When Climate Data does not suit the Narrative, Change the Data

The Canadian government is omitting and deleting 100 years of actual observed climate data in favor of climate models. Its clear that the pesky real data that does not support the climate alarmist narrative the Trudeau government wants to promote is better deleted and forgotten.

The temperature data is part of a new website by Climate Change Canada meant to be used by policymakers to “support and enable Canada’s climate change adaptation planning, and improve access to relevant climate data.” i.e. It will be used for developing official government policy.

Cataloged temperature measurements collected between 1850-1949, real observed, collected temperature data, were replaced by data from 24 models and historical simulations based on data collected from 1950-2005. i.e., the actual historical data was replaced in the models by modeled data extrapolated from a period a century later.

The inconvenient truth is that the actual data doesn’t reflect the official climate alarmist narrative supported by the Trudeau government:

  • Vancouver was hotter in 1910 than it was in 2017;
  • Toronto was warmer in 1852 than it was in 2017;
  • Moncton was 4 degrees warmer in 1906 than in 2017;
  • Brandon, Man., had 49 days where the average daily temperature was above 20C in 1936, compared to only 16 in 2017, with a high temperature of 43.3C that year compared to 34.3C in 2017;
  • The hottest temperate ever recorded in Canada happened before 1950 – September 15, 1937, saw a high of 45 degrees Celsius in Yellow Grass, Saskatchewan – which meant it was also excluded from the new climate change website.

Yet another example of climate activism fudging the data to suit the narrative.

This follows a similar story from 2009 about the University of East Anglia’s (Norwich, England) Climatic Research Unit (CRU) being forced to reveal it had tossed actual data in favor of modeled data, following requests for the data under FOIA. In a statement on its website, the CRU said: “We do not hold the original raw data but only the value-added (quality controlled and homogenized) data.”

What’s really galling in the CRU case is the lame excused used for the destruction of the data was the need to save space. The revised figures were kept, but the originals — stored on paper and magnetic tape — were tossed (i.e. destroyed) when the CRU moved to a new building.

Roger Pielke, professor of environmental studies at Colorado University, discovered data had been lost when he asked for original records. “The CRU is basically saying, ‘Trust us’. So much for settling questions and resolving debates with science,” he said.

… and don’t get me started about Michael Mann. Sheesh! Mr climate hockey stick, father of global warming alarmism, took Canadian climate scientist Dr Tim Ball to court for libel. Dr Ball basically outed Mann as a charlatan. In trial, Mann defied the court, refusing a direction by the British Columbia (Canada) Supreme Court to turn over data and methodology relating to his, now infamous and thoroughly discredited, Hockey Stick chart. Mann was found in contempt, and must pay Dr Ball’s court costs. In addition to the rather substantial financial penalty, the judgement essentially establishes Mann’s hockey stick as debunked, indefensible hokum. i.e. Fake Climate Data. This is the way climate alarmism will end, not with a bang, but a whimper. And so it goes …

“There is no climate emergency”

More than 500 scientists and professionals in climate and related fields have sent a “European Climate Declaration” to the Secretary-General of the United Nations asking for a long-overdue, high-level, open debate on climate change.

There is no climate emergency … climate science should be less political, while climate policies should be more scientific,” the declaration states. “Scientists should openly address the uncertainties and exaggerations in their predictions of global warming, while politicians should dispassionately count the real benefits as well as the imagined costs of adaptation to global warming, and the real costs as well as the imagined benefits of mitigation.”

“Climate models have many shortcomings and are not remotely plausible as policy tools … there is no statistical evidence that global warming is intensifying hurricanes, floods, droughts and such like natural disasters, or making them more frequent … therefore, there is no cause for panic and alarm.”

The letter further declares that CO2 is not a pollutant. It is essential to all life on Earth. Photosynthesis is a blessing. CO2-mitigation measures are as damaging as they are costly. “We strongly oppose the harmful and unrealistic net-zero CO2 policy proposed for 2050,” they decared.

Finally, climate scientists are attempting to bring rationality and real science back to the discussion. Methinks a hyperventilating 16-year old was one prop too far.

update 181019: Whom to BelieveThe website Climate Feedback presents itself as ” … a worldwide network of scientists sorting fact from fiction in climate change media coverage. Our goal is to help readers know which news to trust.” As far as I can tell, their main objective is attempting to invalidate climate skeptic articles. Fair enough.

But what are you to make of “Letter signed by “500 scientists” relies on inaccurate claims about climate science.” The article refers to the recent letter to the UN signed by 500 scientists, stating unequivocally that “There is No Climate Emergency.” The article starts off with “the claims contradict or misrepresent the evidence uncovered by geoscientists, failing to provide support for its conclusions downplaying the threat of climate change …”

In this article, and throughout the website, the reviewers empower science as the arbiter in the climate change debate, and the importance of publishing in peer-reviewed journals. So these 500 scientist are in fact charlatans, not backing their statements with real science? Or perhaps more to the point, it is science that does not suit the climate alarmist narrative espoused by Climate Feedback contributors. As far as I can tell, there is not a single article on the site that does not endorse the climate alarmist narrative. How can that be possible, unless the contributors themselves are shilling for that narrative.

e.g. A recurring point in a number of the articles is to just stick your head outside and observe. Melting glaciers, shrinking sea ice, rising sea levels et al … wait … Ahh, rising sea levels. Google it yourself. Sea levels have been rising for 10,000 years, as we moved out of the ice age (neanderthals must have been lighting too many fires and mammoths farting too much). But over the last few decades, rising sea levels have slowed considerably, way below average. How does that suit the narrative? Try to make sense of sea ice shrinking and expanding. What is the trend? These experts continuously accuse others of cherry-picking data, and yet preach using their own version of the truth. Yes, whom to believe.

Confessions of a climate scientist: the global warming hypothesis is an unproven hypothesis

Dr. Mototaka Nakamura has spent decades studying cloud dynamics and forces mixing atmospheric and ocean flows on medium to planetary scales. He has published 20 climate papers on fluid dynamics. He is what one would call an expert on climate science.

Dr Nakamura is one of an increasing number of climate scientists who are taking a stand against the shrill bullying of the man-made climate change crowd. In June, he published a small book in Japanese on “the sorry state of climate science”. It’s titled Confessions of a climate scientist: the global warming hypothesis is an unproven hypothesis.

Quadrant Online has published an article that neatly summarizes Dr Namamura’s position. That, while climate models are useful tools for academic studies, “the models just become useless pieces of junk or worse (worse in a sense that they can produce gravely misleading output) when they are used for climate forecasting.” He further states, “I am confident that some honest and courageous, true climate scientists will continue to publicly point out the fraudulent claims made by the mainstream climate science community in English.”

He projects warming from CO2 doubling, “according to the true experts”, to be only 0.5degC. Hardly the existential climate event we are told we are faced with.

On a related note, last year, Dr Jordan Peterson had some interesting views on climate change. In this conversation, he references the work of Bjorn Lomberg to understand how, when you prioritize the myriad issues we are faced with to actually improve the world and the lives of its inhabitants, addressing climate change does not make the short list. Read Lomberg’s recent article in The Australian, “A Climate of Burning Money” to begin to understand the nature of the fraud that is being perpetrated on us.

There are powerful, hidden players beating this drum to their own selfish ends, and ruthlessly trying to censor critics. The lead off in Tony Heller’s video below quotes Dr Ottmar Endenhofer, from 2010: “One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has nothing to do with environmental policy anymore … We (UN-IPCC) redistribute the world’s wealth by climate policy.” As always, follow the money.

Tony Heller’s Gift To Climate Alarmists

Tony Heller compiles a list of highly selective data presentations climate alarmists use to present their case. As you can see, the actual data in its true historical context presents a much different story than the narrative the climate alarmists use to browbeat skeptics. The lead off quote by Dr Ottmar Enderhofer is likely the most revealing as to what is actually at play here.

In October 2015, Christiana Figueres, executive secretary of U.N.’s Framework Convention on Climate Change, admitted in a news conference that the goal of environmental activists is not to save the world from ecological calamity but to destroy capitalism. “This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time, to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the Industrial Revolution,” she said.

Mike Shedlock (aka Mish) decompresses Heller’s video and adds some more context, thoroughly exposing climate alarmist agenda for what it is — a fraud. In fact, at the root of it is financial fraud.

As always, follow the money.