Trudeau’senvironment dept discovered scrapping real climate data for models
catherine mckenna, climate change, environment canada, global warming, justin trudeau
September 27, 2019 (American Thinker) — Environment Canada, led by Justin Trudeau–appointed environment minister Catherine McKenna, is all in on the hypothesis that man-made global warming is an existential threat to humanity. It is so important to hand control of energy use to the government that mere actual, historical data that might raise doubt about the extent of purported warming over time must be thrown out and replaced by "models" of what the "scientists" think the historical temperature record must have been.
In other words, the computer models Canada uses to measureand project "global warming" are themselves based on other computermodels. The expression "garbage in, garbage out" refers to thevulnerability of all computer models to poor-quality data used as the basis oftheir calculations. This raises the awkward question of the quality of themodels used in place of actual historical data. And it raises the question ofwhy this scrapping of actual data and substituting guesses (AKA models) was notmade clear from the outset.
We know about this fundamental issue only because of theefforts of an intrepid reporter in Ottawa, who digs through Canadian governmentdocuments. Lorrie Goldstein explains in the Toronto Sun:
Canadians already suspicious ofPrime Minister Justin Trudeau's carbon tax are likely be even more suspicious givena report by Ottawa-based Blacklock's Reporter that Environment Canada omitted acentury's worth of observed weather data in developing its computer models onthe impacts of climate change.
The scrapping of all observedweather data from 1850 to 1949 was necessary, a spokesman for EnvironmentCanada told Blacklock's Reporter, after researchers concluded thathistorically, there weren't enough weather stations to create a reliable dataset for that 100-year period.
"The historical data is notobserved historical data," the spokesman said. "It is modelledhistorical data ... 24 models from historical simulations spanning 1950 to 2005were used."
These computer simulations are partof the federal government's ClimateData.ca website launched by Environment MinisterCatherine McKenna on Aug. 15.
She described it as "animportant next step in giving our decision-makers even greater access toimportant climate data for long-term planning. The more each of us uses thistype of information, the more it will help."
Blacklock's Reporter notes that in many cases, the data thatwere scrapped indicated higher temperatures in the past:
For example, Vancouver had a higherrecord 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 Monctonin 2017 was four degrees cooler than in 1906.
Brandon, Man., had 49 days where theaverage 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.
Those of us who are castigated as "sciencedeniers" for questioning the output of the models forecasting doom mustpoint out that real scientists don't hide or downplay the source of their dataused as inputs. They are completely upfront and transparent.
James Delingpole of Breitbart points out that this sort of shenanigans is a time-honored practice among the climate hysteria promoters.
McKenna's Environment Canada ismerely following the bad example set by several other institutional climategatekeepers including NASA, NOAA, and the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at theUniversity 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 rawdata, leaving only their revised data intact.
Their excuse was that it had beendone to "save space".
As the London Times reported:
Scientists at the University of EastAnglia (UEA) have admitted throwing away much of the raw temperature data onwhich their predictions of global warming are based.
It means that other academics arenot able to check basic calculations said to show a long-term rise intemperature over the past 150 years.
The UEA's Climatic Research Unit(CRU) was forced to reveal the loss following requests for the data underFreedom of Information legislation.
The data were gathered from weatherstations around the world and then adjusted to take account of variables in theway they were collected. The revised figures were kept, but the originals —stored on paper and magnetic tape — were dumped to save space when the CRUmoved 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.
If global warming is not a fraud, why do the promoters of itso often do the sorts of things that fraudsters do?
Published with permission from the American Thinker.
