41 Replies to “Climate Barbie’s Historical Data Modeling Gig”

  2. ‘I’m not a violent person but just looking at McKenna’s mush let alone listening to her makes me want to punch it.

    1. She is an incredibly disgusting person. Were it not for her sadistic interest in controlling my life under false pretenses, I would feel pity for her.

      1. I pity all canadians who are stupid enough to vote liberal, ndp, green or even conservative these days. there really is no way out of the problems that socialism has created.

  3. There is no longer (if there ever was) rule of law in Canada. But hey, maybe “legislative pathways that make them politically achievable” will help you with people who have broken every single rule for 100 years and never been held accountable in any way.

    They can jail whomever they want. Tax whatever they want. Do whatever they want. Give money to whomever they want. Break all the rules they want. But again, maybe “legislative pathways that make them politically achievable” will work this time, where they have failed since the beginning.

    I expect libertas Alberta to be spending most of the money they collect on salaries for a few guys at the top. Just like every other political organization, or charity I have ever seen in Canada.

  4. So, I guess, the data set that wasn’t included in the analysis was “an inconvenient truth”.

    On a related subject, I recently received a notice from the American Association for the Advancement of Science about a conference or some such thing dealing with “community response” to “climate change”. That organization has completely bought into this horse puckey.

    Maybe it’s time I let my membership lapse.

    1. I suspect her overuse of such “natural” forms of stimulation … will cause the government to pay for her vaginoplasty, aka rejuvenation surgery.

      While ordinary Canadians have to wait in a 10-year long medical queue for theirs

    2. Everybody kept them. It was against the law to keep them, but when did that stop any Canadian politician or bureaucrat? The conversation goes approximately like this:

      “Hi, we’re from the RCMP – we’re here to confiscate your ___________________ (fill in the blank), we’ve just declared it ‘Prohibited’.

      “What makes you think I even have a _______________ (fill in the blank) ?”

      “You registered one in your name during the registration phase of Allan Rock’s gun law, during the Chretien administration.”

      “The Harper administration made keeping those records illegal.”

      “So? WE are the police – who you gonna’ call?”

      I was led to believe – does anybody have the background on this? – that Dim Campbell announced on a visit to (Winnipeg, I heard it was) while she was still Justice Minister, that she was going to pass a ban on “assault-style weapons” that autumn, and that until her ban was in place Canada Customs would be refusing them entry into Canada. There is (or was, at the time; I looked it up) a specific item in the Criminal Code that made it an offense for Canada Customs to refuse entry into Canada of a lawful item; and here the Justice Minister says she’s “going to pass a law sometime in the future” – what sort of legal framework is that for an official action by Canada Customs? Until she actually “does” pass her law, those guns were undeniably still legal – so one of her listeners (who was obviously a lot richer than me) went straight home and ordered an AR-15 from the U.S. And when it was duly turned-away at the border, he flew to Ottawa, went into RCMP Headquarters and served an Advice and Complaint under that article of the Criminal Code, against Canada Customs.

      And my only question was, did his complaint flutter into File 13 before or after he left RCMP HQ? I also heard that Dim Campbell boasted publicly – twice – that in drafting her gun law, she never talked to anybody on the pro-gun side of the debate. And I was so shocked to hear it… (-_-)

  6. You have to appreciate her rejection of Plastic products… She gave up her Plastic sex Toy for Butts dick, busted she has now created a Corn-Cob sex toy…With, or without Kernel’s

  7. What more evidence do you need? To become aware, if not convinced that what passes for climate “science” is just so much statistical manipulation and wholly invented “models” of things past, present, and future that; never happened, aren’t happening, and are unlikely to ever happen.

    Climate “science” isn’t science. It’s advocacy.

    1. …and what’s amazing….we’re supposed to believe models that have never been right

      and it’s impossible for them to ever be right….

