioning this but for the fact that Tony has gone public with ‘the reveal’ and it is irrelevant now …

  20. Andy Oz says:

    Bonjour Steven (Tony)
    I’ll still use your nom de plume if you don’t mind. Go get em at the Heartland conference. Wish I was there for it. Hopefully there will be some audiovisual presentations on line or on YouTube.

    Something strange has happened here in Australia since Al Gore’s visit. With the repeal of the carbon tax (passed yesterday in the lower house, in senate in July) all the climate stories, CO2 catastrophe stories and extreme weather stories have disappeared from the news. It’s like all the oxygen has just been sucked out of the Greens and the Australian media has moved on. The calm after the storm has passed.
    I’m loving it. One day you guys will have this too.

    • Bill Pounder says:

      Double cheers from Oz for your champion effort.

    • omanuel says:

      Congratulations, Andy!

    • Eric Simpson says:

      Yes, congrats on the repeal of the carbon tax! Huge. I remember when they rammed that carbon tax through. It seemed similar to what they did with Obamacare here, just sticking it to the public at large that clearly didn’t want it.

    • Jimmy Haigh. says:

      Nice. For what it’s worth… I’ll post this on Facebook. I have a few re-posters…

    • Leon says:

      I’m not so sure we will have it, ever.
      I have been following the situation in Australia for years. If y’all (forgive my slang) have actually slayed the dragon, then congratulations.
      I don’t drink beer, but if I was in Australia, I would definitely make an exception.

      • Andy Oz says:

        Had 1 or 3 last night. Drinking beer is part of the Visa requirements for visiting Australia. If you have trouble, I can show you how it’s done!
        Your shout of course. 😀

    • Gail Combs says:


      Just be careful they do not manage to sneak a carbon dioxide tax back in. I have seen them go quiet on a subject the people have said HE!! NO!! about. The media then goes silent and what do you know? Congress slips the same law in as a one liner attached to another law a few years later and you never hear a peep from the media.

    • Streetcred says:

      … not to mention the ass falling out of the temperature and record snowfalls … just like the old days !

      Love your work, Tony (one to another) … keep at it. Don’t mind your political stuff either, one doesn’t have to read it but it helps feeling better 😉

    • John DeFayette says:

      So Al was present at the beginning of the Next Great Human Calamity. Original research in Australia now shows that human activity is sucking the oxygen out of the planet’s air. The UN has set up a new burocracy to tackle the problem.

      News at eleven.

  21. Richard says:

    Wow, that is some cv!! I think you will have even more impact now you have outed yourself.

  22. Kent Clizbe says:



    You’ve got the facts on your side. Research. Data. Clear analysis.

    Keep it coming, brother!

    And don’t let the whiners crying about “politics” get to you.

    The Global Warming scam is pure politics. The cultists entire “science” is built on “doing something.” All of the cult leaders focus on the government actions required to restrict economic activity, energy usage, and the general standing of America in the world.

    You are uniquely qualified to mix the two–science data/analysis and the political.

    Present your data and analysis, but do not shy away from the political implications.

    Thanks for all you do.

    • annieoakley says:

      The Leftists are responsible for politicizing weather/climate . Yikes! Thunder! Gotta go cover my veggies. Also the libs/lefties have absolutely made every damn thing as political as possible. (Still want to know how you don’t heat your home.)

    • Jimmy Haigh. says:

      Facts are all we have.

  23. Eric Barnes says:

    Thanks for all of your efforts Steven.

  24. nigelf says:

    You’ve raised your head above the foxhole, now the incoming will greatly increase.
    Stay strong and keep fighting the good fight. Good luck in Vegas.

  25. sunsettommy says:

    Thank you for your hard work and support of the environment and your tireless effort to inject sanity in the climate debate.

  26. thumbs up Tony. Let the truth prevail what ever it is.

  27. Kent Clizbe says:

    Political discussion of the facts:


    “Lenar Whitney denounces Global Warming as a myth, designed to give more power to the executive branch, while increasing taxes in a progressive’s dream to regulate every aspect of American life ­ from our lightbulbs to our thermostat.”
    http://www.LenarWhitney.com Conservative for Congress

  28. hpjunior says:

    Tony — You have done yeoman work in this critically important field. Thank you, kind sir.

  29. geran says:

    You deserve all the fame and fortune you can get. Keep up the great effort.

    I like your “alias” also. I don’t even use my “real” alias. 🙂

    (If you ever get time, I would appreciate an email so that I can contact you offline.)

  30. Brad Rollans says:

    Pleasure to make your acquaintance Mr. Heller. Keep up the good work.

  31. Shazaam says:

    Odd isn’t it how engineering professionals generally don’t fall for government propaganda (there’s the occasional useful idiot, but… ) .

    Keep up the fantastic work.

    I may just keep referring to you as “Toto” 😉

    And please, avoid rides in small planes from here on!!

    • _Jim says:

      “Odd isn’t it how engineering professionals generally don’t fall for government propaganda”

      I think generally engineers (old-school ones anyway) don’t take anybody’s word for anything .. you meet some pretty ‘crusty’ types in the practical, applied-science field of engineering. Some of us as kids tore everything given to us to apart to see what made them ‘tick’, much to the chagrin of parents, relatives, neighbors and friends of the family. Later on we could be depended on to fix radios, the TV and even the family car, and later yet still put men on the moon … but that’s old history now …

    • g says:

      Humbug. Cessna airplanes have the best safety record of any aircraft. Except when they’re used to kill people 🙂

      I wish I could leave the Woody Woodpecker laugh as a sound bit!

      well here it is anyway. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3caNrHJ7q1g

  32. Bryan Wiley says:

    Thanks for the reveal Tony.

    Man, I’m truly sorry you’ll have to deal with “fame” for a time. Anonymity has a hella lotta advantages. Good news, it’ll pass and just be a ST hassle – (if you care at all.)

  33. Nice to meet your, Tony. Now that you’ve outed yourself, please prepare yourself for the IRS audit that will surely be coming your way.

    One little quibble: the US has only experienced one hurricane landfall, which was Isaac. Which may not have had hurricane force winds, either, but just below, at landfall. Which three were your referring to?

  34. leftinflagstaff says:

    Churchill’s ‘end of the beginning’ speech just came to mind. Hope that’s accurate.

  35. Tony, thanks for everything you have done so far and good luck in the battles ahead.

    I don’t offer advice to people who use their time and fortune to do more for public good than I do. So let me just say this concerning the political character of your blog: Keep doing what you are doing.

    There are enough of us who know that “climate change” is not a scientific controversy but a political campaign and no amount of wishful thinking can change that.

    Nobody can separate the politics of “climate change” from the rest of the political battles, the protestations of your “liberal” supporters notwithstanding. Besides, the Progressives will drop their “climate change” cause anyway once it’s no longer serving their purposes. They always switch ponies they’d run to death.

  36. Mark Lokowich says:

    “and coming up next, on The View.. Tony H… Look out, Whoopie can be mean!

    • _Jim says:

      Fortunately, she punches far below her weight

      ONLY KIDDING WHOOPI! Loved you in Jumpin’ Jack Flash!


      • philjourdan says:

        Not weight – WAIST:

        “My bush is smarter than that. And if my bush is smarter than that, you can understand just how dumb I think that other bush is. And anyone who would wave to Stevie Wonder is not fully there. I will do whatever it takes to restore bush to its rightful place and that ain’t in the White House. Vote your heart and mind and keep bush where it belongs,” she explained, pointing at her crotch.

  37. Send Al to the Pole says:

    Nice to meet you Tony. Very best wishes to you and your family. Thanks for all you’ve done here.

  38. squid2112 says:

    What ever happens now, I think I speak for many here, we will do our best to “have your back, Jack (Tony/Steven)” … All the very best to you and please keep up the excellent work and keep up the fight! A whole lot of us here are right with you pal!

  39. Theyouk says:

    Please keep going…and don’t let the bastards grind you down.

  40. Wow let’s meet at Mad City or David’s Natural Market. They know me as Big John. You might be interested in what we are doing at: https://sites.google.com/site/futureofenergyinitiative/home. Best

  41. Harry V. Winsor says:

    To get a better idea of the real science of climate, see William F. Ruddiman’s papers and books, especially “Plows, Plagues and Petroleum”, in which he surfaces his conclusion that mankind has been warming the average climate of the northern hemisphere for about five to eight thousand years, “Earth’s Climate: Past and Future”, which presents the details of how climate research is carried out, and his newest book, “Earth Transformed”, which delves into great detail on how the conclusion he wrote about in the first book can be argued (supported and attacked) now, over 10 years since its birth. A brief summary with further links is available at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Ruddiman .

