Masking…the Truth?

thespian masks

I’ve shown a number of Tony Heller’s vlogs here on the subject of “climate change”. He has more recently been covering COVID-19. Heller just moved from Colorado Springs to Wyoming, having tired of the increasing Leftism in his former location. In a recent vlog he plays a short clip from a 60 Minutes segment (March 8, 2020) in which Anthony Fauci discusses the use of masks. The video is timestamped at this mark (0:56), and below is my transcription of the brief discussion on this subject:

Fauci: Right now in the United States people should not be walking around with masks.

60 Minutes: You’re sure of it? ‘Cause people are listening really closely to this.

Fauci: No. Right now people should not be wa- — There’s no reason to be walking around with a mask. When you’re in the middle of an outbreak, wearing a mask might make people feel a little bit better, and it might even block a droplet; but, it’s not providing the perfect protection that people think that it is. And often there are unintended consequences: people keep fiddling with the mask, and they keep touching their face.

60 Minutes: And can you get some schmutz sorta staying inside [the mask]?

Fauci: Of course, of course; but, when you think masks, you should think of healthcare providers needing them, and people who are ill.

I can affirm that every time I wear the mask—in places where I live in which it’s currently enforced, such as grocery stores—I am constantly “fiddling with the mask”. Yet Fauci contradicts the above in his recent Senate testimony (May 12, 2020):

Well, ya know, the best PPE [personal protective equipment] for the general public, if possible, right now, is to maintain the physical and social distancing. But, as we’ve said, and I think all of us would agree, there are certain circumstances in which it is beyond your control, when you need to do necessary things—like go to the drug store and get your medication, go to the grocery store and get your food—that, in fact, you need some supplementation than just physical distancing. That’s the reason why some time ago, a recommendation was made—I believe it was Dr. Redfield at the CDC who first said that—about getting some sort of a covering. We don’t want to call it a mask—because back then we were concerned we would be taking masks away from the healthcare providers—but, some sort of mask-like facial covering, I think for the time being, should be a very regular part of how we prevent the spread of infection. And, in fact, the more and more as you go outside right here in where I am sitting in Washington, DC, you can see many people out there with masks on, which gives me some degree of comfort that people are taking this very seriously.

Yes, I can recall the pleas not to use up all the surgical masks, especially N95 respirator masks, (in favor of construction masks, e.g.) so that healthcare workers will have enough; but, what about Fauci’s earlier statement in the 60 Minutes segment above? He clearly said that we, the general public, should not be wearing masks of any type, and, further, that it is healthcare providers and the ill that need them. Was he not telling the truth earlier, in order to ensure adequate supply for first responders and healthcare providers? Or is he exaggerating right now, and, if so, for what purpose(s)?

From the World Health Organization (WHO) website we find the following (and more) on the subject of masks:

  • If you are healthy, you only need to wear a mask if you are taking care of a person with COVID-19.
  • Wear a mask if you are coughing or sneezing.
  • Masks are effective only when used in combination with frequent hand-cleaning with alcohol-based hand rub or soap and water.
  • If you wear a mask, then you must know how to use it and dispose of it properly.


So, which is it?

I always enjoy listening to Mike Rowe. In the following he uses one of my favorite terms: personal responsibility. This is one of the hallmarks of a free society. And, not surprisingly, he has other nuggets to consider:

…Something is happening right now with regard to public safety and individual responsibility. It’s a collision.

In some areas particularly, if things continue much further down this track, there’ll be no need to strive for the Green New Deal or to impose any of the more stringent “climate change” mandates since the same deleterious end-goals can be achieved this way instead, and at a much quicker pace.

Climocentrism: The New Geocentrism

“Trees don’t lie, but [some] climate scientists do.”
-Tony Heller (@ 8:58 of video below)

One of the most embarrassing aspects of the historical record of the Christian Church was the stubborn, persistent belief that the earth was flat and/or our solar system was geocentric. This thinking was based on misinterpretations of a number of Scriptures. But we now know (despite the assertions of a few current flat-earthers) that our solar system is heliocentric—the sun is its center—and the earth rotates on its axis as it revolves around the sun.

But despite mounting evidence, the historical Church clung to its misinterpretations rather than reinterpret those passages to align with contemporary scientific data. Something somewhat similar is occurring in the realm of climatology, though with a twist. The current ideology of “climate change” does not align with historical climatic evidence, so some climatologists simply—and deceptively—change the climate data. This puts a whole new meaning on “climate change”.

