- Have they no shame? The winter of 2025-26 has made a frozen mess of climate predictions of disappearing winter, disappearing snow blah blah blah. And yet the Daily Mail chirps, and MSN rechirps, “You think this is bad? British winters will get even WETTER thanks to climate change, scientists warn”. Try to follow us here, media dudes: based on their record, what “scientists” warn about winter, and especially what they warn about winter “thanks to climate change’, isn’t worth a bucket of slush. As they oddly admit while denying it. It’s based on a simplistic Clausius-Clapeyron assertion that every one degree C of warming will increase atmospheric moisture by its potential maximum 7%. But as the article says, quoting lead author James Carruthers, “This is really concerning, as seasonal rainfall is increasing at a much faster rate than global climate models have predicted. We’re already experiencing changes in UK winter rainfall that global climate models predict for the 2040s – we’re 20 years ahead.” So we should believe the models because they’re wrong, and the scientists because they were wrong? Is that how science works?
- With an endless bitter winter tormenting Canadians, as even CTV admits that it is, the natural reflex of the mainstream media is to ask Greenpeace what’s going on despite the latter having absolutely and definitively failed to foresee the situation. And of course to quote the “independent” lavishly-state-financed Canadian Climate Institute to the effect that “by 2050 extreme weather events could cost the country between $78 and $101 billion per year in losses, depending on future greenhouse gas emissions”. No effort was made to explain how heating the planet is cooling it, or whether colder winters are costlier than milder ones. They have long since forgotten to examine their premises, even as their predictions are a frozen heap of rubbish.
- On that same subject, a newsletter from the Editor in Chief of Scientific American, whose brief flirtation with not being utterly climate-obsessed has evidently ended, writes “we’re still digging out from the snowfall and extreme cold temperatures that hit NYC and much of the eastern U.S. last weekend. I admit it’s kind of cool to look out the windows of our office and see ice clogging up New York Harbor, although it doesn’t make up for the depressing realization that the storm was likely supercharged by climate change.” But what’s the empirical justification for believing such a thing? Are these storms getting more common or stronger (and if so why didn’t you notice)? We’re not aware of any data saying they are and neither, as far as we know, is he. But climate change causes everything bad, this winter is bad…therefore climate change caused it.
- Speaking of data, Tom Harris of the International Climate Science Coalition – Canada has a piece in The American Thinker, no Canadian media outlet apparently being interested, warning that Environment and Climate Change Canada data are fundamentally corrupted in ways that call into question any warming at all over this large landmass in the last 60 to 70 years. The issue, discovered by Dr. Joseph Hickey, is that “in 1998, the exact year in which 72 Canadian reference climatological stations were first added to the Global Climate Observing System, a sudden stepwise increase of approximately 1 degree Celsius occurred at most stations across the country.” And, Harris stresses, such sudden discontinuities in data sets, not just climate data sets but any sort, are almost always measurement artefacts. ECCC has no interest in discussing it with Hickey, or anyone else, and as Harris notes pointedly “Most of Canada’s press are heavily subsidized by the federal and provincial governments, which would probably not appreciate the story being covered.” But it would be a big deal if the data were corrupt… and an even bigger deal if neither the authorities nor the press gave a hoot. And if you think national meteorological agencies can be trusted to investigate problems with their own data, see this week’s item on the rediscovery of historical Dutch heatwaves.
- Meanwhile the Canadian government, which promised an “austerity and investment budget” in 2025 in an apparent effort to avoid criticism by abolishing the laws of logic starting with the “undistributed middle”, has since been signing off on pretty much every funding proposal anyone can think of. Especially if it’s got some green tinsel. Hence “The Sackville Community Arena will be reducing its greenhouse gas emissions after an investment of $1.3 million from the federal government.” The planet is saved. But the money is not, since every form of spending imaginable is now an investment… in their reelection.
- Alas, poor Canada. Like the Rodney Dangerfield of countries, we can’t get no respect. In The Telegraph , under the headline “Ed Miliband is the last fool standing on net zero/ While the rest of the world abandons its climate change policies, Britain is still cutting emissions at any cost” Matt Ridley writes “So Donald Trump plans to reverse the “endangerment finding” that underpins most climate-related regulation in America. This is further proof that Britain is being increasingly left behind by a global rush to dismantle the climate scare. Ed Miliband is now almost alone in accelerating towards decarbonisation. Even if you think he is brave to jump out of the trench and go over the top, you have to admit it makes no sense to go alone.” Hey, Matt and Ed, Canada’s just as stupid. Can’t we at least get credit for that one? Guys? Guys? Strange. The line went dead.
See Comments 
Tidbits
18 Feb 2026 | News Roundup