    • Gail Combs says:

      AHHHhhh yes,
      “….the Ruddiman hypothesis [Ruddiman, W., 2003. The Anthropogenic Greenhouse Era began thousands of years ago. Climate Change 61, 261–293], which proposes that early anthropogenic greenhouse gas emission prevented the inception of a glacial that would otherwise already have started….” ~ Lesson from the past: present insolation minimum holds potential for glacial inception (2007)

      And we had better hope and pray Ruddiman was correct because the other option is descent into glaciation.

      Interesting how the Warmists always seem to ignore this point. Anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions aren’t causing a Catastrophic Warming they are just keeping the earth from a Catastrophic DROP into Glaciation that is if Ruddiman and several others are correct.

      • _Jim says:

        For those interested, an illustrated paper:

        By William F. Ruddiman

        A bold new hypothesis suggests that our ancestors’
        farming practices kicked off global warming thousands
        of years before we started burning coal and driving cars


      • Brian H says:

        All hooey; man doesn’t control CO2 levels, and they don’t control climate. Just part of the noise, not the signal.

        • Gail Combs says:

          Brian, Ruddiman may be hooey, but his paper is a great one to dump on warmists.

          Think about it. His message is we nasty humans are the ones that have prevented descent into the next ice age that would already have occurred if not for us SUV driving Americans.

          Some where I even have a quote from Joe Romm accepting the Ruddiman Hypothesis.

          Now take it a step further. If you look at the Holocene compared to the other interglacials, the Holocene has had a very level climate. graph 140,000 yrs Vostok

          graph 400,000 yrs

          The bottom line is MANKIND ARE HEROES, we saved the day, or interglacial or whatever.

          This is NOT the message the Warmists want to hear.

      • philjourdan says:

        NYC and Chicago were buried under ice. So some good came from the previous one.

    • _Jim says:

      Ruddiman Slide show – demonstrating how we have saved ourselves from an ice age by releasing CO2

      Slide format by Blake Earl

  42. tom0mason says:

    Hi Tony/Steven,
    For what it’s worth to me it doesn’t matter a hoot what your name is, what I am worried about is whether ‘Real Science’ blog put publishes good honest stories. So far your output has been ‘on the money’, uncovering and publicizing the wasting of public money.

    You are performing a much needed public service, keep up the good work.

  43. Hope you don’t mind if I ask for your Steve Goddard autograph in Vegas.

  44. kbray in california says:

    Opening up to the public will facilitate the avenues for new job offers.
    Your talents are very valuable.

    Nothing wrong with continuing to use a pen name however…

    Nice to meet you Tony Heller aka Steven Goddard.

  45. Eliza says:

    Yes Thank you very much. You will go down in history as probably THE PERSON to really nail the hoax. The other efforts have “caved in” or acquiesced to the mantra, they have not taken it on as they should have. Of course you will now find a much hardening of attitudes by the lukewarmers sites such as WUWT ect. The sequence is:Believer, Skeptic, Denier Im sure they will all go through this eventually as climate rolls along merrily LOL

  46. Dave G says:

    What everyone has said! but I’m still calling you Steve

  47. Bob Koss says:

    Hi! Tony.

    Might be better off not mentioning your are an environmentalist too often. People might get the wrong idea. Better to call yourself a conservationist.

    • omanuel says:

      Tony, aka Steven, seems to be an idealist, like many other skeptics of lock-step consensus propaganda disguised as science.

    • Sparks says:

      Does it surprise you that “man made global warming” skeptical people have environmental credentials and are qualified to have an opinion? Duh! lol 🙂

      • Leon says:

        Based upon my conversations with him, I have accused him of being a hippie.

        That in no way diminishes my respect for him. He is definitely not cut from the mold of a traditional conservative, and that is a positive quality as far as I am concerned.

        As noted in his own personal description in this post, he has also fought for liberal causes that he believed in, that is a somewhat unique and enviable quality.

        • geran says:

          Based on Tony’s (Steven’s) posts that regularly pointed out the hypocrisies of the Left, he is not a “traditional” hippie, either. But, all of us fans hope to get to know him as well as you, Leon, and thanks for helping the cause by helping Tony Heller.

        • Gail Combs says:

          “If you are not a liberal at twenty, you have no heart and if you are not conservative at thirty, you have no brain.”

          I was a member of Greenpeace and Sierra Club at a tender young age and often spending time hauling trash out of the woods.

          Beware those who try to stereotype Conservatives as uncaring money grubbers. Nothing is further from the truth.

  48. Joseph says:


    I’ve commented on this thread probably 4 times now, sorry for the abundance of posts, but I am very excited for you. This is a great blog and I hope you keep up the good work.

  49. Jimmy Haigh. says:

    You are a good lad-whatever you are called.

  50. catweazle666 says:

    Judging by the amount of flak being directed in your direction Tony, you’re getting very near the target indeed, and it seems it’s quite a juicy one.

    Keep up the good work.

    And – to stick with the metaphor – watch your six!

  51. Andy_E says:

    Thanks Steve/Tony for your informative and entertaining blog.

    I’m sure most of your readers would miss it if you cut out the sarcasm.

    I know some say sarcasm is the lowest form of wit, but with true believers you are often dealing with the witless and in such cases you have to aim low in the, sometimes vain, hope that they will eventually see through the smoke and mirrors and get the message that much of what is trumpeted as climate “science” is anything but scientific, but just one of the most successful, and lucrative of money making scams.

    • Theyouk says:

      Andy_E–Agreed! We’re living in an age in which people can’t handle directness and ridicule. It’s pitiful. This blog aims squarely at that notion and blasts a hole in it. Refreshing, to say the least–and critical for the survival of society. Tony’s willing to tell the Emperor he has no clothes–or to sarcastically tell him his skirt has holes in it.

    • Andy Oz says:

      +1 Andy_E
      That’s why I like George Carlin and Steven Goddard.

  52. markstoval says:


    Just like I know Mark Twain’s real name but continue to think of him as Twain, so I will also think of you as Steve Goddard. I always loved how you picked “Goddard” by the way.

    You have the Watts crowd as well as the Team upset — good for you!

    Warmest Regards, Mark

  53. copernicus34 says:

    I’m proud of you
    —-Silence DoGood 🙂

  54. Chuck says:


    Since I have found your blog I have been addicted to it. You have a great sense of humor and you mentor people with curious minds who challenge the status quo. I hope you continue to inform us with your work. If ever back in NM, I’d be happy to buy you a beer and pick your brain a little bit.

  55. Keitho says:

    Well done Steve.

    I hope the bumps with Anthony are over and we are all going the same way again.

    Take care.

  56. B.C. says:

    As someone else mentioned above, prepare for a colonoscopy of Biblical proportions from the IRS, brother. Hopefully Mr. Watts and you will be able to overcome the current schism and, somehow, manage to get the unvarnished truth to defeat the greatest scam and power grab in the history of the planet.

    On a side note, I saw some of the best concerts at the Merriweather Post Pavillion in Columbia, when I worked at a certain large facility located between Baltimore and The Whorehouse on the Potomac.
    Keep up the great work, keep your head on a swivel and let us know if you need a place to hide. 😉

  57. GeologyJim says:

    Best wishes for success/prosperity on your new project in Maryland. I’m really glad I got to meet you in the People’s Republic of Boulder and share a few laughs over the Trenberth diatribe.

    I still owe you a beer.

    I admire both you and Anthony Watts for your analyses of the facts of these matters – and for the passion you bring to the discussion. The current disagreement will pass. I think Watts is just more circumspect about being perceived as “political”, whereas you are more willing to speak openly about the incontrovertably political forces at play behind “climate science”.

    Good luck in all you do.

    • John Greenfraud says:

      Thank God you’re here and willing to speak up. Most people have been laughing at the doom-and-gloom crowd for years and time eventualy exposes these nut-jobs for what they are, however, this global warming nonsense has become a state sponsored religion. Your blog has been an invaluable resource.

  58. Steve C says:

    Well, “a rose by any other name”, as they say. I read your blog for your level-headed commentary, not just to support a fellow Steve (despite it being a great and powerful name – thanks, Colorado Wellington!). Good luck now “they” know where to aim, and I look forward to more good reading in the future.

  59. Ima Skepticidal says:

    Thanks for your work, you bring lots to light that needs to be discussed.

  60. Leon says:


    I have never asked you to do anything for me. I now have a request: If possible, I would like you to make this the first comment on this post, and keep it there.

    Well said, Tony, and congratulations.

    I am fortunate to have met Tony, albeit by telephone conversations only. Those of you who have not had the pleasure of talking to him might be surprised when you get that opportunity. Unlike his internet persona, on a personal level he is soft-spoken and unassuming. He is obviously very passionate about his work.

    His passion, however, comes at a very substantial price. Tony will not tell you this, so I will: I met Tony shortly after he lost his job, presumably due to the fact that his employer found out who he was and the positions he was taking on global warming. Tony did not seem to be particularly distraught because he is confident and excellent at his profession, having received commendations for his work from some of the largest information technology companies in the world.

