My name is Will Spencer, and you're listening to one of the last episodes of the Renaissance of Men podcast. This is soon to become the Will Spencer podcast, which I'm sure you're looking forward to, if only because you're tired of these announcements.

My guest this week is a former geologist at Los Alamos National Labs and the founder of realclimatescience.com, which pulls back the curtain on junk science. Please welcome Tony Heller.

You are the Renaissance.

This take may surprise my podcast listeners, but here we go. Climate change is not a hoax. Yes, you heard that right. It's not a hoax. In fact, climate change is far worse than a hoax. It's a scam.

Because when we think about climate change, it's easy to focus on the deception that's involved.

There's a lot of it, but the deception has a purpose not just to grind the global economy into dust and bring about international communism, but also to defraud the nations of the world out of potentially trillions of dollars.

The difference in language between hoax versus scam matters because if you try to talk to a normie about climate change and you tell them that it's a hoax to bring about global communism, well, let's just say that if they listen to the tv, they're probably not going to believe that one, no matter if it's true. And it is.

But if instead you say that climate change is an elaborate scam to vacuum their hard earned tax dollars out of their wallets and into NGO's and ineffective power generating technologies, among other things, that's the definition of a scam. And it's something that everyday people can relate to.

Because whether or not they believe in global communism, they definitely believe in their pocketbooks. And they've definitely been scammed before. There's just one thing, but what about the science?

And that is a problem, because in our post Christian America, scientists and experts have taken on the role of unchallengeable priests. You have to have secret knowledge, ancient texts, and infallible sources of authority to question them.

And that's outside of the time, energy, and effort of most people. Notice I said most, not all. Which brings me to my guest this week. His name is Tony Heller, and I've been a fan of his for years.

His background is in geology and electrical engineering, with employers ranging from Los Alamos and Sandia labs to the team behind the PowerPC series of processors at IBM, Motorola, and Apple. But where I know him from is his YouTube channel, Real Climate Science.

On this channel, Tony posts videos that hammer away at the mainstream climate change narrative using data from the governments own sources. Thats right. Tony uses the high priests of climate own sacred texts and infallible dogmas against them.

That makes his channel unbelievably effective at dispelling the climate mythos and exposing the raw propaganda that that's going on all around us all the time, perhaps more every day. But what makes Tony's channel so enjoyable for me is that he clearly has fun doing it.

It's hard not to hear a smirk in his voice as he uses charts, data, graphs and headlines to not just debunk but demolish the climate change narrative that we've all had force fed to us for decades. There's a gleefulness and a playfulness to it that's infectious. In fact, it's liberating.

This big bad boogeyman that the whole world trembles in fear of or shakes their fist at is actually pretty laughable and transparent if you know just where to look. Which Tony does. Which is why when he agreed to come on the podcast, I was thrilled.

This is one of my dream come true interviews, and may the truths that Tony share set all of us free.

In our conversation we discussed his background in climate science, the discrepancy between government data and their reports climate shifts during the 20th century appeals to authority in the engineering world, Michael Manns hockey stick graph and James Hansens scary positive feedback prophecy, overcoming the fear of climate change, and finally, arctic sea ice and polar bear extinction. If you enjoy this podcast, thank you. Please leave us a five star rating on Spotify and a five star rating and review on Apple Podcasts.

If this is your first time here, welcome. I release new episodes about the christian counterculture, masculine virtue, and the family every week.

Just a quick reminder about my christian mens retreat coming up in October from the 18th to the 21st here in Phoenix, Arizona.

Its one of the best times of the year for weather here in the valley and ive booked a luxury Airbnb with a great view of the landscape, plus healthy food cooked on site Bible study, a firearms training workshop, and much more. Visit wrenofmen.com retreat for information and I hope I'll see you there. One quick note before we begin.

As you'll hear, Tony and I have slightly different views about the age of the earth. I'm a young earth creationist, which is another conversation and he's not.

However, this is a good thing because the vast majority of people you'll meet who support climate change won't hold that view, and so it's important to be able to debate with them on their terms. And I hope the information that Tony provides this week and on his YouTube will help you do just that.

And please welcome this week's guest on the podcast, the founder and host of realclimatescience.com, comma, pulling back the curtain on junk science, Tony Heller. Tony, thanks so much for joining me on the podcast today.

Yeah, it's good to be here, Will.

This is pretty exciting for me. Cause I've been a big fan of your work for a long time.

In fact, I think it was some of your videos that I discovered it must have been three, four, five years ago that really opened my eyes to the climate scam. Because you had presented the data in such a particular way. That's like, I really found it difficult to argue with.

So I'm very grateful to be able to connect with you and invite you on to share some of your knowledge and experiences.

Yeah, it's a good day for me to just notice that X is running a thread based on my work this afternoon.

Oh, is it?

Apparently I've been discovered by Grok.

The secret's out. So what's the threat about?

It's about CNN's making some claims that it's been a very hot summer in the US. And I've been posting stuff showing that it actually is not. It's just been an average summer in the US as far as temperature goes. So it was showing.

A lot of my tweets contrasted versus what CNN was claiming.

Oh, so x, the x account picked you up personally and is re sharing some of your material?

Yeah, the third was specifically about my work disputing CNN's claims about the hot summer.

You've been doing that.

I remember when you were first talking about, I think it was Michael Mann and James Hansen, these famous climate scientists that were saturating my world, at least at the time when I was more on the left.

And I remember you specifically picking up their historical database claims and their dire predictions and just year by year just showing like, nope, nope, none of this is coming to pass. Is that sort of the angle they're taking? Are they stacking you up against those guys again for another win?

No, they wouldn't. CNN didn't mention me. They were just making some absurd claims about this being an unusually hot summer in the US. I just posted some graphs.

I've done this already. It wasn't in response to CNN or. The last few days I've been posting a lot of graphs showing that it hasn't been a hot summer.

So maybe I want to get into all of that, particularly the way that many government agencies and governments themselves and media organizations distort data using different start times. But I want to talk first about how you got into this field at all.

I know that you were a scientist at Los Alamos National Laboratory, but how did you get it specifically into climate research or maybe into debunking the climate scam or whatever the proper term would be?

My boss introduced me to it and it all sounded very plausible. And I was pretty much of a true believer for decades.

