×
See Comments down arrow

Ten years after the end of winter

02 Feb 2022 | News Roundup

To think Maclean’s in March 2012 announced “The Year that Winter Died”, not as shameless clickbait but because “Coast to coast, we’ve had the warmest temperatures with the least snow in 65 years. Why we may never have a real Canadian winter again.” In fact Ottawa has had its longest January run with lows under -20°C in 40 years, and its fourth-longest since 1872. Meanwhile in Athens it was snowing on the Acropolis and on nearby beaches while “Passengers stranded at Istanbul Airport stage a protest” due not to climate change but to “inclement weather”. Actually Reuters conceded that “Heavy snowfall is rare in Athens but the city has now been hit by snowstorms for a second consecutive year”. But the only mention of climate in that story was a quotation from “Greece’s climate crisis and civil protection minister” that “It will be a difficult night” because trains and buses weren’t running in Athens, while “State services, schools, non-essential shops and banks in those two areas [greater Athens and nearly Evia island] and on many Greek islands, including Crete, will also be shut on Tuesday as the cold spell was expected to persist until Wednesday.” Still, children will not know what snow is. Or possibly what a “climate crisis minister” is.

The Washington Post tried to shovel the snow into the neighbour’s driveway or something, saying “An intense winter storm blanketed Athens and several Greek islands in snow Monday – places where such wintry weather is highly unusual. Parts of Turkey, including Istanbul, also endured snowy conditions.” In a story that again only mentioned climate twice, once the title of the hapless minister and once in a banner ad “Get 2022’s biggest stories — from covid to climate and all that’s ahead.” The snow is just weather.

Mind you, we seem to be getting a lot of it lately, including at the home of the Post, as the northeastern United States had its first blizzard warning in four years. Some hottest year ever 2022 is shaping up to be. For instance, NBC warned on Jan. 27, “Tens of millions under winter storm watches ahead of weekend nor’easter”. Not quite the end of winter as we know it, then. But does that story even contain the word climate? Heck no. Just weather, and lots of it. Including two and a half feet of some white stuff kids can’t remember the name of in Massachusetts, where they do at least still know what a foot is. And it knocks out power and threatens lives. When’s the last time a heat wave cancelled thousands of flights, or trapped motorists overnight on an impassable road?

Here in Ottawa, where we benefit from a tireless online weather enthusiast and we invite you to check your own local records as well, we were forecast to have our coldest Jan 26 since 1930 and our coldest day of any sort since 1996. Apparently we didn’t quite get there. But we did have our coldest January overall since 2004. If it were the hottest, you know what they’d say. Instead they say nothing. Including about the fact that the previous long January cold spells were mostly a century ago, proof not of man-made warming but of a natural trend from long before human GHGs were sufficient to make any measurable difference. Especially since the coldest individual January temperatures are mostly from, um, the last two decades.

As for that ice-free Arctic, well, the Canadian government might paint the land red. But it admits the ice is, um, robust and growing.

Of course nowadays cold weather, snow and so forth are also global warming including the New England storm. As Roy Spencer observes, Bloomberg specifically linked it to warming. But he also points out that barely three weeks earlier, USA Today was blaming Boston’s snowless streak on… warming. He asks “When science produces contradictory claims, is it really science?” But of course it is. Scientists say.

8 comments on “Ten years after the end of winter”

  1. Is it time for the climate change deception to be seriously challenged legally in Canada, so that it can be proven that there is no demonstrable justification for wasting money and disrupting lives with mitigation efforts? For example, wasn't regulatory capture put in place with the Green Energy Act in Ontario, which removed rural residents' democratic rights, a violation of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms? The industrial wind turbine experiment which came about without a cost/benefit analysis, according to our Auditor General is a good example
    . How can this be legal in Canada?

  2. Sommer, the Canadian Charter of Rights and freedoms is an essentially meaningless document. Section 1 reads:
    "The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society. "
    The kicker here is the bit about 'reasonable limits'. Who decides what reasonable limits are? Presumably some judge somewhere. And since judges are just as likely as anyone else to be swayed by the latest political fad-du-jour, what was an acceptable freedom yesterday, such as suggesting that a woman is an adult female, becomes tomorrow's banned hate speech.
    Oh, and just in case the politicians feel too hemmed in by all this talk of rights and freedoms, section 33(1) states:
    "Parliament or the legislature of a province may expressly declare in an Act of Parliament or of the legislature, as the case may be, that the Act or a provision thereof shall operate notwithstanding a provision included in section 2 or sections 7 to 15 of this Charter."
    In other words, if the powers that be don't like a particular right or freedom, then too bad about your nice little charter, eh?
    In summary, your can drive a Mack truck through this charter, with room to spare on either side.

  3. Brian Peckford might be the best person to counter your response. Are you aware of the lawsuit he's just filed? Check out his recent interview with Jordan Peterson.
    Also, since this is a global issue, it may require a new judicial approach, similar to the approach being taken by Reiner Fuellmich and Viviane Fischer. The model they've demonstrated in the past year of placing videos in the public domain, of interviews with people who can best explain the key points that would expose the climate change deception, would be an excellent way to educate.

  4. The icebreaker, CCGS Pierre Radisson, got stuck in heavy ice near Quebec City. She was subsequently rammed by the bulk carrier, Federal Crimson, that was following her. So much for 'the end of winter'.

  5. Roger makes some good points, however a few words should be noted. Reference to an Act and the words demonstrably and democratic point to the need for debate and process where facts may be revealed and written into public record.

  6. Yes a debate will bring science back to its origins. Test, theory, test more,. Assemble data analyze actual against theory. Start over if failed.

  7. A classic rebuttal to "global warming" falsehoods is Patrick Moore's "Fake Invisible Catastrophes and Threats of Doom." Moore addresses the fakery and not necessarily the falsity of "global warming," but reveals the collaboration of the media and the stupidity of some governments who try to reduce CO2 by adding more (eg, Ireland, EU, UK). For more proof that "global warming" is a massive political lie, read Australian Professor Ian Plimer's books and consult Canadian Professor McIntyre's Internet briefs.

  8. Yes, Charles, Patrick Moore could provide testimony to the falsehoods in the process of publicly interviewing people in preparation for the kind of criminal trial modelled by Reiner Fuellmich and Viviane Fischer.
    There are many more who have evidence to present.
    For far too long now, these people have been trying to educate through a wide variety of publications, but now we need to take this to a new level.
    Could there be a criminal syndicate behind the deception and falsehoods. Could the climate change alarmism have been a 'mass formation' operations conducted with the aid of the media and government agents? Could we be seeing a form of racketeering- perhaps a protection racket?
    Could Canadians have been so naive?
    Do Canadians have the mathematical analysis skills and the critical thinking skills to recognize the tactics used to deceive?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

searchtwitterfacebookyoutube-play