    Interviews after losing his job consistently ended in very positive tones, but surprisingly, job offers were not forthcoming. It is not known, but it may well be that he was rejected because of his “politically-incorrect” work on the internet. Tony was down to the point that the only way he was surviving financially was through some very meager donations to him and his site.

    Despite what you have read from those well-funded people on the other side of the argument, funding is very scarcely available to most of those who are up front in the effort to confront the Catastrophic Global Warming scare. Until that fact changes, they are doing it out of compassion at extraordinary personal sacrifice.

    We can bring this to a stop, with virtually no sacrifice.


    If Tony and others like him are ultimately successful, it will be the best money you will ever spend. Period.

  61. Andy DC says:

    Hi Tony and nice to meet you. I love your blog, your sense of humor and all the incredible data provided here that literally crushes with entire AGW notion along with their fruadulent claims. Glad you are here in MD and would look forward to meeting you.

    I have mixed feelings about the politicization of your blog, but can’t really fault it since the issue has become so politically polarized. At least we have one of the two major politcal parties largely on our side and we are obviously not going to get too far with liberal Democrats. But your message transcends politics and should also appeal to open minded liberals and moderates as well.
    The facts are still the facts to anyone capable of rational thought.

  62. Pete J says:

    On my top 2 favorite blog sites, I find Real Science very informative and entertaining. It’s the highlight of my day!

    Thanx Tony/Steve.

  63. Sundance says:

    Tony (I knew real ID for awhile) you are just one of these types that comes to a fork in the road and would rather take the 15% uphill grade to the right over the flatlands to the left. It’s harder but it defines you. Your character reminds me of a guy I studied when I was a lot younger, who was in jail. His mentor showed up to visit him one day and asked him why he chose to go to jail. The student poet/philosopher replied to his mentor “Why did you not?”

    I have enjoyed witnessing your courage (and especially your stubbornness) from the beginning. It seems like only yesterday that you were a fledgling blogger who’s traffic surpassed Real Climate’s blog traffic for the first time. Now you’re so big you’ve pissed off everyone. 😉

    Congrats and good luck with that 15% grade you’ve chosen.

  64. 2cents says:

    Thanks for the article. What do you think of the next twenty to thirty years? I have read articles describing a potential cooling trend because of the solar cycle. Does this hold weight when compared to historical analysis?

  65. ducdorleans says:

    Hey, since this is the thread of coming out, I’ll be honest too … I’m not really the “Duc d’Orleans”, a character in another big scam of John Laws, Louisianas, gold, and other fiat moneys …

    what does it matter anyway ?

    just a few thoughts … it is not really, at not in my world, about liberals and conservatives … about left and right … I can hardly call my circle of friends “liberal”, or “left”, or even “left leaning” … still most of them believe in CAGW … CATASTROPHIC warming of our planet, caused by us, Westerners … what a great example of “marketing” ! …

    there’s no doubt earth has warmed since the late 18th, beginning of the 19th century … just look at the glaciers in Glacier Bay, or the Glacier Blanc at the Massif des Ecrins …

    but is it unprecedented recently ? … no ! … look at the temperature in De Bilt since the 1700s at “knmi.nl”, or at the retreat of the Glacier Blanc at “ecrins-parcnational.fr” (search for “glaciers”) …

    is it catastrophical recently ? … well, that answer remains in dubio … it isn’t if we look at all the progress we made since Neanderthal … it might become if we follow the greenish trend in Western societies since they would like us to return to the era BEFORE the Neanderthal, when we were walking on feet AND hands …

    anyway, I can’t remember whether I did it already, but if I didn’t it is long overdue … just hit the donate button with a small amount …

    thanks for the site Steven … and keep up the good work !

  66. frederik wisse says:

    tony how and where are we able to make a donation ?Your investigations are very valuable and are confirming the thoughts that were on my mind ever since your country elected a new president whose iceology failed to give me any warm feelings to put it mildly, Real science should not be a governmental affair , since a civil servant is expected to obey orders and an independent mind is fully opposite of this position . It is a pleasant surprise to have an independent mind like yours checking the system and to demonstrate the discrepancies caused by the official party-line.
    Be prepared that bullying can be your fate and gratefulness will be a rare item .

  67. I. Lou Minotti says:

    As one who is a novice in the realm of climate science (about 2 years, more or less), I’ve found Real Science to be an invaluable resource in my understanding. Thank you, Steve.

  68. Dan_Kurt says:

    I found the Reason article that outed Steven Goddard as being Tony Heller: Did NASA/NOAA Dramatically Alter U.S. Temperatures After 2000? , http://reason[DOT]com/blog/2014/06/23/did-nasanoaa-dramatically-alter-us-tempe
    by Ronald Bailey

    Anthony Watts really does a hatchet job on our Steven. I ask Steven Goddard to do a rebuttal to Watts. Publish it here on Real Science and offer it to Reason as well but I doubt if they will publish it unedited. Keep your defense available on the first page of Real Science as a hot spot indefinitely. Fight Back!

    Steven, you must publish a point by point rejoinder as silence on your part will be taken as Watts being correct about you and your positions.

    Dan Kurt

  69. Stephen Richards says:

    I have commented at WUWT that Anthony’s behaviour is unacceptable. He completely missed the point of Steve’s work and then went on to denigrate it. Now, let me say that I admire everyone of the sceptic blog operators. It is a difficult and time consuming task. I believe I have understood Steve’s work well enough just by reading the title so why this outrage at WUWT? It seemed almost as if Steve trod on Anthony’s toes and I wondered over there if WUWT was trying to maintain a backdoor relationship with NOAA/NASA. I have never found your work anything other than informative if not a bit OTT.
    Keep going if you can. This episode may well be a crossroad in your life leading to greater more interesting work.

  70. Stephen Richards says:

    Don’t respond to bric-bracs they lead only to mud throwing and loss of communications.

  71. Eric Simpson says:

    You know what, if you had to pick a nom de plume, “Steven Goddard” was perfect for this situation. Same with the domain name. Good job!

  72. shempus says:

    Thanks for all the great work Tony.

  73. Now that your real name is out (it has been for a while for some of us) hopefully we can see you on TV with lots of arts and charts. A few appearances on some news shows with links where the high school geeks can get a hold of your software would help them start acting like a force multiplier. A few of them might be able to crowd source new projects, present some new facts and and help make it cool to be a skeptic in the younger crowd (I was that way in High School). Critical thinking, being able to do math, and going against the established mantra was very cool when I grew up.

  74. SDB says:

    Hi Tony,

    I posted a few times disagreeing with some of your other commenters on economic issues. Since you have education in electrical engineering, the analogy in this post might speak to you:

    Thanks again for the work you do here. I’m very much looking forward to you and your work getting more media attention.

  75. kim2ooo says:


    David Appel will go nuts ” 🙂

    Keep up the great work, please.

  76. Quinn the Eskimo says:

    I confess I’m not really Quinn the Eskimo either.

    Why would you take the politics out when the other side are the ones that put it in? Otmar Edenhofer, Co-Chair of WGIII of the IPCC said:

    “The climate summit in Cancun at the end of the month is not a climate conference, but one of the largest economic conferences since the Second World War. … But one must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy. Obviously, the owners of coal and oil will not be enthusiastic about this. One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore, with problems such as deforestation or the ozone hole.”


    Be like Mr. Natural, Keep on Trucking…

  77. Dave Day says:

    I left a comment at WUWT on Watt’s first response to this issue. I stated that I was very disappointed that Anthony would shower us with a lengthy diatribe that completely missed the point which is that the corrections always warm the present and cool the past. I also told him it was immature when he has the most read climate website in the world to tiptoe around and spread his anger toward you via comments on other blogs and emails. I just went back to see if there was any response, and my comment was not there. When I left yesterday it was awaiting moderation. I have read you regularly for years but never commented here before. I am retired and have a quite small pension but I’ll see what I can do to support you. Might only by a weekly glass of Chardonnay…..

    Thanks for your efforts on our behalf.


  78. Kevin Paul Wright says:

    Tony/Steve…Just keep up the put downs…brilliant.

  79. Aphan says:

    Nice to meet you Tony 🙂

  80. Billy Liar says:

    But … but … but … Dorothy?!

  81. Jimmy Haigh. says:

    May I add.. I personally planted over one million trees – yes – one million… in Scotland – in the ’80’s and ’90’s. Since then “they” cut a lot of them down to “plant” “wind turbines”…

    • Jimmy Haigh. says:

      Can I also add that I used the money I earned planting trees to finance my University studies in Geology – and that the knowledge gained there has since being employed in my career as a hydrocarbon resource discoverer and exploiter… To the benefit of every frickin’ warm-monger on the planet… That’s what pisses me off.

      • Gail Combs says:

        I for one say THANK YOU.