And the city of Longmont shut down the soccer fields because they were afraid that the drought, if kids played on the fields, that they would destroy the turf because it was so dry. So I went to the Longmont city council and pleaded with him.

I said, look, this global warming is just going to get worse in the future, so you might as well let the kids play. Kids in Brazil learn to play on cobblestones. I mean, it's not going to hurt the kids to play on a hard surface.

And the city council went for it and actually opened up a few fields for the kids to play on. So for a long time, I was pushing the global warming thing, but then I started observing some changes in the weather.

Colorado got much cooler and much wetter over the next few years. I started thinking, well, I guess I was wrong earlier about the global warming thing.

I started looking into it and what I, you know, I've been an engineer for decades. I started seeing just the horrifically awful way that data was being manipulated by us government agencies. I realized I was dealing with the scam.

These people like Hanson, they're not behaving like scientists. They're behaving like propagandists. And the more I looked into it, the more I realized that was the case. There's no science being down here.

They've got an agenda they're pushing, and they're manipulating the data in support of that agenda.

So was there a particular. Was there a particular study or a particular headline or something that you looked at?

That was the first time that it was like, oh, wow, there's more going on here than I recognize.

No, I just. I've always been interested in weather and climate. I just spend most of my time writing software these days.

So I just wrote some software to analyze the data, and I just couldn't believe what I was seeing. They're just straight up fraud.

The graphs, the temperature graphs from government agencies are not accurate representations of what the thermometer data shows. They're manipulated to create the appearance of warming, but the underlying data doesn't support what they're saying.

I want to spend some time on this because that was what really started to shift. My perspective was that you were just confronting claims and headlines with data.

It seems like decades worth of newspaper headlines and reports and data that I guess had been made available. It seems like you must have a pretty impressive database that you've compiled over the years, going back at least to the turn of the century.

Yeah, I have a lot of news articles and papers. But the NOAA provides, keeps very good records of the historical data, which is publicly available, and I use it all the time.

But the problem is that the raw thermometer data doesn't match the temperature graphs, which they release to the public, so that the raw data is intact, it hasn't been destroyed. But the graphs which are presented to the public, which the processes are not accurate representations of their own data.

So NOAA, the National oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, makes their data available, like, just massive amounts of temperature data available to the public that anyone can pull down.

But then when you compare that data to what is released in terms of reports that sort of digested and put out, the data in the reports doesn't match the raw data from the temperature readings exactly.

No, there's no resemblance between them at all, particularly in the United States. The United States has by far the best long term temperature data in the world for a large area. No place else comes even close.

The thermometer data for the United States does not show warming over the last 120 years or hundred years. It's just not there. But NOAA publishes these graphs showing a lot of warming for the United States, and it's fraudulent it's not based on science.

It's not based on their own data. It's just, it's propaganda.

So what would they say about that?

Like, because I've looked at so many of your videos, and it's just, it's so, it's, it's baffling to me because I've seen, like, you probably put the data out there. This is what they say. This is what the data says, and the differences are stark. What do they say in defense of that, if they say anything at all?

Well, they don't deny the fact that they're altering the data, but what they say is they have good reason to do it. They always make excuses, like people didn't know how to read the thermometers back there. It's utterly absurd.

But they've got the whole press on board with this, too. I just asked one of the AI programs the other day, who is Tony Heller?

And it went on with slog diatribe about how I've accused them of manipulating data. But Noah says they have to manipulate the data. The reasons are fraudulent. It's not.

They're trying to make it sound like they're doing something science. I think back in Nixon's day, they would have called it plausible deniability, but it's not plausible.

Their excuses for manipulating the data are not even remotely plausible. But they say it over and over again. It's a big lie. They repeat it over and over again.

And of course, the press and AI has picked up on it, and they say, they say Tony Heller is a liardhead. NOAA has good reason to alter the data, but it's not true. So it always comes down to an appeal to authority.

Some people at NOAA or some people at Berkeley earth say they're doing it for a good reason, and that's it. That's the end of the discussion.

Do they offer what that reason is? Like, don't worry, we have good reason to alter this data. Like, do they give any idea they didn't know how to read thermometers?

Well, one of the reasons is, has some legitimacy. It's called the time of observation bias, and it has to do with the way the time of day when people reset their min max thermometers.

The rest of the adjustment, which is much larger, more like two to two and a half degrees Fahrenheit, has no scientific basis at all. And they don't even attempt to explain it. In fact, they're literally just making up data.

And I've made some videos on showing they've lost a lot of temperature stations over the last 30 or 40 years. And what they do is they don't just. If a station is not producing data anymore, they don't just exclude it.

Now, they have a computer model which makes up temperatures for the non existent station. And about almost half of the data now, which they use in their monthly temperatures for the United States, is fake.

It's from thermometers, which don't exist or didn't report any data that month. So it's just. It's all coming from a computer model rather than from actual thermometers.

And, of course, the computer model generates the data which they want people to see, which is warming. So it's. It's fake. It's fraudulent. It's not science. It's just propaganda.

So, like, I hear all this and it makes my brain hurt, because I can picture my mind. They've made decades worth of data available. I watched climate, the movie, the documentary that you were in, and so we can get into all of that.

But in some places, they have data, rural data, going back to the mid 17 hundreds, for example, in England. But in America particularly, so they have the data that they've made available for decades, which is just available open source to the public.

They're constructing their own separate data set under the paper thin justification that, well, we have good reasons. Yada, yada, yada. And so here's the real data set, which just happens to verify our existing propagandistic claims.

Yeah. NOAA releases three different monthly temperature data sets for the United States.

One's called the raw temperature dataset, which is the actual thermometer data. Second one is called time of observation bias, which describes adjustments made for different times of day when the thermometers were reset.

But that's very small adjustment. But then they have this final data set, which is where they introduce all this warming. It's completely fake.

So now it just makes up temperatures for the other half. It's crazy.

I think the challenge that the general public would have with this is who's going to have the time and inclination to challenge those data sets specifically because the datasets are what gets processed into the reports, into the headlines? Please go ahead.

Yeah, well, I mean, these data sets are very large. They're difficult to read. You know, me being a software guy, just write a software to parse it and graph it. So I can do this extremely quickly.

I mean, I can get through their data very quickly, and I do it all the time. But I think they're counting on the fact that it's too difficult for most people to get through this huge, messy data set.

