Deceptive Canadian climate report in context Dr Tim Ball is an environmental consultant and former climatology professor at the University of Winnipeg. Tom Harris is executive director of the Ottawa, Canada-based International Climate Science Coalition It is appropriate that a climate change story from Canada misled the world on April Fool’s Day. The April 1, 2019 Toronto-based Globe and Mail headline read, “Report on climate change shows Canada warming at twice the rate of the rest of the world.” The government-funded Canadian Broadcast Corporation headlined their coverage, “Canada warming at twice the global rate, leaked report finds.” And so it was across mainstream media. CNN, the UK-based Guardian newspaper and others blared, “Canada is warming at twice the global rate, report says.” A Google search for that phrase yielded over 14,000 hits across the world. Propagandists working in Environment and Climate Change Canada (ECCC) must be proud. Canada’s Changing Climate Report (CCCR2019, the full report is available here) is written almost entirely by Canadian government scientists. In fact, of the 42 authors, only 5 do not work directly for the federal government, and 26 of them work for ECCC. So, naturally they support the government’s climate change stance. CCCR2019 asserts that our country is warming twice as fast as the rest of the world and Northern Canada nearly three times as fast. That is ridiculous, of course. There is only one weather sensing station for the entire Arctic Archipelago and Arctic Islands so ECCC actually has no idea what climate change is occurring in that region. That such a flawed report would originate in Canada is appropriate since it was a Canadian, billionaire businessman and former UN Under-Secretary-General, the late Maurice Strong, who almost single-handedly put the anthropogenic global warming (AGW) hypothesis, the biggest deception in history, on to the world stage in the first place. You can read about how he achieved this in my (Dr Ball’s) book Human Caused Global Warming: The Biggest Deception in History. He set up the entire ruse, the largest fake news story ever, using the deep state, in this case, the weather bureaucrats at the World Meteorological Organization (WMO). CCCR-2019 does what all government climate research has done since Strong took over through the UN and created the story for a political agenda. It assumes, wrongly, that temperature is the primary issue in climate change (drought is the single biggest negative weather event followed by floods). It also assumes that warming is dangerous. Why is warming bad, especially in a country like Canada? What the UN has done since the start is to carry out a cost/benefit analysis but only considered the cost. History shows clearly that warming has been good for humanity and the environment. Cooling is our real enemy, especially in higher latitude countries like Canada. A study in British medical journal The Lancet reached the following conclusion: “Cold weather kills 20 times as many people as hot weather, according to an international study analyzing over 74 million deaths in 384 locations across 13 countries.” The WMO is made up of bureaucrats from the national weather offices of each UN member nation, including ECCC. They appoint the members of the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) that under Strong’s control, manufactured the entire AGW story. Canada has been a prominent member of the IPCC since its inception and indeed, ECCC, then called Environment Canada, was a founding member of the IPCC. That so many of the authors of CCCR2019 are ECCC civil servants is a red flag. Take Marjorie Shepherd, director of the climate research division at ECCC, for example. She is a scientist bureaucrat working for an agency that long ago convinced their political masters that the AGW hypothesis was confirmed and must drive public policy on energy and environment. It’s no surprise then that Shephard would be promoting the unproven hypothesis of AGW. It is beyond a conflict of interest because ECCC scientists cannot now tell politicians that the hypothesis is wrong. The Globe and Mail reported that: “Shepherd… said that warming is not uniform and some regions are warming more than others, and that on average, since records became available in 1948, temperatures in Canada have increased by 1.7 degrees. Annual average temperature over Northern Canada increased by 2.3 C since 1948.” This statement underscores why you should not draw conclusions with inadequate data. However, that doesn’t stop Shepherd from manipulating the data to support her department’s political position. Why are some regions warming more than others? What is the range of difference? Doesn’t that make the impact of warming less problematic overall? If there is warming in some areas and not others, what was the location and length of record in the stations you chose? How does she define Northern Canada? The reality is the number of stations in Canada’s Arctic (there are none for the entire Arctic Ocean) is inadequate to draw any conclusions. And of course, the biggest deception in climate research is cherry-picking the start and ending date of your study. You can pick any segment to prove warming or cooling. In this case, the start date of 1948 did not need to be cherry-picked because it was when the record began and was a cool period. The global temperature began declining in 1940 and continued to decline until 1980. In other words, the record Shepherd used began at the nadir of global temperature cooling, so warming since then is normal, not surprising and not due to human activity. Nevertheless, Shepherd says, “While both human activities and actual variations in climate contribute to this observed warming in Canada, the human factor is dominant.” There is absolutely no way to substantiate that statement. Which stations did she choose? How many of them were affected by the Urban Heat Island Effect, the well-known phenomenon of local warming due to urban development? At the beginning of the 1990s, a decision was taken to reduce the number of stations used to calculate every nation’s monthly and annual average temperatures. Diamonds identify the ones chosen for Canada in Figure 1. This artificially increased temperatures and that accounts for Shepherd’s 1.7 and 2.3°C increases. Notice that Eureka is the only station for the entire Arctic Archipelago and Arctic Islands. They chose it deliberately because it was a well-known warm anomaly in the Arctic. It accounts for most of the Arctic warming in the Canadian sector. One of the reasons for Shepherd’s mistakes is that she relies on the IPCC for her climate information. The IPCC combines the forecasts of some 102 computer models from different countries to produce an average result. Ironically, while they have all been wrong since they began in 1990, the Canadian model has produced the worst results, as Gregory showed (Figure 2). Despite Shepherd’s claim, there was no significant warming in the last 40 years. Global temperatures began levelling off after 1998 and continue stable to this day, although that is of little consequence since it is such a short time interval. When you put the CCCR2019 study in an historical context, it is seen to be insignificant (Figure 3) since it was warmer than today for at least 90% of the last 10,000 years. This graph also shows that there is nothing remarkable about today’s rate of change. Finally, why would anyone want to leak a set of temperature records (CCCR2019 was not scheduled to be released until April 2)? It was obviously to attract media attention with the implication that there is something nefarious going on. This is now such a standard device used to influence and deceive that it should immediately raise awareness of a deception. That CCCR2019 was ‘leaked’ on exactly the same day as the start of the federal government’s expensive and unnecessary ‘carbon tax’ shows that it was yet another example of government bureaucrats controlling the agenda and pushing their policy on climate change. CCCR2019 asserts: “Canada’s climate has warmed and will warm further in the future, driven by human influence. Global emissions of carbon dioxide from human activity will largely determine how much warming Canada and the world will experience in the future, and this warming is effectively irreversible. Both past and future warming in Canada is, on average, about double the magnitude of global warming. Northern Canada has warmed and will continue to warm at more than double the global rate…Extreme hot temperatures will become more frequent and more intense.” The public needs to know that CCCR2019 was commissioned by an agency (ECCC) that has been wrong on every long-term (climate) forecast they have made since at least 1990. Their forecast for the winter of 2018/19 was particularly flawed. In September 2018, Environment Canada predicted a mild winter for 2018/2019. Environment Canada Senior Climatologist David Phillips said, it would be a “milder than normal winter.” The agency wasn’t just wrong, it was 100% wrong. This winter has been one of the worst on record. ECCC weather forecast accuracy has not improved, despite millions of dollars spent on computers, satellite data, and Doppler radar. The only claims that they are improved are those the agency produces. Most independent polls show that climate change is not a serious public concern. One of the reasons for this is that people can see that there is no warming despite Shepherd’s false claims. The global warming scare must be killed before the credibility of science is gone.
The global warming scare must be killed before the credibility of science is gone