        What these idiots do not seem to realize is that the alternative to energy via organic or radioactive chemicals is slave power. (PETA took care of getting rid of animal power)

      • You go, Jimmy!

      • Sparks says:

        Same scenario here jimmy I volunteered for the CVNI (funded by Shell) while doing my electrical engineering apprenticeship, luckily the trees I’ve planted are still there, most likely because they are not owned by the ‘national trust’ and used as a comity such as bio-fuel and “carbon offsets” in the name of cagw. good on ya jimmy 🙂

  82. kompani101 says:

    ‘The claims of 97% consensus are a massive lie. Only 52% of American Meteorological Society members believe that man is the primary contributor to global warming.’

    Wrong: It is 97% of the worlds climatologists. There are more countries on our planet than just America. Your statement is factually incorrect as it is not matching like with like. Not very scientific of you and a little dishonest.

    • Jimmy Haigh. says:

      What do you do for a living mate? Who pays your bills?

    • _Jim says:

      I like your authoritative, accurate, verified, cross-checked, duplicable, repeatable and able-to-review-the-methodology cite there too kompani101.

      No, wait – there was no cite, nothing was cross-checked, the ‘data’ wan’t verified nor is it verifiable and no one has repeated the survey


    • Chip Bennett says:

      Wrong: It is 97% of the worlds climatologists.

      Wrong. It was 97% of a 64-sample subset of a collection of almost 12,000 white papers – and that 97% included explicit endorsement with (43 papers) and without quantification, as well as implicit endorsement. That consensus even includes authors who outright refute that their studies support the consensus claim.

    • Do you know the word for what Chip just did to you, kompani101?

    • Gail Combs says:

      Yeah, Right.
      10,257 surveys sent out
      3,145 surveys returned
      77 “Scientists” hand picked from the 3,145 who responded
      75 of who answered Yes

      Comments made by the scientists surveyed:

      “..scientific issues cannot be decided by a vote of scientists. A consensus is not, at any given time, a good predictor of where the truth actually resides..”

      “..I’m not sure what you are trying to prove, but you will undoubtably be able to prove your pre-existing opinion with this survey! I’m sorry I even started it!..”

    • Leon says:


      I will admit that I don’t know how many climate scientists there are in the world. For that matter, I don’t even know what a “Climate Scientist” is, and I am not sure anyone else does, either.

      It is my understanding that there are 14,000 members of the American Meteorological Society. If they are “Climate Scientists” and 48% of them are not members of the “97% Consensus” that means that there would have to be 224,000 other “Climate Scientists” in the world and every single one of them would have to be a member of the “97% Consensus” for the math to work.

      Like I said, I don’t know how many “Climate Scientists” there are in the world. Hell, for all the money that has been thrown towards the “Consensus Scientists”, there may be millions of them.

      But there are other problems with the math, some of which are as follows:

      Peer-Reviewed Survey Finds Majority Of Scientists Skeptical Of Global Warming Crisis: “Only 36% of geoscientists & engineers believe that humans are creating a global warming crisis”, according to a survey reported in the peer-reviewed Organization Studies. “By contrast, a strong majority of the 1,077 respondents believe nature is primary cause of recent global warming and/or that future global warming will not be a very serious problem.”

      An independent poll of members of the Geological Society of Australia (conducted in 2010) showed that a majority (53% of 626 members who responded) did not agree with the Society’s position statement. The Executive then agreed to withdraw that statement from the Society’s website, but by then it had been picked up by other websites and continues to be freely available…Subsequently, the GSA “declared itself unable to publish a position statement on climate change due to the deep divisions within its membership on the issue. After more than five years of debate and two false starts, Geological Society of Australia president Laurie Hutton said a statement on climate change was too difficult to achieve.

      Fifty-one thousand Canadian engineers, geologists, and geophysicists were recently polled by their professional organization. Sixty-eight percent of them disagree with the statement that “the debate on the scientific causes of recent climate change is settled.” Only 26% attributed global warming to “human activity like burning fossil fuels.” APEGGA’s executive director Neil Windsor said, “We’re not surprised at all. There is no clear consensus of scientists that we know of.”

      In 2009, the world’s largest science group, the American Chemical Society (ACS) was “startled” by an outpouring of scientists rejecting man-made climate fears, with many calling for the removal of the ACS’s climate activist editor.

      For the “97% Consensus to work, we will need those millions of “Climate Scientists”.

      I have observed the well-funded “Consensus Scientists” walk in lock-step for the past 16 years. There is a reason that they are walking in lock-step, and Science has nothing to do with it.

      What has happened between “Steven Goddard” and Anthony Watts recently (despite what some participants in this blog feel), is in my opinion the way Science should work. Scientists should question each others work, and at time argue vehemently about their opposing opinions.

      When have the lockstep-believers done this? When have any of them even stepped out-of line. Very, very rarely. Too rarely.

      I can give you one example however, and it goes to the point. Professor Mike Hulme of the University of East Anglia (ever heard of that?), who is firmly entrenched as a global warming believer has made the following statements:

      Mike Hulme, Professor of Climate Change: “The “97% consensus” article is poorly conceived, poorly designed and poorly executed. It obscures the complexities of the climate issue and it is a sign of the desperately poor level of public and policy debate in this country that the energy minister (of Great Britain) should cite it. It seems to me that these people are still living (or wishing to live) in the pre-2009 (pre-climate gate) world of climate change discourse.” OOPS!

      With regard to the “Consensus of the 2500 World Leading Climate Scientists” he said the following:

      Mike Hulme: Professor of Climate Change, School of Environmental Sciences, University of East Anglia: “Claims such as ‘2,500 of the world’s leading scientists have reached a consensus that human activities are having a significant influence on the climate’ are disingenuous. That particular consensus judgment, as are many others in the IPCC reports, is reached by ONLY A FEW DOZEN experts in the specific field of detection and attribution studies.”

      And, speaking of honesty, you live in a very fragile glass house. Your leaders are making the following statements:


      Former Senator Timothy Wirth: “What we did… was went in (the Senate Meeting Room) the night before (Hansen’s testimony) and opened all the windows, I will admit, right? So that the air conditioning wasn’t working inside the room and so when the, when the hearing occurred there was not only bliss, which is television cameras in double figures, but it was really hot. …So Hansen’s giving this testimony, you’ve got these television cameras back there heating up the room, and the air conditioning in the room didn’t appear to work. So it was sort of a perfect collection of events that happened that day, with the wonderful Jim Hansen, who was wiping his brow at the witness table and giving this remarkable testimony (about Global Warming).”

      And more from Senator Wirth: “We’ve got to ride the global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong.”

      Dr. Phil Jones, Director of Research of East Anglia University Climate Research Unit on the political approach to Global Warming Science: : “WHY SHOULD I MAKE THE DATA AVAILABLE TO YOU, WHEN YOUR AIM IS TO TRY AND FIND SOMETHING WRONG WITH IT.”

      Stephen Schneider, lead IPCC author, 1989: “We have to offer up scary scenarios… each of us has to decide the right balance between being effective and being honest.”

      Are these the kind of people you want to put your faith in?

      You should not throw rocks because you cannot win an honest debate.

      • Eric Simpson says:

        Leon, your post is outstanding. I plan to read it to my warmist brother that, whenever he gets into trouble in his arguments with me on agw, he never fails to point out that “98% of climate scientists agree.” What a load of bs.

      • Gail Combs says:

        Leon, Your comment is very much a keeper. Well worth keeping a pointer to it.

    • kim2ooo says:

      Wrong: It is 97% of the worlds climatologists.

      HA HA HA HA!!!!

    • philjourdan says:

      Except in the Doran Zimmerman claim, only 77 were counted – last I checked there are about 200 countries, so that is not even 1 per country.

      And the Cook study was also the same. Except they decided to toss out all the “neutrals”, thus invalidating any possible scientific value.

      So your 97% is a fraud. Just like you.

  83. Llanero says:

    I thought your real name was Judy Garland

  84. RossP says:

    Hi Steve

    Given your training in geology and especially electrical engineering you should ( when you have time) pop over to Jo Nova’s blog and look at the new Solar Model David Evans has developed to counter the CO2 models. They are releasing the details in bite size bits ( blog posts) to help people understand it bit by bit.

  85. Brian G Valentine says:

    Good for you.

    I have worked as an engineer for the Government for nearly thirty years in the areas of energy conservation and renewable energy. I teach these subjects at night at the University of Maryland. I think these are great things to promote, but they cannot be promoted based on fallacy.

    I hope that people who know that “man made climate change” is junk science will speak out (esp. Government employees and professors); I consider it an obligation.

    If people don’t speak out “climate denialism” could become another Falun Gong in Red China and I am not kidding around

    • Leon says:

      If you work for the government, you obviously have not received the memos:

      Please check your in box next time you are at the office:

      U.S. Interior Secretary Jewell: “I hope there are no climate change deniers in the Department of Interior.”.