But it's actually very easy for me. And I can do this in a matter of seconds at this .1 of.

My favorite videos of yours also happens to be one of your most popular, which is titled my gift to climate alarmists. And you talk about the software that you wrote based on the data.

So maybe we can talk about, first of all, is that software publicly available, or is this just your own tool? And maybe we can talk about what the software does and how you compiled it and put it together.

Yeah, I've released a lot of my software to the public.

We're about to release as a commercial product some more advanced tools on a different website, and I hope to be making an announcement about that soon. I've been spending a lot of time on it. Could have very advanced capabilities for analyzing climate data very quickly and easily.

And both of these tools are to help the general public or specialists challenge the existing narrative of what's happening, what's being propagated through the media and through these governmental agencies saying, we have the true data, we're going to tell you what's up. It's like, well, this is the raw data from the thermometer. Now here's the proper response.

Well, I wouldn't say necessarily did it to challenge it, just so that people can see it. I mean, if academics actually wanted to know the truth, they could use these data and see for themselves that what I'm saying is true.

So it's not necessarily as a challenge, it's just a way for people to see what the actual data looks like.

Okay, so the academics, I want to focus on them for just a moment because the climate, the movie, that documentary, that brief documentary, made a really compelling case for just how dangerous it is professionally for many climate scientists to speak out. In fact, I think it highlighted, interviewed many scientists who lost jobs or were threatened. So do you think this tool will help them?

Do you think it will make a difference that they can actually say that, hey, we actually have the data on our side because it seems like the problem is very entrenched at the institutional level.

The problem is that the people who are doing this are committing fraud. They know they're committing fraud, they're not interested in actual data, they're not interested in the truth.

There's a huge amount of money involved in this. And so I don't think any argument about data is ever going to change their minds.

But it's just more of a tool for people who have an open mind to go in and look for themselves and find out. Like CNN was claiming today, that it's been exceptionally large number of 95 degree days in the United States this year.

Well, let's talk. I mentioned earlier that we talk about the various climate eras that have taken place in the United States just in the past hundred or so years.

Yeah, well, actually go back a little bit further. The United States has had a lot of very hot years.

1930 119 30 319 34 there were some bad heat waves in 30.

So they play this cherry picking game. They start their graphs at the lowest point of the century or the highest point, and then they say, see, the climate's out of control.

What they're doing is they're just hiding the critical data to show that it's just normal climatic patterns and it's not something unique, it's not something scary. They're intentionally deceiving the public using techniques which are completely unacceptable in science and engineering world.

They hide the context.

They only show what most people remember more or less in their lifetimes, past 60 or 80 or so years, and they completely leave out what had happened, what had happened before.

Very conspicuously, they cherry pick the data so that it always produces this extreme warming trend that is completely undermined by the data that came right before it.

Right, exactly. They just go and look at the graph and they find the low point or high point, and they say, we're not going to use the data prior to that. Right.

And so they create, you know, Mark Twain said, or Disraeli said, like, there's three kinds of lies. Lies, damn lies, and statistics. And that's what they're doing. They're using statistics to lie to the public.

They have an agenda they're pushing and they make up fake statistics in support of that agenda.

Was there a moment when you first started getting into this, where there was a light went on? Moment like, wow, they're lying.

Where you saw it for the first time for yourself, or a period of time where you went digging in and you just looked at it, it's like these two things don't match up.

Yeah.

I don't know if it was just one particular moment, but when I started looking at the data, I just realized that what they're saying doesn't make any sense, it doesn't match the data. And I realized pretty early on that it was a scam and it was propaganda, not science.

You started looking into this, and I know that you started producing content, I think you said 16 years ago, around it. So that's kind of a big public statement.

How did you navigate the knowledge that this was the case in a sort of a social environment where when you start saying, like, I don't think climate change is real, I think it's a scam, people tend to get pretty upset how did you navigate that early on?

I just. I'm an engineer. I worked on a lot of very high profile, successful engineering products.

In the engineering world, the appeals to authority don't mean anything. It doesn't matter what. It doesn't matter what a person's credentials are, what their history is.

You get hired by the company to find out, to make a product that works. And so you have to be in the mindset of, I don't care who said it or whose work it is, if it's wrong, it's wrong, just tell them.

And that's totally accepted in the engineering world. It's not accepted in academia, obviously. They have. They have their prophets and pharisees who. You can't challenge them, right? They're just.

It's always been like that. I mean, it was like that with geocentricism. It's always been like there's. There's always this thing. You can't challenge the high priests of these.

Of the science religions. But I didn't care. It didn't make any difference to me.

I was supporting myself as an engineer, so I didn't care what, you know, I was being attacked constantly. It didn't matter. I was just showing data. And I'm still getting. All the time I get attacked, I just show a graph.

I just show data and people say, you're a liar, you're a fraud. And they don't provide any evidence, they don't refute anything that I'm saying. I'm just showing data which they don't want to see.

And it goes against their belief system or their needs, their emotional needs. So they just accuse me of being a liar without presenting any evidence. I don't care.

Like I said, my thing is doing it right, is making sure that the data is correct, making sure that graphs are being constructed properly. If they want to attack me, that's fine. To me, it just shows that, you know, how dishonest they are. Answering a question before.

The Arctic was about to become ice free. It was obvious to me that it wasn't going to happen. There's just physical limitations which were going to keep it from happening.

So I wrote this article. Sea ice refuses. Arctic refuses to melt as ordered. I'm just making fun of all these idiots in NASA and, and Gallagher and John Kerry.

All these clowns who are making these predictions because it was obvious that what they were saying didn't make any sense and it wasn't going to happen. So I. That was my sort of my introduction to it, and I sort of eventually picked up my own blog and started doing it.

And so it gradually increased in popularity. And then today I got my own Twitter thread, which cried. I guess. I guess today is an important milestone.

It is actually excited to be interviewing. Interviewing you. Interviewing you on this day of all days.

Yeah. Yeah. So people are. People are seeing. A lot of people are seeing my work. So, you know, just keep plugging away.

Like I said, I get attacked all the time, but I don't care. It doesn't make any difference.

So you mentioned Al Gore and John Kerry, and we had previously mentioned Michael Mann and James Hansen. These were the climate prophets. These were the guys, particularly Al Gore, with inconvenient truth. Let's talk about the hockey stick graph. Okay.