  8. We don’t need any stinking carbon taxes.
    After some thorough analysis I was able to confirm that my carbon budget will balance itself!
    What a refreshing difference to every single budget that the last two generations of Trudeau’s had anything to do with!

  9. Surrounded by armies of sophomoric spin doctors and reinforced within the leviathan echo chamber of the entire institutional left, what passes for science from the Spawn’s vagina quota choice for Minister of Omniscience is actually nothing but expensively-pimped hysteria. In defense of the party girl cheer leader, a more intelligent choice for that Ministry under the Spawn-Butts regime would be compelled to present the same product. Anything else would be heresy to the theocracy and Inquisition.

    Kudos to the Rebel.

  10. The specious adjustment of historical data is a big issue for catastrophic anthropological global warming skeptics. The CAGW crowd has a bad habit of changing and omitting data. It can be credibily argued that they adjust the data to fit their hypothesis and conclusion. First it was lowering 19th and early 20th century data to artificially increase the slope of the warming trend in the late 20th and 21st century. Then CAGW authors tried to get rid of the medieval warming period. More recently NOAA scrapped historical ocean temperature data and “adjusted” it to get rid of “The Pause”. That’s only 3 of many instances

    Now, the CAGW scientists always claim good reasons for these historical adjustments. Although I find it’s suspicious that adjustments only ever go one way. The corrections always increase the warming trend. Oddly, I’ve never seen an adjustment in the other direction, towards cooling . Perhaps it is the first time in scientific history that errors are 100% in one direction and one direction only, but I digress.

    If CAGW scientists truly wanted to be the unbiased, honest brokers they claim to be then they should have the adjusted data and the unadjusted historical data side by side so the magnitude of the adjustments are not hidden.

    What would it look like if the 100 years of ommitted data was plotted beside the modelled data? What are they hiding?

    PS. – all the literature I’ve read concludes that the vast majority of extra warmth is and will continue to be warmer nights and warmer winters – not hotter daytime temperatures. Where is our environment minister getting info about it causing warmer days?

  11. The historical record of any weather station in Canada is replete with high and low records that are scatted all over the calendar. There is no obvious concentration of high temps in recent years. It is only possible to get a graph that proves warming when the data are “adjusted”.

    1. The CPC leader was asked for comment: He quietly looked up from his bowl of milk and let out a gentle “purrrrr” before returning to his daily treat that had been placed before him by his owners.

  13. What is interesting is the CET, Central England Temperature data. It is the longest and most complete data set in the world. It stretches back to 1659. It is limited to one small area of the globe and earlier thermometers were less accurate in the 17th century but tree ring proxy data is also limited by both geography and accuracy, yet tree proxy data is frequently used.

    The CET shows a continuous, moderate warming trend with a very slight uptick in the human GHG period. So of course each century will, on average, be warmer than the preceding one – it’s been doing this for centuries. But even the recent uptick is very moderate. Extreme high and low temps in the CET are found throughout the record.

    The moderate, non catastrophic warming of long term, actual temperature data is ignored while panic inducing models are all the public hears. Again, this type of “science” should make rational people suspicious .

    Here’s a link to the CET temperature chart plus ghg emissions.

    https://c3headlines.typepad.com/.a/6a010536b58035970c0120a7c87805970b-pi

  14. The Liberal Public Service cooking data to make their liberal masters look good. Why are we not surprised and why is the MSM not making this public? Oh there is no media presstitution cash

  15. Today received from McKenna’s office a reply to my March 2019 letter. It contained a link to Michael Shellenberger’s TED talk giving factual information on the (in)effectiveness and hazards of wind and solar on emissions. I’m told by McKenna that this is a natural resources issue, not hers. Really,

  16. She has a mixture of good and bad points in her video, the good points being that all-time record highs are being flushed down the memory hole. She missed the most egregious of them all, the 1936 heat wave which produced temperatures in southern Ontario well in excess of anything experienced more recently. In fact, all of the Toronto City days of 100 F and above occurred before 1954, while more recently it has topped out around 98 or 99 F. But the two hottest spells were in 1936 and 1911.

    As to bad points she made, I don’t see the relevance of all-time record lows being in the expunged data, that is not an argument that favours her conclusions unless the climate change lobby want to try adding record cold to their list of things we now face in a changing climate. I don’t think they have done so, at least not the scientific portion, maybe some of the political clients who heard something about displaced polar vortex cold waves back around 2014-15. I don’t know what was displacing them before we came along, maybe the mighty Thor?

    She also says something about Toronto and 1852 that I can’t find supported in any data, July 1852 while a bit warmer than average even by modern standards did not produce any remarkable temperatures. I have printed publications from long before this AGW/CC era came along and recently I cross-checked those against the “historical data” records you can access for Toronto on the website (not this new website, the one that EC has always had). They haven’t been fiddling with them, the numbers are all the same except that they were converted from Fahrenheit (used to record temps in Canada until 1976) to Celsius, and inches of rain or snow to mm rain and cm of snow. The data appear to be unaltered otherwise. And they begin in 1840, not 1850.

    As to the grid not being dense enough pre-1950 to use those data, possibly a little sparse in the far north, although I would say by 1930 there were enough stations even in the arctic to simulate a complete grid. It is unfortunate that we don’t have longer data sets from the arctic but what is known is that Greenland had a rather similar warm spell to recent times in the 1920s, so it isn’t that unprecedented for temperatures to be well above averages of other decades.

    The way I look at this question is that trends are being inflated and projections are further inflated. And then our human activity is identified as a larger percentage of the cause of all of that than can be justified by the research even the way they do the research. So it’s a three-part inflationary process — inflate the reality of past to present, inflate again the projections made from that first analysis carried forward, then claim an inflated percentage of human activity as cause (in reality, the smaller and more subdued going forward trends might be 2:1 natural variability vs greenhouse gas, they tend to claim most or all is greenhouse gas related).

    The 20th century had generally elevated levels of solar activity compared to most of the historical record. Although we only have observational evidence from about the mid-17th century, Schove produced a much longer data set of solar activity cycles from the secondary evidence of auroral sightings in various parts of the world, with a complete set going back to 290 A.D. and partial data in a few decades further back. That shows the 20th century being equalled only by perhaps one or two other centuries in the past, while downturns like the Maunder were almost duplicated on two occasions, and less dramatic downturns like the Dalton (early 19th century) were duplicated in most centuries.

    The point being that in the 20th century, the earth’s atmosphere was exposed to a continuous higher solar flux associated with higher solar activity. This only began to fade around the moderate 1999-2001 peak, and has recently switched over to a low solar activity mode in this century. In the similar Dalton period, it took a couple of weak cycles before temperatures obviously responded and we are about at that point now. Also in the Dalton, unlike the Maunder, only winter temperatures were notably lower than longer-term averages, the other seasons became more variable (showing a more sluggish jet stream and enhanced blocking). The Maunder just got colder in general. As one reader noted the CET records start in 1659, that was actually just before the Maunder minimum period although the solar activity of the early 17th century was never all that strong (as per Schove), so you can see how the 1660s were turning colder and the heart of the Maunder cold was about 1670 to 1710. As soon as solar activity picked up, as it did after 1710, the temperature trend comes up sharply with it. The CET shows a peak in mean temperatures in the 1730s that was not reached again until the mid-20th century.

    I think the main problem we face in opposing this hysteria is that the scientific community refuse to do their due diligence and check the science to the same standard that is normally the case. The so-called climate scientists are themselves a weeded out portion of the larger atmospheric science. Some of those people just go on with their separate research careers in unrelated fields and keep any thoughts they have to themselves out of fear of being shifted to group “b” of the science, the blacklisted or outshifted scientists who either have to try to comment on all this from a position of no official standing, or from new positions within industry or other places that can appear compromised. So it’s a continuous process of inflating data, making unsupported claims about future trends, and silencing anyone who has a different opinion. We normally call that sort of thing religion, not science.