      U.S. Secretary of Energy Ernest Moniz makes it clear there is no room for dissent regarding climate change: Speaking to his department’s employees after he was sworn in, Moniz said: “Let me make it very clear that there is no ambiguity in terms of the scientific basis calling for a prudent response on climate change. I am not interested in debating what is not debatable.”

      President Obama: “We don’t have time for a meeting of the flat-Earth society.”

      Secretary of State John Kerry: ‘‘We should not allow a tiny minority of shoddy scientists and science and extreme ideologues to compete with scientific facts. The science is unequivocal, and those who refuse to believe it are simply burying their heads in the sand. We don’t have time for a meeting anywhere of the Flat Earth Society,’’

      • Brian G Valentine says:

        Anybody not interested in debating it would not be assumed to have a good argument working for them.

  86. Sparks says:

    Frigging amazing twist. I’m getting all emotional and everything… lmao! good on ya Tony 🙂

  87. sabretoothed says:

    You still have the best blog I think keep up the good work!

  88. sabretoothed says:

    The same thing happened in the 1930s, Charle’s Darwin’s son ran around the world saying we were all going to end if we didn’t do the consensus science of Eugenics, history repeats itself




  89. ntesdorf says:

    Thank you Steve, thank you Tony! Keep up the great work so we can read the truth every day, somewhere, at least. Your work is now getting the Media attention that it deserves.

  90. Brian G Valentine says:

    “Is climate change real?”

    As far as recorded history goes, it is as real as failure of memory or knowledge is real.

  91. Ben Davidson says:

    Tony, thank you. I run the Suspicious0bservers YouTube channel and find your work to be invaluable. From all 185,000 observers: thank you.

  92. Justin says:

    Keep up the good work Tony. Love the info on this blog. I lived in Santa Fe and spent alot of time in the Santa Fe National Forest also. What a beautiful place!

  93. gregole says:


    Awesome blog – time is short right now, but just wanted to drop in and say how much I am looking forward to your presentation at the 9th International Climate Conference in Las Vegas.


    Panel 9. Communicating Climate Change: The Blogosphere
    Media bias has forced global warming skeptics to turn to the Internet to share discoveries
    and express their views. Three prominent bloggers share inside tips, stories, and advice.
    Craig Rucker, CFACT- Moderator
    Marc Morano, Climate Depot
    Tony Heller, Real Science
    Russell Cook

  94. Poptech says:

    I am disappointed to hear that you are an environmentalist.

    • I stopped calling myself one too. Someone might get the wrong idea. I actually DO care about the environment!

      • Brian G Valentine says:

        I couldn’t blame anybody who would reject being called anything Robert Redford calls himself.

        • Gail Combs says:

          I switched to Conservationist years ago to distinguish myself from the Eco-nuts. I use Animal welfare to differentiate from Animal Rights. Animals are non-reasoning and have NO RIGHTS. Giving animals “Rights” is a method of demoting humans to surf status.

  95. omanuel says:

    Tony (aka Steven)

    I was 73 years old when Climategate emails surfaced in late Nov 2009. My decision to enter the battle was made after reflecting on these verses from the Bhagavad Gita:

    “Having made yourself alike in pain and pleasure, profit and loss, victory and defeat, engage in this great war and you will be freed from sin, Arjuna.”

    Having made that decision, I will fear nobody. Any sign of fear would only encourage the bullies that tyranize society and make me useless in the battle.

  96. Larry Fields says:

    Sundance says:
    June 27, 2014 at 6:44 pm
    “Tony (I knew real ID for awhile) you are just one of these types that comes to a fork in the road and would rather take the 15% uphill grade to the right over the flatlands to the left.”

    Baseball great Yogi Berra also had something to say about that:
    “When you come to a fork in the road, take it.”

  97. lapogus says:

    Steve / Tony – thanks for all your work over the years, and please don’t stop now. I don’t always agree with your more political stuff, but hey, it is your blog, and it is a free world (in theory at least).

    p.s. I can vouch for Jimmy having planted a million or so trees in the 80s and 90s, and that many of them have recently been cut down so they could build a hideous and inefficient wind farm. The wind turbines generated only 14% of their base plate capacity in it’s first year, and also killed two hen harriers. But hey-ho, the people in the cities think the wind turbines look nice and also make free electricity…


    close up of one of the strings under construction: http://www.laganconstruction.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/Griffin-Aerial-Shot.jpg

    • powderslider says:

      So sorry to hear about that wind farm. We have them where I live and they are tragic from a variety of perspectives. The first thing that the province did was to remove our municipalities right to object to them with legislation intended to ‘save’ the planet. (centrist, fascist, socialism). The next thing was to reward the investors (Suncor, BP, Shell) with huge feed in tariffs. (a transfer of wealth from taxpayers to oil companies). Then we realized, as you noted, the energy delivered was pathetic, and variable. And finally the reward for all of this to our community? Ongoing, never ending, fantastic increases in electricity prices.

    • squid2112 says:

      Boy, what a gorgeous landscape destroyed by the eyesore of bird beaters. Shame…

  98. jeremy says:

    Steve thank you for fighting for the real skeptics to have an even playing field against the agwers and the phony skeptics. Even though they don’t play fair, you have the truth on your side and that is a powerfull weapon against the liars and decievers, we need more people like you. Thank you!

  99. delrumple says:

    Why stop with the Weather?

  100. Chad Bergen says:

    Notice Tony’s resume is that of a real scientist whereas Anthony Watts’ is “I dropped out of electrical engineering and got a job as a weatherman
    and now blog
    about the real science
    behind climate change.”

    Notice the utter lack of scientific credentials associated with Watts?

    Notice how Watts is an electric car company owner and manager who sells cars?



    That’s right, Watts sells cars. He’s a CAR salesman.

    He and his friends own and run ZEV2GO Electric Cars which they sell on E-Bay.

    (ZEV means zero emissions vehicle, Watts and friends developed and peddle the cars from a site on E-bay where he schmoozes he’s the most honest car salesman on E-bay. Go check it out)

    Watts is a ridiculous and a revolting little man, and is the original Magic Gas believing simpleton systematically outing actual scientists

    from his position as a car salesman/tv weather man/blogger.

    • squid2112 says:

      B I N G O !

    • Ric Werme says:

      IIRC, Anthony told me he was getting out of the electric car business during the Washington ICCC a couple years ago. Part of it was CARB (California’s Air Resource Board?) requirement that each model needed to be tested for emissions, a ridiculous requirement in the first and an killer financial drain given the size of the market.

      I can’t find any references on E-Bay (my E-Bay foo is sorely lacking) and everything else I see is at least a couple years old.

      He does drive an electric car, and (can you believe this!) he uses LED lighting at home. Isn’t it a pity that someone skeptical about CO2 actually lowers his production anyway?

      • geran says:

        Anthony Watts gets to comment here regularly, with NO censorship. Here, you can even use words like “fraud” and “phony”.

        Werme, go back and ask Watts if there is any significance to this.

    • kbray in california says:

      Neither Steve Jobs nor Bill Gates officially earned a college diploma.
      Intelligence doesn’t come from a degree or letters added before or after your name.
      Anthony Watts is very gifted with an excellent brain and his private businesses are successful. I have known him since the late 1970’s.
      Chad Bergen, your comments are out of line and incorrect.
      Chad Bergen, you are a troll.

      • geran says:

        kbray, do you have any evidence of Jobs and Gates censoring science? Did they try to control science, or develop science? There is a big difference.

        • kbray in california says:

          Anthony Watts admits his mistake. Check out:


          “All of that added up to a big heap of confirmation bias, I was so used to Goddard being wrong, I expected it again, but this time Steve Goddard was right and my confirmation bias prevented me from seeing that there was in fact a real issue in the data and that NCDC has dead stations that are reporting data that isn’t real: mea culpa.”

          ps: some “key words” automatically put some comments “in moderation” or in the trash.
          Some of mine from the past have gone missing as well. Blogs are labor intensive and some comments can get lost in the fray…

        • Sherry Moore says:

          kbray–Watts “apology” is the most smack a$$ back handed mea culpa I have seen in a long time. I don’t care if Watts sells tampons, but if he is going to stay classy, he better NOT “Mann up” on us and act in such a tacky manner. He had NO right. Quite frankly I am disappointed.

  101. Jose Tomas from Brazil says:

    Your work is immensely important.

    i will set up a tiny monthly donation too, coming from far far away 🙂

    That said, you should really consider monetizing your blog. It has awesome traffic, most money-making bloggers would give a kidney to have your traffic.

    It’s no shame to do that, everybody has bills to pay.

    Look around the skeptic blogosphere to get ideas. Sell gift certificates, organize your best posts into cheap e-books sold by a couple of bucks, sell CAGW related t-shirts / coffee mugs etc. etc. etc.