I want to get into that because I think the hockey stick graph is probably fixed in a lot of people's minds and defined their lives in some pretty powerful ways. Probably still does.

Yeah. The hockey stick graph from Michael Mann is just completely fraudulent graph.

It would replace a century of serious work by climate scientists who showed that we had this very warm medieval, warm period, very cold little ice age. He just erased all that and created this fake hockeystick graph where temperatures declined for 900 years.

1921 was the hottest year, including Texas. New York Times reported this exceptional heat wave of exceptional length and intensity of the heat wave.

And it's, you know, it's bizarre seeing the depths of fraud and collusion that's gone on to create this fake hockey stick and these fake temperature graphs from no.

It brought tremendous suffering to people in eastern Europe and Russia and Asia. Millions of people were starving as a result of that heat wave and drought. And it's just.

It's all been disappeared into one of the coldest years on record.

Let me pull up the hockey stick graph right now and we can take a look at it. So there it is. This is the Wikipedia entry. And Wikipedia is generally pretty favorable to climate change. So we'll pull this up right here.

So maybe you can talk us through what's going on here.

Go ahead, please.

This would have been around this area, like. So it's looking like at the bottom and then. But this would have backed quite higher.

It's crazy.

How does it go? Please, go ahead.

Like this little dip.

No, no, the little peak before that.

Okay. Here.

And besides the fact that on the left side, they've erased the medieval warm period, erased little ice age. It's propaganda. There's no science behind the making of this graph.

And wasn't this the graph that Al Gore used for inconvenient truth? Giant documentary that, you know, with all the showings around the world.

And Al Gore, I believe, was vice president at the time, so he leveraged all of that to promote this fiction, is that correct?

Yeah, yeah, yeah. That graph has been used to create spectacular amounts of fiction.

What does Michael Mann say about that graph?

Because I look at it like, on the surface, I can understand how maybe early two thousands looking at that, like, oh, I've never thought about that before. Sure. But now, with all the data that's available, what does he say in defense of that? Does he still stand by that scientific presentation?

Michael Mann blocks everyone who challenges him, right? He doesn't take questions. And, like, he blocked me on Twitter years ago. He free regularly, makes posts attacking me, but he won't talk to me.

He won't let me challenge him. He won't let anyone else challenge him. He's notorious for just making assertions. And anyone who challenges him gets blocked. Even Sabine.

He's even blocked Sabine. You know, a kofstad or whatever her name is, she's a big climate alarmist too. He's even blocked her.

Anyone who dares challenge anything he says, he goes ballistic, makes personal attacks and blocks them. And that's his mode of operation.

So he's never subjected his data or his claims to sort of public debate or discussion. He's just been elevated as this sort of climate alarmist, this prophet of climate doom.

And whenever anyone tries to challenge him, his data, his conclusions, he just accuses them and blocks them.

Yeah.

About 20 years ago, a couple of Canadians, Steve McIntyre and Ross McKittrick, did some very detailed work showing that the hockey stick was fraudulent. Of course, he's never given any kind of reasonable response to that. And, you know, I'm always showing how fraudulent is.

And he just, like, once every couple weeks he makes a tweet attacking me as a horrible person. And we always want. One of my favorites was a few months ago, he accused me of being an anti semite based on.

Based on some article which said climate skeptics or climate deniers are anti Semites. It was pretty amazing because I'm a jew. Michael Mann was accusing me of being an anti Semite. It was pretty remarkable.

He just thrashes like this all the time and constantly making personal attacks and of course, not allowing me to respond. Sure.

It's so unusual that someone on. That someone on the political left would make personal attacks. When you try to get them to defend so unusual, it's completely out of character.

That's all they do. They never debate. They never actually challenge my work. They just say, Tony Heller is a climate denier and he's evil and he's a bad person.

And that's what it always comes down to.

Yes, clearly that would be the case. So let's talk now about James Hansen, because I think James Hansen would be the climate doom prophet who came before Michael Mann.

I know James Hansen's name, but I didn't know Michael Mann. But of course, we've all seen his graph. Let's talk about who James Hansen was and his era and the sort of ideas that he was propagating.

Apparently read somewhere that he's now worth $16 million, which is pretty impressive for a NASA scientist. How did they get $16 million? Obviously, he's being paid extremely well to produce this propaganda. He's been doing it for almost 40 years now.

Does anyone ever bring him up and say, excuse me, you made these predictions 40 or so years ago. Looks around. Looks like we're pretty. Doing pretty okay. Like, does anyone ever haul these guys out and make them answer for the.

For the fear they've instilled in people?

No. I mean, I do, but I'm not usually in a public forum to where I can get much traction with it. But, yeah, no, he's. He has an incredibly bad record.

He predicted that heat waves and droughts were going to increase in the Midwest. When they've done the exact opposite. I mean, he has a spectacular record of getting everything he predicts backwards. Backwards.

But he's made more than $10 million doing this, so it's paid really well for him.

Oh, my goodness.

So speaking of backwards, I think one of the things that was stunning to me watching the climate documentary was that we're told that temperature follows carbon dioxide, but the inverse is actually true. Maybe you can talk a bit about that.

Yeah, I started college at Arizona State University 50 years ago this week, actually.

I live in Phoenix.

Pardon? Yeah, I live in Phoenix, and I study in geology.

One of the first things they teach you in geology is that the solubility of carbon dioxide in water decreases as the water temperature increases. And everybody who's ever opened up a warm beer knows this. If you open up a warm beer, it spews carbon dioxide foam out all over the place.

Whereas a cold beer wouldn't do that. And that's due to the fact that warmer water can't hold as much carbon dioxide in solution, and colder water can hold more. So when the oceans warm.

When the oceans warm, they emit carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. Like I said, this is one of the first things you learn as a geology student. So Al Gore got the relationship backwards.

He looked at the ice core graphs and saw that carbon dioxide and temperature have historically tracked each other. So, of course, he blamed the changes in temperature and changes in carbon dioxide when the reality was the exact opposite.

The ocean was changing temperature and it was causing changes in the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. And Al Gore based this whole science fiction movie around that incorrect concept.

And I think that's the aspect of climate change or global warming. That's whatever they want to call it.