    I would finish up with this thought — what if they are right? What if the polar ice caps are about to melt down substantially? Then why is China not forced to clean up too? Their particulate pollution alone has been a major reason for observed ice depletion in the Beaufort Sea region. That has nothing to do with greenhouse gases either. Where’s the pressure on China to clean up? And if we go ahead with these carbon tax schemes and associated green economies, what will be the real impact on temperature trends? Even their own scientific lobby would probably admit that we can have only a small impact, at the very most, 10%, even if their cause and effect theories are right. If they are inflated as to human contribution, then drop that to 3-5 per cent. Isn’t mitigation the better choice? Monitor for change, adapt to it when it occurs. If sea levels rise, build dykes, move infrastructure, alter navigation systems. Except for the rise of sea levels, what exactly is it that we are supposed to fear? That -45 will be the new -50? They already accomplished that with the switch to metric anyway 😉

    1. So I looked up again what happened in Toronto in the summer of 1852 and it was basically just an average sort of summer for the mid-19th century. The summer of 1854 was hot, perhaps the reference should have been to that one. Even so, the numbers are not higher than some of the warmer years of the 20th century or early 21st century. Toronto did have its first 100 F reading in August of 1854, the second one was not until 1911. There were also record daily highs in July 1854. It appears to be the hottest summer of the era, but once again, not as high as some averages in later years. So I’m just not too sure what the source quoted by Gunn Reid actually had to say about that issue, but whatever it was has been either misconstrued or taken in error. In other words, don’t let it escape as some talking point that will get shot down later.

    2. Peter O’Donnell: You hit the nail on the head…WHAT ABOUT CHINA, INDIA and others that are causing C02 to rise. It’s all about the MONEY and WHOM is getting RICH!! And it is certainly NOT you, I or the regular Joe in Canada!

  18. It is up to Max (because Scheer cannot go against the dogma) to wake up the electorate. Maybe they are just sleepwalking, and not as dumb as a bag of rocks.

    The question needs to be clearly framed. Do you trust the science? Do you fear the consequences enough to risk major economic disruptions? Do you want to pay 20, 30 cents a litre extra for gas and heating fuels, even without any guarantee that there will be a payoff in terms of a fixed climate? Is there anything indeed that needs to be fixed?

    Do you want self-government, or a dictatorship of globalist elites?

    That is the question that should underscore this election. We have four weeks to find out if that can possibly happen. Except for the PPC and its supporters, who else will speak to this question? Nobody.

  19. Something to ask at all-candidates meetings …

    Okay, you say there is a climate emergency. What should the weather have been today, it was ______, is that a climate emergency? If so, can you explain how? After you impose these taxes and other changes, what will the weather do in response?

    I am guessing the candidates will squirm in their seats and try to change the subject. They don’t know the answers. Nobody does. There is every chance that the weather would be exactly the same without our presence on this planet. Or so close that it makes no real difference, in other words, nothing to fix.

    I hope Max asks Liz May and Justin (who is not man enough to use the term climate emergency himself) this very question in Gatineau, where let’s say it’s a pleasant fall day with a high of 17 degrees. Should it have been 15? 16? 16.9? 16.99? 16.999999999?

    Would the wind be 15 km/hr instead of 16? How about the r.h.? Come on now, you’re the experts. You want our money to fix this. What are we fixing?

    It will be even better in French.

    1. It’s a mystery to me why the message “we’re doomed unless you give politicians and activists complete control of the economy, the energy system, population growth and the agriculture system” resonates more with people than “We’re not doomed. If we build some nuclear and natgas plants, invest in R&D and strengthen the economy to adapt to changes, whatever those changes may be, then everything will be manageable.”