    And of course, use Google adsense or something similar.

    Put a link to Amazon and recommend books.


    Oh, and get yourself a good accountant to keep this new money well accounted for. You know that IRS must have been at your lawn for a bit, right?

    Keep up you excellent work.

  102. Lawrence13 says:

    I’ve always admired the way Steve /Tony has been fearless, absolutely fearless. I’m sure there were some moments when he possibly felt isolated but he’s never shown it.
    So just to recap as I listen to Chile v Brazil 2nd half extra time.

    Is Anthony now on board after Paul Homewards Texas and now Kansas revelation. Is Curry on board? Are we saying as this is all a whirlwind at the moment that Ste/Tony is correct that Nasa have lied or spun the data (same thing really) . How about McKintyre were they all criticising Steve/Tony for something else?

    Can someone please bring this all up to date? As I really want to say I’d backed the right guy after all.

  103. Lawrence13 says:

    well Judith seemed to be saying she was disappointed that it was Paul Homewood (bound) who influenced a slight change in Anthony. I got up to this part: there was a battle as to who’s analysis was correct and then PH comes in and says that yes just the first station he looks that proves that Nasa/NOOA are lying about the present let alone the past. Are we saying that the data and interpretation has been there all the time and no one has bar you has been able to figure out what nasa are doing.

    1st penalty now I’m off a second.

  104. Lawrence13 says:

    David (shapely Temple) Luiz sinks it.

  105. Lawrence13 says:

    Meant Shirley Temple

  106. Lawrence13 says:

    Sod it Brazil through and so lucky with that shot in the last minute of extra time hitting the woodwork..

    As the commentator said “Gallant Brave Chile”.

  107. Lawrence13 says:

    Sorry Tony this is your thread but I know you like your football.

  108. Chewer says:

    Nice Job Tony, I truly appreciate your hard work and dedication.
    Hopefully the MSM can be further shamed by more widespread news damning their twisted and criminal reporting.

  109. yabbadoody says:

    here’s someone who is offering $10,000 to anyone who can disprove human element in global climate change:


  110. geran says:

    kbray in california says:
    June 28, 2014 at 9:13 pm
    Anthony Watts admits his mistake.
    And, the other mistakes….

  111. Caleb says:

    Thanks for all your hard work, Steve….I mean, Tony. It is incredible to visit your site and see what you produce on a daily basis.

    There are times when the right thing is not the rewarding thing to do. Those who do the right thing in such situations are the real heroes, in my book.

  112. WTFDon'tTheAlarmistsUnderstandAbout"Interglacial"? says:


    It’s my understanding that sea level could rise as much as 6 – 8 feet over the next 100 years.

    Should I put my bed on stilts or will I have time to avoid the onrush of water to avoid drowning suddenly?

  113. Dmh says:

    I’m very please to meet you Tony and, for the record, I declare myself your fan.
    Don’t give up brother, you have a legion of admirers!
    God bless!

  114. Dmh says:

    “The radiative transfer models used by government climate scientists show that going up to 550 PPM or even 1000 PPM CO2 will make minimal difference to the radiative balance of the atmosphere. The knee of the CO2 curve is at about 30 PPM, and additional CO2 has little first order effect.”
    ” Science works through research and debate – not censorship, propaganda, faith, or intimidation.”
    Tony Heller (a.k.a. Steve)

  115. Mervyn says:

    Just keep up the good work exposing the lies and misinformation being peddled by the catastrophic man-made global warming alarmists.

  116. peedee says:

    This is all very well and good, but the Empire is running short of tax revenues for their Imperial Perpetual Oil Wars, and they WILL enact a National Carbon Tithe in 2015 after the Elections, then they will use those tithes to fund Science™ to create a continuous propaganda stream for AGW.

    I’m a teacher. I’m fully immersed in CC revised to school curriculum. This area is monopolized by Pearson Education. Every one of their Science (sic) books attributes ‘global warming’ to AGW, and every one of their tests scores correctly only if students answer that AGW is the most critical phenomenon affecting America today. Not the looting by Big Banks, not the National Police State by Big MIC, not the perpetual oil wars by Big Oil … AGW and all the neoliberal impact spin offs.

    I taught my students statistics, psychology of ‘perceived majority bias’, the economics of a government arm of science, about propaganda and madison avenue, then let them make their own opinions. For doing so, I was ratted out by one of the students, whose ‘Green’ parents stormed the Principals office, I was called down and forced to sign a written Confession to every student that I was misguided. Then I was told to ‘teach to the text, you are just an instructor’.

    This is far, far bigger than some ‘scientific debate’. The IPCC put it succinctly, “It’s not about the Science. The Science doesn’t matter. It’s about (control of) Public Policy)” IPCC internal memo.
    The Scientocrats are going to win. They are going to impose a National Climate Tithe. They are going to put Federal controls over your food, energy, jobs and housing, based on AGW Dogma.

    So this ‘confession’ is very well and good, but it’s just spitting into the typhoon of Scientocracy.

    • omanuel says:

      I understand your fears and regret that government deception was not exposed earlier.

      Please be assured we live on a ball of dirt that is controlled by a benevolent force far greater than the combined forces of world leaders and their puppet scientists.

  117. omanuel says:

    Who Is Steven Goddard?

    Tony Heller, a real world hero !

    1. The whistle blower, who pulled back the curtain on
    the modern Wizard of Oz to expose the ghost of Ио́сиф Виссарио́нович Ста́лин

    2. A talented USSR dictator that silenced the news media, while he led frightened world leaders safely out of the CHAOS and FEAR of worldwide nuclear annihilation in August 1945:


    3. The independent thinker who showed that world leaders and their alphabet soup of federal research agencies – NAS, NASA, NSA, NOAA, etc. – secretly destroyed any and all constitutional limits on the tyrannical, one-world government that they established in 1945: THE UNITED NATIONS

    • omanuel says:

      In 1945 Joseph Stalin himself probably adopted the plan to hide the source of energy in cores of the uranium and plutonium atoms that destroyed Hiroshima and Nagasaki – neutron repulsion – by changing physics textbooks to show exactly how NOT to build a bomb.

      Aston’s rigorously valid concept of nuclear packing fraction was replaced with Dr. C. von Weizsacker’s misunderstanding of nuclear binding energy.

      Dr. Carl von Weizsacker was the theoretical physicist who helped Hitler’s scientists FAIL to produce an atomic bomb during WWII.

  118. Jerry Gorline says:

    Hi Steve, tried to post yesterday, didn’t make it. Here’s my tribute:

    He was
    A true life hero
    Friend of every man and child
    A true life hero
    I really do think it’d be wild
    Read more: KLAATU – True Life Hero Lyrics | MetroLyrics

    All the Best, JerryG

  119. BigglesOz says:

    Well…a big thanks to Suspicious0bservers for bringing your name & article to me. Looks as though I have a bit of reading to do.

  120. Capitalist Sympathiser says:

    I feel sorry for all you denialists. It must seem like you are battling against an almost insurmountable tide. Everywhere you look there is another report about some symptom of human accellerated warming that you hadn’t even dreamt of. “What, now even the military are saying its our biggest threat”. Sheesh, what next.
    But that is where my pity ends

    Do you really think that if you follow the money, you end up finding a science researcher? Wtf! Don’t know many science researchers do you. They are generally poor, hardworking schmucks trying to do the right thing.

    Here is a question for you: Exactly what evidence would you need to see – to change your mind?
    No, seriously. Is it a half metre rise in sea level? Or another big surge in temperature, like another decade record high, like the last ten years?
    I know, there is none. Its not evidence that will change your mind, its a calamity. How sad, for you I mean. I’m over it. The bio-sphere is going to hell in a handbasket and I’m well into stage 5 – acceptance. Denial is still stage 1, you have so much work to do.

    History (and your children) will judge the shills, the liars and the willfully ignorant very harshly.

    • You sound like a raving loon

    • Morgan says:

      History you say? Let me give you a history lesson:


      AGW loons tell us earth will reach a tipping point and runaway greenhouse effect will make Earth as hot as Venus and the oceans will boil. All life of earth will end.


      AGW loons tone down the Venus bit, no ocean boiling, but all of Antarctica and Greenland will melt and the oceans will rise until the entire Mississippi valley will flood as high as St. Louis, and earth will be 6 degrees hotter


      OK maybe not St. Louis, and maybe not all of Antarctica will melt, but if it does it will flood all of Florida


      OK maybe not all of Florida, but it will flood New York City, and earth will be 3 degrees hotter.