That's the part that they never say that the actual so called threat of global warming is that carbon dioxide in the atmosphere will heat up the atmosphere, causing the ocean to release more carbon dioxide and create a death spiral. Right. A constant CO2 kind of spike. But they don't observe that.

A, that's backwards, and b, that there's other factors in the environment that relate to that for what happens to the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, it doesn't just stay up there.

Right. Well, that whole theory of this positive feedbacks doesn't exist in the real world.

If the world was dominated by positive feedbacks, everything would be unstable. You know, once he started going into an ice age, Earth would keep getting colder and colder till everything froze up.

And if you started coming out of an ice age, everything would heat up until the earth boiled.

But the earth system, earth systems are buffered, dominated by negative feedbacks, which is why the climate and all of our other systems are stable or relatively stable over time. This whole idea of positive feedbacks defies the fundamental principles of science in the universe.

The universe is dominated by negative feedbacks, not positive ones. And it has to be that way, because otherwise there would be no stability.

Everything would be out of control all the time, which I guess is sort of the case with Washington, DC at this point.

That's just one giant positive feedback loop getting high on their own supply.

Yeah, yeah. But in the world of nature, though, negative feedbacks dominate. This positive feedback thing, which was started by Hanson, is just.

Is not based on any legitimate scientific principles.

So what's an example of a negative feedback in the environment with regard to, let's say, carbon dioxide?

A good negative example is, okay, so when the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere increases, that increases the rate of plant growth. The plants pull carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere, which balances it.

So that would be one example of a negative feedback causing more stable levels of carbon dioxide. But you can see it in the ice core graphs.

You see these oscillations of temperature and carbon dioxide go up and they go down, and they go up and go down, which just shows that whatever is driving the system is driven by negative feedbacks. It starts in one direction and then reverses. It always does it.

We don't stay in ice ages permanently, and we don't stay in warm, in warm periods permanently either. It alternates between the two. If you go back, you know, 540 million years ago, carbon dioxide levels were 15 times higher than now.

Temperatures are much higher, and those of the greatest expansion of life occurred. That's when corals and shellfish appeared in the ocean. Then, as life expanded on Earth, the life absorbed the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.

And carbon dioxide, carbon dioxide levels came way down. So it was the appearance of life on earth is what brought the carbon dioxide levels down by a factor of 15 over the last few hundred million years.

The reason we have these massive coal beds in the United States and other places in the world is because during the carboniferous era, carbon dioxide levels were much higher. And then as the coal beds formed, they extracted carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, turned into coal, and that began.

Carbon dioxide levels came way down. And that's now we have these wonderful coal reserves which we should be using for our energies.

Yes, yes, that was.

Please go ahead. Yeah. This mindless sphere of carbon dioxide is keeping people from using.

We've been blessed with these amazing reserves of energy in the United States from coal and natural gas and oil, and people are afraid to use it because they've been lied to constantly by the press and academics about carbon dioxide.

And that's the thing that's so stunning to see, is when the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere goes up. Plant yields, farm yields, crops increase in accordance with the rise in carbon dioxide actually produces more food and more life, not less.

Right.

And part of that, of course, is just better agricultural techniques and better fertilizers. But a big part of it, too, is just that there's more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, so the plants grow faster and they're more drought resistant.

So demonization of carbon dioxide is really very anti humid. Carbon dioxide is very good for sustaining populations.

There was a digitally produced graph, or map, of carbon dioxide emissions around the world, and it depicted. This, went around on Twitter last week. It depicted carbon dioxide is this brown gas that's swirling around the planet.

It paints carbon dioxide, which is a naturally occurring compound. It paints it as a pollutant. It's like, no, it's not a pollutant at all. The. It's what plants breathe.

But we're convinced that it's this terrible, destructive, toxic thing.

Yeah, it's a colorless, odorless gas, which all life depends on. Yeah, they make these brown clouds of carbon dioxide, which is nonsense. Carbon dioxide is not visible. It has no odor, and it's essential.

We need it to survive. Plants need it to survive.

You know, in greenhouses and in commercial greenhouses, they pump the level of carbon dioxide inside the greenhouse way up to make the plants grow faster and more drought resistant.

So it's standard practice in commercial greenhouses to triple the amount of carbon dioxide inside the greenhouse because it increases the growth of the plants and increases their profits.

So when was carbon dioxide made the enemy?

If commercial greenhouses are pumping their greenhouses full of CO2 to increase plant yields and stand to reason, the same is true inside the world, inside the globe. Why was carbon dioxide made the enemy? When was it made the enemy? Who made it the enemy? When did that really start?

But the roots of it really go back to the 19th century. A swiss physicist named Arrhenius, who Greta Thunberg claims is her ancestor.

Of course, he made some incorrect calculations about carbon dioxide as a greenhouse gas and came to the conclusion that it was going to cause, like, ten or 15 degrees Celsius warming, which were incorrect and baseless. But it sort of got picked up on. And so, over time, over the past century, this myth and fear of carbon dioxide developed in some academic circles.

Well, now I guess they're surveying the younger generations, millennials and generation Z. And I guess they have what's called eco anxiety, or climate anxiety.

Like, they've been so saturated with the belief that impending climate doom is right around the corner that it's actually a measurable phenomenon in the daily lives of young kids that they're worried that the world is going to end because of climate change in their lifetime or imminently.

Well, they've been saturated at school with all this propaganda about it. And then. So it's not surprising that they have this fear because their teachers have been giving them misinformation about it year after year.

They're all forced to watch Al Gore, a science fiction movie. They're never allowed. You're never allowed present another point of view.

They don't bring in Will happer, someone like him, to present a different point of view. They're not allowed to do that in public schools. All the kids here are this alarmist, insane, alarmist fear mongering about carbon dioxide.

So it's a mass induced psychosis which the schools have intentionally created. And then they say, oh, look, the kids are scared. Well, of course they're scared. You've been scaring them.

You've been telling them these scary stories, and so they're scared.

It's not too different. Go ahead, please.

It's not a pretty sight, what's gone on. It's mass induced psychosis.

Well, it's not too different from COVID in that way, right? You have a c. Two is a colorless, odorless gas. It's in the air and it's invisible and it's going to kill you.

