Skip to content

Delingpole: Environment Canada Airbrushes 100 Years of Inconvenient Climate Data out of History

September 20, 2019

By Paul Homewood

 

h/t Athelstan

 

If you thought it was only NOAA, NASA, UK Met Office, Australian BOM and Uncle Tom Cobley who have been cheating, think again.

Noe Canada’s Environment Agency have been caught defrauding the taxpayers who pay their salaries:

 

image

Environment Canada – the federal environment agency in Canada – has erased a century’s worth of observed temperature data, claiming its modelled computer projections are more accurate.

According to Lorrie Goldstein of the Toronto Sun:

Canadians already suspicious of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s carbon tax are likely be even more suspicious given a report by Ottawa-based Blacklock’s Reporter that Environment Canada omitted a century’s worth of observed weather data in developing its computer models on the impacts of climate change.

The scrapping of all observed weather data from 1850 to 1949 was necessary, a spokesman for Environment Canada told Blacklock’s Reporter, after researchers concluded that historically, there weren’t enough weather stations to create a reliable data set for that 100-year period.

“The historical data is not observed historical data,” the spokesman said. “It is modelled historical data … 24 models from historical simulations spanning 1950 to 2005 were used.”

This excuse is unlikely to persuade sceptical observers of the Climate Industrial Complex, which has consistently sought to play down, conceal or even destroy temperature data which does not fit in with the alarmist global warming narrative.

As Blacklock’s Reporter notes, in many cases the temperatures in the early 20th century were higher than they are today. This doesn’t suit the narrative – consistently pushed by green activists like Canada’s notoriously partisan Environment Minister Catherine ‘Climate Barbie’ McKenna – that the planet is warming at a dangerous rate due man-made carbon emissions.

For example, Vancouver had a higher record temperature in 1910 (30.6C) than in 2017 (29.5C).

Toronto had a warmer summer in 1852 (32.2C) than in 2017 (31.7C).

The highest temperature in Moncton in 2017 was four degrees cooler than in 1906.

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.

McKenna’s Environment Canada is merely following the bad example set by several other institutional climate gatekeepers including NASA, NOAA and the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia.

NOAA, for example, has frequently been caught adjusting past temperatures downwards and more recent temperatures upwards in order to make ‘global warming’ look more dramatic.

During the Climategate scandal, scientists at the CRU admitted that they had thrown away much of their raw data, leaving only their revised data intact.

Their excuse was that it had been done to ‘save space’.

As the London Times reported:

Scientists at the University of East Anglia (UEA) have admitted throwing away much of the raw temperature data on which their predictions of global warming are based.

It means that other academics are not able to check basic calculations said to show a long-term rise in temperature over the past 150 years.

The UEA’s Climatic Research Unit (CRU) was forced to reveal the loss following requests for the data under Freedom of Information legislation.

The data were gathered from weather stations around the world and then adjusted to take account of variables in the way they were collected. The revised figures were kept, but the originals — stored on paper and magnetic tape — were dumped to save space when the CRU moved to a new building.

Nobody was fired. And the scientists at CRU were subsequently rewarded with a visit from the Prince of Wales who pointedly congratulated them on their fine work.

Prince Charles said: “I wanted to discuss with them the appalling treatment they had endured during the so-called Climategate row because, as they reminded me, the University of East Anglia is not a campaigning NGO, nor an industry lobby group.

“It is an academic institution working to understand precisely and dispassionately what is happening to our world; to separate the facts from the fiction and build the sum of human knowledge on the one issue that could very well balloon into the cause of our downfall.”

Others less committed to green activism might find it somewhat sinister that the international agencies charged with maintaining the world’s temperature records are destroying them because the factual evidence doesn’t support the global warming scare narrative.

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2019/09/20/environment-canada-destroys-inconvenient-climate-data/

28 Comments
  1. September 20, 2019 10:41 pm

    Reblogged this on Climate- Science.press.

  2. George L permalink
    September 21, 2019 12:27 am

    I think the pace of the scam is picking up.

    • J Burns permalink
      September 21, 2019 4:04 pm

      Definitely, and in a very organised way. It seems like some sort of big (maybe final) push, but why?

      • Gerry, England permalink
        September 21, 2019 7:59 pm

        It is going to get colder, much colder, and they know it will be impossible to sell global warming to cold people.

      • Harry Passfield permalink
        September 21, 2019 10:18 pm

        Gerry: My thoughts exactly. They are doubling down ‘cos they know what’s coming. And the kids don’t. Pawns.

  3. johnbillscott permalink
    September 21, 2019 2:40 am

    Since “the science is settled” Climate Barbie McKenna (Scientist??) the name of the Department was changed to Environment an Climate Change Canada. So fiddling data to meet the Departments mandate is a given. Telling the truth in ECCC is career limiting. I would suppose its the same in the MET Office, CRU, NASA and NOAA.

    What is really sad is that children have been weaponized to spread the message, and the outcome maybe suicide by immature worried children.

  4. September 21, 2019 8:43 am

    What a pity these institutions cannot be sued for Fraud and misuse of Public Money. It is not what Universities are supposed to be.

  5. Kelvin Vaughan permalink
    September 21, 2019 9:06 am

    The greenhouse theory of CO2 is wrong. If you look at the blackbody curve of the Earth you will find the peak frequency of CO2 is at 15 microns. That is a temperature of minus 81C. Adding more CO2 to the atmosphere will not change the peak frequency at which CO2 radiates which has to happen to cause warming.