      OK maybe not 3 degrees hotter, but there will be “climate change” which means more hurricanes, tornados, droughts and rainstorms


      OK scratch the hurricanes and tornados, but they will be coming, and earth will be 1 degree warmer


      OK no warming, the pause is caused by, uhhh, errrr, well, oh yeah, the heat went to the bottom of the ocean. That’s the ticket. OK so there is no warming and no hurricanes, except for the one in the Philippines, and no tornados, but 97% OF ALL SCIENTISTS AGREE and you are a conspiracy theorist.


      Cooling is part of climate change. The record ice at both poles was predicted by global warming scientists in 1988.

    • D. Self says:

      Good God! What are you? a History Major?

    • Dave N says:

      “Here is a question for you: Exactly what evidence would you need to see – to change your mind?
      No, seriously. Is it a half metre rise in sea level? Or another big surge in temperature, like another decade record high, like the last ten years?”

      Without absolute proof of the cause, why should it change anyone’s mind, about anything? That is unless they’re irrational.

  121. Capitalist Sympathiser says:

    Perhaps we can establish what we agree upon.
    The earth is kept at a comfy temperature by ‘greenhouse’ gasses H2O, CO2 etc. Agree? Good.
    If there is a higher concentration of those gasses, the temperature will (all other things being equal) be higher. Even as solar irradiation is falling.
    Humans have added a lot of CO2 to the atmoshere at an exponentially increasing rate.
    If the earth hadn’t warmed, that would be weird.
    Ad hominum insults don’t progress anyone’s argument.

    • Gamecock says:

      “I feel sorry for all you denialists.”

      “Ad hominum insults don’t progress anyone’s argument.”

      You are one hot mess, Capitalist.

    • Rosco says:

      I don’t agree.

      The Sun supplies almost all of the energy in the biosphere – except for seismic emissions.
      GHG theory claims 87% of the radiation emitted by Earth is due to GHGs in the atmosphere.

      Why does increasing their concentration induce warming when we all should know the radiation from a cold object – the upper radiating atmosphere – cannot “heat” a warmer object ?

      This was proven hundreds of years ago and forms the basis of all real physics and thermodynamics !

      Perhaps they make it colder – after all if O2 and N2 don’t radiate IR how do they – 99% of the atmosphere – ever cool down. Rising up into the upper atmosphere doesn’t represent energy loss – it simply converts temperature measured as kinetic energy into gravitational potential energy – the “heat” is gained when they return to Earth unless they radiate.

      Earth’s period of rotation is the reason why Earth maintains it’s “warmth” – in less than 12 hours in the majority of locations the Sun starts heating the surfaces again after cooling overnight.

      The poles are only as cold as they are because the sun never rises for months on end – Surely that is obvious ?

      Don’t mention Venus – the greenhouse effect claim for Venus is just plain silly !

      A permanent emission of 16547 W/sq. metre from an input of 132 W/sq. metre as claimed in this University lecture


      Anyone who thinks this claim has any credibility is obviously a believer in Magic !

      How could a modern University teach such junk “science” ????

  122. Capitalist Sympathiser says:

    If all the so-called experts have it so wrong, is it a conspiracy or is it just incompetance do you think?

    • Shazaam says:

      I’ll take “wimping-out and caving in to pressure from the high muckity-mucks” behind door number 3.

      Given the established veracity track record of the current administration, it couldn’t be anything else.

      Under pressure from the laughingstock-in-chief and his merry band of czars, the “wrongness of the government funded, so-called experts” may look like incompetence or conspiracy, yet those same government funded, so-called experts are just following orders to keep their jobs. And thus these government funded, so-called experts just look criminally incompetent when instead they are merely weak willed and go along with the fraud.

      • Capitalist Sympathiser says:

        You seem to be plumping for the conspiracy solution.
        How are those “behind door number 3” controlling this conspiracy globally? Thousands of competent, well-educated individuals in dozens of countries all keeping a dirty little secret: that they are being instructed or even threatened to keep, by who…??
        Sorry, I just dont find that plausible. In fact its a bit loopy.

    • Dave N says:

      Conspiracy implies that participants formulate a method of committing a subversive act against another.

      Consider if a number of governments are willing to shell out a load of money for people that can tell them what they want to hear. Some of those that line up for it might discuss with each other about what they’re going to say, but it’s not really necessary: the governments already have an expectation anyway.

      It was incompetence that led us into this mess (just like many others). That they’re keeping the lie alive isn’t incompetence (though some incompetence continues), nor conspiracy; it’s just morally bankrupt.

      • Capitalist Sympathiser says:

        “Conspiracy implies that participants formulate a method of committing a subversive act against another.”
        I can see how small numbers of individuals could (and do) conspire to for personal gain and companies might conspire in a cartel, but tens of thousands? Scores of competeing countries/governments? Sorry, no.

        “Consider if a number of governments are willing to shell out a load of money for people that can tell them what they want to hear.”
        I can consider it, but see above; its totally implausible. What about the dozens of ‘other’ governments? What is the motive to “shell out”? For a government to “shell out” there must be very powerful lobbying going on. Who? What is the biggest game in town? Hint google: top 10 companies. Any possibility they might be invovled? Nah, right. Its the grunts with BScs all banding together.

        “Some…might discuss with each other”
        What about those who are honest? Do you really believe that all of the many thousands of basically hard-working grunt scientists who hold these views are “morally bankrupt”?

        “It was incompetence that led us into this mess”
        How so?

        • We discuss facts here. Your insistence on discussing conspiracy theory is about to get you banned.

        • “Do you really believe that all of the many thousands of basically hard-working grunt scientists who hold these views are “morally bankrupt”?”

          Yes, and if they don’t hold those views they are unemployed and blacklisted.

  123. geran says:

    Capitalist Sympathiser says:
    July 22, 2014 at 8:56 am
    Perhaps we can establish what we agree upon.
    The earth is kept at a comfy temperature by ‘greenhouse’ gasses H2O, CO2 etc. Agree? Good.
    NOPE. The Earth’s temperature range is maintained by numerous mechanisms we do not yet understand.

    If there is a higher concentration of those gasses, the temperature will (all other things being equal) be higher. Even as solar irradiation is falling.
    NOPE. The “gasses” are not heat sources. If solar irradiation falls, temps fall.

    Humans have added a lot of CO2 to the atmoshere at an exponentially increasing rate.
    If the earth hadn’t warmed, that would be weird.
    NOPE. Human “added” CO2 does not even register on the scale. (Check Saddam’s oil well fires.)
    And, the Earth is not warming. Government funded sources are “adjusting” the data. THAT is “weird”.

    Ad hominum insults don’t progress anyone’s argument.
    Maybe not, but “Warmists” are idiots….

    • Capitalist Sympathiser says:

      geran says:

      July 23, 2014 at 12:13 am

      Capitalist Sympathiser says:
      July 22, 2014 at 8:56 am
      Perhaps we can establish what we agree upon.
      The earth is kept at a comfy temperature by ‘greenhouse’ gasses H2O, CO2 etc. Agree? Good.
      NOPE. The Earth’s temperature range is maintained by numerous mechanisms we do not yet understand.
      ~~~Nope. They are well understood and have been for a hundred years. What are these “numerous mechanisms”?

      If there is a higher concentration of those gasses, the temperature will (all other things being equal) be higher. Even as solar irradiation is falling.
      NOPE. The “gasses” are not heat sources. If solar irradiation falls, temps fall.
      ~~~Nope. I didn’t say they were a source, they re-readiate heat and act a bit like a blanket. Solar irradiance varies in a range of about 1365 -1367 W/m2. Massive variation isn’t.
      The 11 year sunspot cycle is currently on the downward slope and overall average radiance has been gradually diminishing since the 60s. During that period global temps have been rising, sharply.

      Humans have added a lot of CO2 to the atmoshere at an exponentially increasing rate.
      If the earth hadn’t warmed, that would be weird.
      NOPE. Human “added” CO2 does not even register on the scale. (Check Saddam’s oil well fires.)
      And, the Earth is not warming. Government funded sources are “adjusting” the data. THAT is “weird”.
      ~~~Nope. What is even weirder is that you think on one hand some oil fires might register on some “scale” but that the rest of the world’s oil prodiction and consuption might not. Go here http://www.indexmundi.com/energy.aspx to get an idea of how much oil the world burns each and every day. Saddam’s oil fires were puny in comparison. How could they not be?
      Thousands of researchers in hundreds of meterolgy department in scores of countries are “adjusting” the data? Mate, have good hard look at that with an open mind. Is it really likely? Do you really think conspiracies on this scale are possible?
      Are you suggesting we should rely on privately funded sources with vested interests? Like who?

      Ad hominum insults don’t progress anyone’s argument.
      Maybe not, but “Warmists” are idiots….
      ~~~Pay that one.

      • geran says:

        ~~~Nope. They are well understood and have been for a hundred years. What are these “numerous mechanisms”?
        You just “informed” me that they have been “well understood” for a hundred years, and you are asking “What are these…”

        ~~~Nope. I didn’t say they were a source, they re-readiate heat and act a bit like a blanket.
        Your buddies in the IPPC say they are a source, or haven’t you heard of “radiative forcing”?