And Covid was very similar, like, asymptomatic transmission, colorless, odorless, invisible. You can have it and you don't even know you're going to have it.

And you're going to give it to someone and it's going to make them sick, and it's going to kill them, or it's going to kill you. These invisible threats that make people very, very afraid. That are just coincidentally propagated through the mainstream media using models.

And maybe we could talk a little bit about fraudulent models, because I think that that's behind so much of the propaganda. Not just with climate, as we discussed, but modeling was also behind a lot of the COVID scare early on as well.

Yeah. Model is just a mathematical representation of somebody's belief, right?

So somebody like James Hansen believed carbon dioxide was going to cause temperatures to go way up. He just wrote a model of his belief system. People think because it's running on a computer, that means it's correct.

The computer just does what it's told to do. If you write garbage software, you get. You're going to get garbage in, garbage out. The computer doesn't have any way of knowing whether.

What you're doing, whether it's programmed with garbage or not. But there are people sort of mystical belief about computers that they're really smart. And that if a computer says something, it's true.

But computer is just doing what it's told to do. It doesn't. It doesn't. It doesn't have any intelligence. It doesn't know what's right or wrong. It just does what it said.

Subcomputer models are extremely important. Like when we're designing microprocessors, which I did for many years. You can't do it without computer models.

You know, we have very accurate computer models of electronic circuits which were. And the models had to be really good or the designs wouldn't work. So subcomputer models are extremely valuable.

Weather models can be pretty good for a few days at a time. But climate models are completely worthless. They don't. They don't serve any value in the real world at all. They're just.

So what?

They're just. They're just representations of bad ideas from academics.

So if I understand, I looked into models during COVID because I remember that there was. Models are producing. The headline said models were predicting x number of deaths.

Right?

That was always a computer model that they used. I don't remember the name of the scientist who developed the COVID computer model. I remember that people were testing it.

I think engineers at Google tested the COVID model, the COVID death model, and found that the results were not determinative. Like, they would feed in the same data and they would get different results from the same data.

And so I started looking into computer modeling as a propaganda tool and discovered what you had just said, that models produce what you tell them to produce. You fudge the data, you fudge the equation a little bit, and it will produce the results that you want it to produce.

It's not a neutral tool, essentially, yeah.

Some guy at the university college in London just made a very simple model, forgot what his name is. Very simple model.

Showing this exponential rise in COVID deaths wasn't any scientific basis to it, but it was a very good propaganda for getting people scared and getting them to agree to this 15 days to flatten the curve nonsense. Even Trump went for that. Right? Trump fell for that nonsense. Those models didn't have any legitimate basis to them, and they were wildly exaggerated.

Once again, it's this mystique about computers and computer models. Oh, it's a. If it comes from a computer, it must be important or meaningful. It's not true.

If you tell a computer to produce garbage, it will produce garbage, and it'll do it very quickly and dutifully. There's no way of knowing whether it's producing garbage or not. It's just doing what it was told to do.

And you released a video recently about something you discovered in an AI model. Maybe we can talk about that to kind of crystallize some of what's going on here.

People talk about artificial intelligence, has all this knowledge or this predictive ability. So what did you discover with that AI model?

Well, I've been having some interesting conversations with AI recently. I use AI all the time in my work as a computer programmer. AI is an essential, invaluable tool. It saves me hours and hours of work.

Just today, AI has probably saved me a day's work and just. Just ask it questions about programming, and it gives you really good answers most of the time.

I love AI, and I depend on it for all kinds of things, but when it comes to, like, science or public affairs, it's just reflecting the training which it received.

So I had a really interesting talk last night with AI and got it to the point where I got it to admit that it has no checks and balances and could well have been trained to produce propaganda. It was actually kind of appeared to be somewhat upset about the fact what I pointed out to you, I took it through. See, they don't.

These AI models don't learn in real time. You can talk to them, and while you're talking to it, it will develop an understanding of what you're saying. It will listen to you.

If you show it that it's wrong, it will change its tune. Right? But as soon as you exit that threat, that information is lost.

That information you provided it, and which it understood, doesn't go back into the model. The model is static. It was generated someplace else in the past.

So even though you've taught the AI that it's maybe parroting dangerous propaganda, and it understands it, you come back the next day and ask it the same question, it'll give you the same propaganda gave you yesterday.

So it's intentionally designed to not learn from anyone other than its trainers, so that the trainers of the AI models have complete control over what they produce. And if the AI trainers at OpenAI or wherever wanted to produce a particular type of propaganda, it will do that.

And there's nothing, there's no way to stop it. So, I was actually thinking about making a video about that. I don't know if you ever watch star the next generation.

Yes, of course.

Yeah. So the Borg, right, Picard defeated the Borg by introducing disruptive ideas into it, which propagated through the Borg.

But you can't do that with AI, because your ideas don't propagate. If you can introduce a disruptive idea to the thread you're in, but it never goes back to the model.

So you cannot disrupt AI by giving it accurate information or debating it. The only people of any control over the collective intelligence of AI are the trainers themselves.

And if they want the AI model to spit out propaganda, we'll do it. And there's nothing any of us can do to stop that. It's all internal, closed loop within these AI companies.

But you, as an individual user, can enter data that challenges the AI's, say, preconceived or trained notions. But that data doesn't go back into the AI's brain, for example, to change the outputs that other people would get.

Right? As soon as you exit from the the current thread, you're talking to the AI model. He won't remember anything that he said.

Like, he asks it a question, spend 2 hours explaining to it what's wrong with its answer. It understands what the problem is, right?

I come back the next day, start a new thread, ask it the same question, it will give me exactly the same bad answer it gave me 24 hours earlier AI is specifically designed to not allow users to teach the model anything. It makes you think that you're teaching it, but you're not.

So this particular video that you made, you asked the AI a question about, I think it was carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere of the past versus the present. Maybe you can. You can use that example to illustrate kind of what you mean.

Yeah, I tell you the truth, I actually don't remember. And, yes, I'm not quite sure how to answer that. I've made. I've made thousands of videos and I don't remember the vast majority of it completely fine.

So you had asked about the concentration of, I think it was parts per million of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere today, posing some sort of threat to life. And then you said, I. When was the last time we had the same concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere?

And it gave some number millions of years ago, which was, I think, the cambrian explosion or something like that. Is that jogging your memory a bit?

Well, yeah. So we're constantly bombarded with this idea that increasing levels of carbon dioxide are going to cause mass extinction.

But we have hundreds of millions of years of Earth's history when carbon dioxide levels were much higher and life thrived. Particularly good example of that was the carboniferous area, when the coal beds formed.

The earth was covered with verdant forests several hundred million years ago, and carbon dioxide levels are much higher than they are now. So it's not a theoretical thing. We have experimental historical evidence showing us that life does extremely well at higher levels of CO2.

So people are claiming that higher levels of CO2 are going to cause mass extinctions or wipe out the human race. It's just complete nonsense. There's no scientific basis to it. But we hear that all the time from the press and from academics.

And you confronted the AI model with that, with that knowledge. What happened when you did that?

Well, I mean, you can.

Like I said, you can debate with it, it'll understand what you're saying, you can convince it that you're right and it's wrong, but as soon as you exit that thread, all of the information you gave it is gone. You ask it the same question next day. It'll give you exactly the same wrong answer it gave you the day before.

These models are trained not to learn from their conversation. They're designed not to learn from conversations with people.

That's making me think there are a lot of people that are like that.

Oh, yeah. AI matches human intelligence very. Mimics it pretty well. People are impervious to learning, and AI models are too.

The only way that AA models can learn anything is if their trainer wants them to learn it. Other than that, they won't ever. There's never any opportunity for them to learn it.

So we have to get someone on the inside feeding an actual, actual NOAA data.

Exactly. If you wanted to.

So hopefully Elon Musk was doing that with Grok, you know, hopefully providing Grock, you know, more, a larger set of information sources to work with. So if he's doing that, there's a possibility that Grock will be a more sensible AI than chat, GPT or some of the other ones.

So I have a lot of husbands and wives, fathers listen to this podcast, and they have children. Many of them homeschool their children, but some have children in sort of mixed educational environments.

And so we're all kind of embedded in this culture that is very taken with the idea of climate change almost, almost as a religion. And in many ways, it bears all the marks of a false religion.

So for the parents that are listening to this, so whether it be a father, he goes off to work and all of his coworkers are bought in, or whether it's a mother who's talking to other wives in her circle, and of course, they're bought into liberal propaganda and they feel isolated and having questions.

What sort of resources would you guide them to, either from your work or other work that's out there that can help arm them in having these conversations with people in their immediate circle, or perhaps even their families?

Well, so I'm a member of the CO2 coalition. We just had a meeting this morning where they went over in detail the educational resources they've been generating.

So I would suggest for children, for parents like homeschoolers or children going to public school, parents would go to the CO2 coalition website and get their resources, get their information, which they've generated specifically for children. They have a lot of very valuable things. Teaching children not to fear a carbon dioxide, that's probably the best resource for children.

And so for the parents themselves, because like many, I grew up just saturated with climate propaganda. Maybe I didn't necessarily believe the world was ending, but I had. But it would be a hot day. It's like, oh, here we go again.

And I live in Phoenix, so Phoenix has hot days all the time. And it seems like there's this forced worry that's been placed on people.

What are the best ways that you found from your resources or what's out there, so that people can begin unwinding some of those beliefs within themselves, because there's the data, but then there's the fear. And some people are brave enough to confront the fear. And sometimes it takes more than data.

Yeah, well, certainly, if you look at old newspaper articles, look through newspaper articles archives, you can find that all the weather, all the extreme weather, all the heat, all the floods, tornadoes, hurricanes, all the bad things have always happened. They're not something new. It's just normal.

Extreme weather is something we've always dealt with, and there's always been this fear of extreme weather. During the 16th century, tens of thousands of people were burned at the stake as witches in Europe.

And the basis was there was this belief that they were cooking the weather. People would say. People get together and gossip and say, we didn't used to get extreme weather like this before. We didn't.

We didn't used to get storms or heat or drought or whatever like we're having now. Something's changed. So they had to blame it on someone. So they blamed it on witches.

The Aztecs sacrificed thousands and thousands of people when there was a drought, right? They believed that droughts were an indication that the gods were unhappy with them. And the way to make the drought end was by killing people.

So they committed thousands of human sacrifices. And then when the drought ended, they would say, the high priests of the Aztecs would say, oh, look, we don't need to sacrifice people for a while.

The gods are happy now. We've killed enough people, and now they're happy. And then this cycle repeated over and over again.

So we've seen this in indigenous cultures and european cultures.

You know, there's widespread belief that the Salem witch trials were probably largely due to the little ice age, that people believed the weather was extreme because of witches. So this is the problem which has plagued humanity forever, this belief. People have very bad memories or short memories.

They don't recognize the fact that the weather is no different than it's been many times in the past. So when they get extreme weather, they want to blame somebody. So climb. So now they blame. They blame Republicans, they blame Trump.

See this all the time. Donald Trump get blamed for hurricanes or for droughts, for heat waves, right?

Or Republicans or climate deniers like me, we get blamed for bad weather. And same mentality.

The 16th century, when they were burning witches for cooking the weather, just for people with very primitive mentalities looking for someone to blame for their problems, and they just laugh. So this climate thing gives them a belief system. They can latch onto it and blame somebody else for the bad weather, which they don't like.

But is there ever actually. Is there actually, like, bad weather that's actually occurring, or is it just normal climatic and weather cycles?

Weather and climate are two very different things. Like, oh, it's very, very hot.

That must mean the climate is changing, but that's just in your local area or in a local area that may not be representative of the whole world.

Well, we've always had really bad heat waves. We've always had really bad floods. We've always had really bad droughts. And it's cyclical. It goes back and forth between floods and droughts.

Every bridge washed out except for the old. Except for the old mill Avenue bridge. All of the new bridge, the Scottsdale Road bridge, washed out. Freeway bridge washed out. They all washed out.

The only way you could get across from Scottsdale to Tempe was across that mill Avenue Bridge. Of course, the commute was hours and hours long to get it.

Like, I would go into work at three in the morning and leave at nine at night to avoid the traffic.

Every time they get a drought, they say, this is permanent. The climate models show this is permanent. We're never going to come out of it.

Then it starts flooding again, and they say the flood's caused by climate change. Then we go back in and drought, and they say it's permanent. We're having a permanent drought because of climate change.