There is historical data of a Medieval Warm Period (MWP; ca. 950AD to 1250 AD), which was followed by a Little Ice Age (LIA; ca. 1300AD to 1850AD). Both tree ring data and historical evidence indicate the MWP had average temperatures exceeding those of today—well before the Industrial Age—and the LIA had average temperatures colder than the past 150 years. This casts doubt on the extent of the role of anthropogenic (human-caused) CO2 emissions from the use of fossil fuels in climatic changes. In fact, I’m old enough to recall that there was a growing scientific consensus in the 1970s of an impending ice age, with its causation linked to emissions from fossil fuels. [See this 1978 video from Columbia University and then-leading world climate scientists, sponsored by the US Army and the National Science Foundation, narrated by Leonard Nimoy.] But, of course, now the theory is the converse: anthropogenic CO2 emissions are causing ‘global warming’! As Tony Heller deadpanned (going from my memory) in a recent video, “Fossil fuels sure are powerful.”

In Heller’s video below is a screenshot of a statement by Dr. David Deming of the University of Oklahoma College of Earth and Energy regarding the subject “Climate Change and the Media”, entered as part of U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works Hearing Statements (12/06/2006):

I had another interesting experience around the time my paper in Science was published. I received an astonishing email from a major researcher in the area of climate change. He said, “We have to get rid of the Medieval Warm Period” [11:16 in video below].

And that’s precisely what Michael Mann did in his reconstruction of climate data. Mann minimized the heat of the MWP, minimized the cold of the LIA, and inflated recent temperatures—in order to falsely portray recent temperatures as exceeding those of the MWP—showing a trending upwards climactically, resulting in his infamous “hockey stick” graph. You can read the background and results of the court case in which Dr. Tim Ball won Mann’s defamation suit relating to it. Ball even received all court-related costs as part of the settlement, because Mann refused to provide to the court the underlying evidence for his “hockey stick” in order to ‘prove’ his case. From the article:

Tim’s [Ball’s] famous words [were] that Michael Mann “belongs in the state pen, not Penn State,” a comical reference to the fraudulent ‘hockey stick’ graph that knowledgeable scientists knew to be fakery.

In his videos, Tony Heller has been posting actual historical data, such as from newspaper articles from across this spinning spherical earth, in order to compare with current data manipulations from climate ‘scientists’. Below is his most recent vlog. Heller provides much food for thought:




See Tony Heller’s blog for more.

“Climate Change” as Religion

Somewhat recently I shared brunch with a friend, a non-believer. She has known about my Christian faith for some time. We’ve been friends for over 15 years, and I enjoy talking with her on a variety of subjects, some controversial. We can disagree yet not be disagreeable to each other.

Because she had a nominal Catholic upbringing, she was not wholly unfamiliar with the Holy Scriptures. Consequently, I understood that, though she knew some things in the Christian Bible, she did not accept the authority of those Scriptures. Therefore, I prefaced the following statement with this understanding as a premise: I remarked how, with current technology, we have the means to impose what Scripture calls the ‘mark of the beast’ (Revelation 13:16-17) on a worldwide scale. All that is lacking is a unified political power structure to implement and mandate it.

Rather than agree this was true, she refused to engage on the subject—because she didn’t believe in the Scriptures. Though I could not understand how one must necessarily believe in Scripture in toto in order to engage in a general conversation about one aspect of it, we finally just acknowledged (though we both knew this well-beforehand) that she did not share my faith-belief—this hyphenated term one of my choosing.

Subsequent to this, I remarked how most everyone has an opinion on “climate change”, aka anthropogenic [man-made] global warming (AGW), yet most everyone lacks the requisite knowledge base to form an informed opinion on this matter. I noted that there is some info available online that the motivated layperson could read to become more acquainted with the particulars—material that goes beyond the sound bites one hears on corporate media. Without providing any sort of reasoning or affirming whether or not she read any such material, she proclaimed her belief in “climate change.” I told her I agreed that the climate is always changing, but that that is not the same thing as “climate change” (AGW). I asked her to provide some reasoning, some substance behind her stance (and I was quite ready to do same). She said something to the effect, if not verbatim: “I just believe it’s true.”

I slyly smiled and replied, “So that’s your faith-belief?”

She cocked her head a bit, and with a quasi-grin and raised eyebrows gave me one of those looks