      Because the (unadjusted) data isn’t consistent with Doom- the end is nigh. Only the models are, particularly the ones that rely on IPCC RCP 8.5 scenario, which is uses unlikely if not utterly implausible assumptions.

      1. Because the brain washed, liberal “educated”, coddled, woke, Millemmingials are bound and determined to take the western world, as we know it, to the civilization cliff.

        1. Unfortunately, it’s not just the progressives. This impulse is part of human psyche. Every religion, every cult, every inhumane ideology right down into politics, news and marketing manipulates this quirk of human nature.

          Perhaps teaching people how to avoid being manipulated should be a part of basic education.

      2. LC Bennett: You are EXACTLY right. BUTT/TRUDEAU don’t give a damn, they really don’t and that is the point of why we need to vote out the LIBERLAS VOTE OUT TRUDEAU!!

  20. So? You expected something else?

    We are against “by any means”. Act like you actually believe it. And stop the annoying screaming with outrage.

    Seriously, they are going into an election with the only PM in history to have ethics violations, and you act like the shameless can be shamed into correct behavior.

  21. If anyone is expecting the Conservatives to fix this if elected, keep dreaming. They’re just as much into the the global warming lie as the Liberals. None of this surprises me. It’s to be expected. It’s beginning to look like this climate change scam is what these progressives will try and use to bring in their utopia dystopia. If you look at the temperature records going back 118 years you would see that if one were to draw a straight line over all we’ve been on a mild cooling trend. The hottest era within that time period has been between1900 to the early 1940’s with a mild warming blip from the late 1980’s to the late 1990’s followed by an almost two decade trend of no real change at all. The despots called it “the pause” and blame ocean currents. Now they’re talking about ocean currents? Of that the 1930’s were the worst. If you research it you would come across countless stories of thousands of people dying of heat related deaths during that period across the globe. That was real global warming. CO2 levels in the 1930’s were around 309 ppm. Today they’re around 408 ppm. Remember CO2 is the dog they’re basing their “cooling, warming, climate change ” lie on. I mean how could it be warmer in the past if the CO2 levels were lower? Hmmmm. And this is why loud mouthed puppets like McKenna and her idiot minions are erasing over 100 years of climate data starting in 1949. If you want to know where the rising CO2 is coming from check the medieval warming period. Remember CO2 levels follow temperature levels by around 600 years.
    If people buy into this lie this gives them the excuse to interfere and control pretty much every aspect of our lives. “Climate Change” statistically and historically has countless times been proven to be erroneous at best. Yet they won’t let it go. Why? Because of the huge payoff should it succeed. And I hate to say it but it’s succeeding. Not only because of government efforts but because peoples willingness to believe whatever is told to them as long as it sounds authoritative. I mean why would the government and media lie to us? You see these brainwashed types come on here once in awhile. They never cease to entertain, especially when they start barking talking points. Treating the word “science” like a religious term , 97% of scientists agree, NASA says, and so on etc etc. but they’re also dangerous, because they’re growing. School, collage and University teachers are making sure of that.
    As for sea level rise, do yourself a favour and check the sea levels on photographs of natural and artificial ocean side landmarks and beach fronts from several decades ago, and compare them to their modern photograph equivalents. No change!

  22. Warren Zoell: I agree with you on all but, Scheer will do nothing more that what Trudeau has planned. Your wrong Scheer will Cancel the CARBON TAX FEDERALLY. He has said it will be done through making e.g. cars, truck more efficiently a long with all businesses that cause CO2 more than the legal limits and so on. The Oil industries is more efficient than it was 10 yrs ago and making things more efficient from the get go.

  23. We have a lawless federal government. If anyone needs any more evidence that #PostNational means #PostRuleOfLaw maybe give suicide a serious thought, as there really is no cure for stupid, or deliberate ignorance.

Proudly powered by WordPress & Skyrocket Themes

MENU

Navigation