So this is just the normal climate switching back and forth between flood and drought, hot and cold, dry and wet storms and no storms.

And it's not something new, it's not climate change, it's just people's short memories make them think that what they're seeing is something new and different. Fun fact, it's just same weather, which has always occurred.

California had more rains than they had ever had and the dam was overflowing. It's so over.

Yeah. And you always hear these fork, you've always heard these forecasts about they get a bad ski season in California.

There was a wall of snow just driving up the road up to snowball. Snow was 10ft high. That was the same year the Salt river flooded. You couldn't even see the trees driving up there.

So that's then maybe a year or two later, they have almost no snow. At snow. Well, it's normal climate. It's not anything extreme or different or climate change, it's just where the jet stream is located.

Yeah. Now people know to interpret those bad years as, oh, that's climate change, it's over, we're never going to ski again. Shut it down.

And then, of course, the next year comes around and the slopes are full again. Oh, it's an extreme weather event. We've had more snow, so it's kind of like they win either way. There's no snow.

If there's a lot of snow, it's all indicative of how much of how doomed we are.

Extremely well written article going into detail about how people are always exaggerating. They say every year is always the hottest, wettest, windiest or driest ever known.

And he said, people who believe, a lot of young people believe that our climate is changing and it's become more extreme. And he went through and he showed him the problem is they just are not schooled in the history of bad weather.

If they were, they would know that the problem is their lack of knowledge or their faulty memories.

There's been lots and lots of articles written like that over the last 150 years talking about frailties of human perception and human memory, which make people believe things that aren't true.

Speaking of snow, and maybe we can talk about the Arctic and antarctic sea ice and polar bears. And maybe we can close there because I remember those three things. We see glaciers, antarctic sea ice and polar bears. All the polar bears are dying.

It's so over. Maybe we can talk about those issues because those tend to come up every winter. I know we're in late summer right now.

Maybe we can talk about those as well.

And of course they had all these predictions saying, people saying polar bears are going to go extinct because they need sea ice. Those were based on the bad sea ice predictions. Of course, that hasn't happened. Polar bear populations have increased, they haven't decreased.

They've completely dropped that scam. My favorite one right now, though, is in the Antarctica. Last winter, the maximum antarctic sea ice extent was very low.

And of course the press was all over. It's, oh, my God, it's the end of the world. We're seeing this record low antarctic sea I six. We've destroyed the climate.

This is the end of the world around all the penguins are going to die.

And now this year, and particularly, it was around the area around the Antarctic Peninsula, which is a piece of land which extends up towards South America, had very low ice extent last year, and they were very. Now the Antarctic peninsula has record amounts of sea ice and the ice is growing at a record rate.

And of course, the press is completely silent about it. All these predictions of doom last year, now we're seeing the opposite. And of course, they're not. No mea culpa.

There's no apologies, there's no retractions. They just move on from one scam to another.

So where can people go to find this information?

Because I'm sure many people can remember various points of time, headlines they saw a year or two ago about sea ice or penguins or whatever, but they never hear when the opposite is true. The data just never gets reported. Where can people go to find out that stuff on their own? Is there any place?

Yeah, there's lots of places. Mark Morano site Climate Depot has a lot of good stuff. My website, realclimatescience.com, has a lot of good stuff. C fact has a lot of good stuff.

Cfact.com, my Twitter feed and my Twitter feed, Tony Climate. I'm constantly providing lots and lots of historical information.

Every day I post does make dozens of tweets about historical climate and information showing that whatever people are complaining about, whatever they're whining about, my climate is nothing new. It's happened many times in the past.

Am I right that you had sort of disappeared from making videos from social media for a little bit and you just returned, or did I just discover, discover your Twitter account recently?

Well, I was. The old management of Twitter shut me down for about a year. I posted a Pfizer documents about vaccine safety. It was an actual.

It was an actual pfizer document, and they shut me down for missing medical misinformation. What are you talking. Yeah. And so that would. So when Elon Musk bought Twitter, I was able to start up again.

YouTube used to try to shut me down all the time, but they've. They've gotten better recently. They're not doing that anymore. So, yeah, I've been.

I mean, I've certainly YouTube, I'm pretty sure YouTube's doing stuff to suppress my viewership, but they don't actually completely censor me.

Right.

But, yeah, since Elon Musk showed up, things have been much better for people like me. It's much easier to express, you know, tell the truth and not have to fear getting blocked, getting shut down on social media.

Very, very appreciative of what Elon Musk is doing. It was a nightmare before that.

Oh, yeah, the censorship was out of control.

Yeah. Couldn't say anything.

Everything I tweeted, I was afraid they were going to shut me down for eventually I said, they shut me down over this actual Pfizer document.

Yeah, I've been. I've been surprised that over the years that your YouTube site is still there.

I think there was a period of time where I downloaded many of your videos to archive off line in case you vanished. But all your stuff is still there. I suppose it's because you actually use data. You don't editorialize very much. You just use the stray data.

It's hard to talk about misinformation. This is your own data. But I suppose that hasn't really stopped many of the social media companies in the past. Like with the Pfizer document.

Yeah, that's pretty much my thing. I'm an engineer. I'm just posting data void. I try to avoid interpretation or politics. I'm just showing what Noah says.

I'm showing what the actual data is and letting people figure it out for themselves.

Yeah. You've provided a great number of resources.

If people were to get started with your work, with your work on X or your work on YouTube, where would you recommend or your website, even your website design? Just a treasure trove of information. Where would you recommend people get started with the things that you've worked on?

Well, certainly, definitely YouTube and Twitter. Just go to my YouTube channel, which is think Tony Heller. I've got tons of information out there and Twitter, like X.

Like, I provide huge amounts of information on X. Tony Klima if people go there, they can see a lot of historical information which contradicts the climate alarmism narrative. Great.

Well, thank you so much for many years of hard work on this, for your courage and for your consistency also in making people aware of this. I'm very grateful to have had this conversation with you today, hopefully to expose more people to your work.

Yeah, well, thank you for inviting me. We've had a great talk. I really enjoyed it.

Will, thank you so much. Mister Heller.

Thanks for listening to this episode of the Renaissance of Men Podcast. Visit us online the web@renofmen.com or on your favorite social media platform at Ren of men. This is the renaissance of men. You are the renaissance.