    • Mervyn Hobden permalink
      September 21, 2019 1:44 pm

      Your grasp of the physics is incorrect – short wave radiation from the sun heats the surface of the earth and the oceans which re-radiates as the longer wavelength. The argument is that CO2 acts to trap this radiation by reflecting this back to the earth, because it resonates around 12-15microns wavelength. However, the original ‘model’ predicted that this would make nightime temperatures hotter, but there is no sign in the data that this occurs. Water vapor is a much more intensive ‘greenhouse gas’ than CO2, hence humid nights are much hotter than dry clear nights. If the air is dry and clear, the rate of change of cooling is much faster. There has been a marked shift in the behavior of the jetstream, with a shift to large north/south loops the reason for which is not clear but is unlikely to be due to the level of CO2 in the stratosphere! The problem is that the ‘modellers’ use computer models based on linear algebra and refuse to accept that both weather and climate are non-linear. We have no known mathematical method of accurately predicting the outcome of a non-linear system and it is well accepted that ‘approximation’ destroys behaviours in a non-linear system. The computer models use trillions of calculation based on approximating the effects of thousands of variables – it gives a result, but no-one can say if it is the right one for certain. As the good Sir Issac Newton remarks in his ‘Principia’, ‘In mathematics there will always be little errors, which should not be neglected,’ It appears that computer programmers blunder on, disregarding this excellent advice!

      • Kelvin Vaughan permalink
        September 21, 2019 3:01 pm

        12 to 15 microns electromagnetic radiation is only to 79 to 191 Watts/sq m. Radiate that back to the ground and it will cool it surely?

      • Adam Gallon permalink
        September 21, 2019 7:39 pm

        No, it still inhibits the flow of energy from the system.

    • Kelvin Vaughan permalink
      September 27, 2019 9:55 am

      I see what is happening now. As more CO2 is added to the atmosphere the band that is blocked gets broader. At 10 parts per million CO2 42% of the band between 14.3 microns to 16.1 microns approximately is blocked. At 100 parts per million CO2 58% of the band between 13.9 microns and 16.4 microns approximately is blocked. At 1000 parts per million 58% of the band between 12.8 microns to 17.3 microns approximately is blocked.

  6. It doesn't add up... permalink
    September 21, 2019 9:20 am

    Winston Smith is alive and well in Canada.

  7. Phoenix44 permalink
    September 21, 2019 9:23 am

    Unbelievable. I mean actually literally unbelievable. How – how! – can they “know” their models are better? How can they know the data is wrong?

    It’s just pure nonsense.

    • Chaswarnertoo permalink
      September 21, 2019 9:27 am

      Heretic! Blasphemer! How dare you! Report for further training!

  8. September 21, 2019 10:03 am

    “Those who control the present, control the past and those who control the past control the future.”

    George Orwell, 1984

  9. September 21, 2019 10:41 am

    If the Earth cools the data will have to be re-modelled again.

    • johnbillscott permalink
      September 21, 2019 2:02 pm

      If the world cools the eco-activists will claim it is due to their green energy activism and not due the cold facts that climate change is a continuous continuum which is affected mostly by that big ball of fire in the firmament,

      • J Burns permalink
        September 21, 2019 3:57 pm

        But they’ll have trouble doing that – gaseous plant food emissions from the developing world have outpaced cuts in the west. Unsurprisingly, as the West are effectively just outsourcing emissions (along with profitable industry) in order to bask in a glow of unjustified righteousness.

  10. Derek Reynolds permalink
    September 21, 2019 11:08 am

    Endorsed by Prince Charles. What more could you ask?

  11. It doesn't add up... permalink
    September 21, 2019 12:29 pm

    Harrabin lies again about the cost of wind, trying to pass off 2012 index base prices as current:

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-49769259

    And the government admits that carbon capture will cost squillions:

    Costs: GGR at scale will require multiple £ billions per annum. At this scale, the distribution of GGR costs will require careful consideration whether funded through general taxation, specific levies, or obligations on the private sector.

    https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/833145/Greenhouse_Report_Gas_Removal_policy_options.pdf

  12. Tim Spence permalink
    September 21, 2019 2:49 pm

    It’s worrying. They seem to be more and more brazen and it appears that the plan is to erase all resistence and crush dissenters into submission. At this moment there is an absolute media Blitz prior to the UN conference.

    • Athelstan. permalink
      September 21, 2019 4:08 pm

      “The move is likely to be seen as a blatant snub to the UN climate summit”

      Amazing, the graun’ finally gets something correct about DJT,

      harken to, the peel of the bells ringin’ in heaven: hallelujah!

      😉

      • September 22, 2019 12:10 pm

        Those who take Donald Trump for a fool, pay grievously for their miscalculations.

  13. September 21, 2019 9:41 pm

    This is somewhat similar to the practice of the Australian Bureau of Meteorology. They have a ‘homogenization’ program (ACORN-SAT) where all data prior to 1910 are discarded for the purpose of warming trend determinations. Needless to say, the older data (still available) especially in the late 1800’s, are inconveniently hotter. Those hotter conditions are convincingly supported by gruesome newspaper reports etcetera.

    ACORN-SAT of 2011 adjusted the data increasingly downward towards 1910 and oppositely towards the recent. In October 2018, they quietly introduced version 2 of ACORN-SAT just in time for the IPCC’s AR6. There was no media release, a case of citizen discovery. it has further rotated the data anti-clockwise. The Australian summer average maxima appear to have received special attention with an increased warming rate linear trend of 57% for 1910-2018.

  14. alsomaninthemirror permalink
    September 22, 2019 4:44 am

    See Tony Heller’s comment on “Real Climate Science” about his just developed software to expose the fraud of the activist climate change squad concerning “cherry picking” of when they back date their claims. Very interesting. Keep up the good work…..

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: