Edmundston, NB, like Halifax and Vancouver, declares a climate change emergency. The mayor alleges “torrential rains and extreme flood events, increased frequency and intensity of extreme heat, and the proliferation of invasive species” and promises “concrete measures” to stop it. The declaration is so chic that it attracted international attention from MSN complete with photo of chimney spewing steam. But the increase in bad weather is purely imaginary. As for what specific steps they plan to take, well, evidently they plan to talk about talking about planning. At last!
Global News dutifully recycled the mayor’s fictions about torrential rains, extreme heat, pestilence. The famous skepticism of journalists failed to kick in even for a moment and they didn’t check. The CBC, likewise, wasted no time on skepticism about the mayor’s boilerplate pseudoscience, and it probably didn’t occur to them that Environment Canada maintains data on this area, as across Canada, that refute the mayor’s claims. Nor did they seem to consider that the declaration might be purely “symbolic” virtue-signaling, which even MSN indelicately mentioned. Instead the CBC hailed nearby Quispamsis for contemplating a similar verbal act and for having bought an expensive electric Zamboni.
Global did delicately note that when Halifax city council voted to declare a climate emergency back in January, “the municipality said it was unlikely to receive additional funds from the provincial or federal governments as a result of the decision, but would use the declaration as an opportunity to stress that climate change is real, while considering how it might implement serious changes to the municipality’s climate change plan.” Wow. Talk about springing into committee.
The City of Kingston is considering a similar declaration; its city council will vote in March on a motion calling on the mayor to “officially declare a climate emergency for the purposes of naming, framing and deepening our commitment to protecting our economy, our ecology and our community from climate change.” Which should at least get their ugly offshore wind turbines spinning a bit faster though, once again, the actual temperature and precipitation records indicate no trend, let alone a crisis.
As we have noted previously, a disagreeable habit among climate alarmists is that once they have persuaded the public we face a crisis requiring immediate action, instead of acting they once again seek to persuade the public we face a crisis requiring immediate action. Almost as if they didn’t know what to do, because they understand neither the science nor the policy.
What they do understand is talk followed by more talk and posturing followed by more posturing. Lather, rinse, repeat.
You have to understand how the IPCC goes about creating their consensus:
First, you get the hurricane specialists - the ones who have spent their entire careers studying hurricanes - saying, "Of course, we observe no correlation between increasing temperature and hurricane frequency. If anything, there is an inverse correlation, since hurricanes are a function of the temperature gradient more than the absolute temperature; and since global warming is greater at the poles than at the equator, the temperature gradient falls as the planet warms up. That being said, we accept the consensus view that all of the other extreme weather problems are a function of global warming."
Next, you have the flood and drought specialists saying the same thing, substituting 'floods and droughts' for 'hurricanes', mutatis mutandis.
Then, you get the wildfire experts explaining that forest fires are no more frequent today than 100 years ago; but where they have been more destructive, it is because of mountain pine beetle infestations or poor forest management practices, not temperature. "...That being said, we accept the consensus view that all of the other extreme weather problems are a function of global warming."
And likewise with the glaciologists: "We are now seeing the stumps of 800-year-old trees appearing at the edges of retreating glaciers. This, of course, only proves that the trees were alive and flourishing as recently as 800 years ago, during the Medieval Warm Period, which was warmer than today. That being said, we accept the consensus view that all of the other extreme weather problems are a function of global warming."
And on it goes, until you have canvassed all of the experts in all of the weather-related fields, who all say that extreme weather events are getting worse because of global warming. Isn't that the only logical conclusion we can come to based on the aggregate view of the experts?