        ~~~Nope. What is even weirder is that you think on one hand some oil fires might register on some “scale” but that the rest of the world’s oil prodiction and consuption might not.
        It’s called “getting lost in the noise”. The “spike” of the oil well fires is not noticeable due to the natural fluctuations.

        Thousands of researchers in hundreds of meterolgy department in scores of countries are “adjusting” the data? Mate, have good hard look at that with an open mind. Is it really likely? Do you really think conspiracies on this scale are possible?
        Are you suggesting we should rely on privately funded sources with vested interests? Like who?
        I don’t have to identify motives to identify Bad Science. Go to almost any major university website, and you will see IPCC “science”. They all “copy/paste”. I have no idea why they are doing it, but they ARE doing it.

      • Capitalist Sympathiser says “Solar irradiance varies in a range of about 1365 -1367 W/m2. Massive variation isn’t it.”

        Well, first of all it’s 1363.5 to 1367, from the LIA to now, and 3.5 W/m2 is greater than the 1.5 W/m2 forcing that CO2 from AGW supposedly has, so yeah, it’s a massive variation.

        You be the judge: http://www.hyzercreek.com/sun.jpg

  124. Capitalist Sympathiser says:

    stevengoddard says:

    July 25, 2014 at 1:16 am

    We discuss facts here. Your insistence on discussing conspiracy theory is about to get you banned.

    From further above:
    ” Science works through research and debate – not censorship, propaganda, faith, or intimidation.”
    Tony Heller (a.k.a. Steve)

    I am here to debate. Please don’t censor me for posing the valid question: If they have it so wrong, how have all these (so-called) experts managed it?
    I am not the one advocating a conspiracy. But if there has been such a momentus, expensive, patently incorrect and morally bankrupt f…up, then how? Simple. Tell me how. Give me a plausible explanation. If it is not a conspiracy, then what is it? Incompetance? Groupthink? What?
    The vast majority of well qualified (and poorly paid) researchers in all the fields that overlap climate science seem to be saying the same thing. If they are wrong, why would they do it? How are they organising it?
    Occam’s razor tells me they are right on the money.
    If anyone can give me a plausible answer to these two questions I will forget about all my alarmist folly.

    • You have absolutely no clue what you are talking about. Repeating mindless hearsay talking points with no basis.

    • Chewer says:

      Wrong about what?
      That this is the everlasting inter-glacial due to the human contribution of accumulated tropospheric carbon dioxide?
      The experts that you refer to do not know what conditions, stimuli or forces cause the switch between glacial and inter-glacial periods and the cyclical return back to glaciation.
      By the way, Inter-glacial periods are the short periods here on earth…
      These brilliant scientists you refer to do not understand why planets (most importantly ours) go through magnetospheric polarity excursions and full-fledged long term reversals, yet you think the 1.9% of PhD physicists that think catastrophic AGW is just around the corner are the ones who have it right?
      You do understand the difference between “scientific theory” and “working hypothesis”, don’t you?

    • “If it is not a conspiracy, then what is it?”

      It’s government propaganda. Duh.

  125. Capitalist Sympathiser says:

    1 month later…Thats what I thought.

  126. sandro says:

    This part:
    “The US is currently experiencing its longest period since the 1860’s without a major (category 3-5) hurricane strike. Florida is currently experiencing the longest period on record without a hurricane strike. The US tornado count over the past two years has been the lowest in the modern record”

    Extremities go both ways, having the highest number of hurricanes constitutes to one extreme, and having the least constitutes to the other end. Isn’t that what supporters of man made climate change generally say? That extremities will abound, severe or not.

    I personally support man made climate change propaganda, because I want to see world move from burning fossil fuel to clean energy. Unfortunately economically speaking this jump is impossible in a short run if there is no serious scaremongering… public just doesn’t want to invest in future technologies which will only have impact in long run.

  127. jai avi says:

    The Global Warming crowd who blame the 1 to 3 degree increase in sea temperature on man, have been overlooking not merely climate cycles, but the entire role in which there has been continental drift. It is the overlooked phenomenon of guess what – undersea volcanoes. Yes, oops! Something else these guys do not bother to look at. Recent work has shown that they too erupt in bursts of cyclical patterns.
    When are these clowns going to realize the world is not a linear straight line?

  128. Chic Bowdrie says:

    “The radiative transfer models used by government climate scientists show that going up to 550 PPM or even 1000 PPM CO2 will make minimal difference to the radiative balance of the atmosphere. The knee of the CO2 curve is at about 30 PPM, and additional CO2 has little first order effect. This is because almost all radiation in the CO2 absorption spectra is already being absorbed by H2O or CO2 molecules. Adding more CO2 has minimal effect, because there is not much radiation left to be absorbed. (This is a bit of an oversimplification because of second order effects, but those are also small.) There is no indication from the radiative transfer models used by government scientists that additional CO2 will cause large amounts of heating.”

    This is an excellent elevator speech for explaining climate change to novices. I think we can do better though. How about posting a challenge for your readers improve it using no more words?

    To answer the previous commenter (“When are these clowns going to realize the world is not a linear straight line?): When we learn how to explain it well enough.

  129. Sir Charles says:

    “Science works through research and debate – not censorship, propaganda, faith, or intimidation.”

    I suppose you can show us your peer-reviewed publication(s) then.

    • catweazle666 says:

      You first.

    • Gail Combs says:

      “I suppose you can show us your peer-reviewed publication(s) then.”

      FALLACY: Appeal to Authority
      And since you have already invoked Appeal to Authority:

      How Many Scientists Fabricate and Falsify Research? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Survey Data

      Why Most Published Research Findings Are False

      Publishers withdraw more than 120 gibberish papers

      Science Magazine “Peer review is sick and collapsing under its own weight,” — science publisher Vitek Tracz

      This one is the worst: Research Misconduct Identified by the US Food and Drug Administration
      Out of Sight, Out of Mind,

      Every year, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) inspects several hundred clinical sites performing biomedical research on human participants and occasionally finds evidence of substantial departures from good clinical practice and research misconduct. However, the FDA has no systematic method of communicating these findings to the scientific community, leaving open the possibility that research misconduct detected by a government agency goes unremarked in the peer-reviewed literature….

      To identify published clinical trials in which an FDA inspection found significant evidence of objectionable conditions or practices, to describe violations, and to determine whether the violations are mentioned in the peer-reviewed literature.

      Design and Setting
      Cross-sectional analysis of publicly available documents, dated from January 1, 1998, to September 30, 2013, describing FDA inspections of clinical trial sites in which significant evidence of objectionable conditions or practices was found.
      Results Fifty-seven published clinical trials were identified for which an FDA inspection of a trial site had found significant evidence of 1 or more of the following problems: falsification or submission of false information, 22 trials (39%); problems with adverse events reporting, 14 trials (25%); protocol violations, 42 trials (74%); inadequate or inaccurate recordkeeping, 35 trials (61%); failure to protect the safety of patients and/or issues with oversight or informed consent, 30 trials (53%); and violations not otherwise categorized, 20 trials (35%). Only 3 of the 78 publications (4%) that resulted from trials in which the FDA found significant violations mentioned the objectionable conditions or practices found during the inspection. No corrections, retractions, expressions of concern, or other comments acknowledging the key issues identified by the inspection were subsequently published.

      Conclusions and Relevance
      When the FDA finds significant departures from good clinical practice, those findings are seldom reflected in the peer-reviewed literature, even when there is evidence of data fabrication or other forms of research misconduct.

      Blogs are now performing the important tasks of scrutinizing papers and conclusions, often finding gross mistakes.

  130. Scottar says:

    Having 50 years+ of observing how government works, and 30 years of looking into climate change, I believe every word of what Heller says here. It’s part of the NWO agenda, power through deception.

  131. Scottar says:

    I have 2 articles that put the forcing factor into perspective and wonder what are your thoughts on them?


    Why CO2 Has Nothing to Do with Temperatures


    Carbon Dioxide Absorption in the Near Infrared


    • That last article is about CO2 absorption at 1437, 1955, 2013, and
      2060 nanometers, but the greenhouse effect of CO2 is in the absorption band from around 14,000 to 17,000 nanometers

      • Scottar says:

        But the significance of that last article is that the energy absorbed by CO2 via radiative emission is not emitted at the same wavelength. It either gets transferred by collision with another molecule, ie kinetic energy, or reemitted at a lower frequency. So the energy is not being transferred like a ping ball but in some other form of energy at a reduced level.

        So if you consider the you have a ratio of 1 CO2 to 10,000 other molecules, what are the chances that another CO2 molecule picks it up? Next to nil and therefore the claimed effect of CO2 on atmospheric warming seem almost non-existent.

Leave a Reply