How I Stopped Worrying and Learned to Love Global Climate Change Warming Disaster Emergencies

Or whatever the issues are these days.

With the ever-changing titles, who can be sure?




To start off with:

(AT just published the story of Canada's Environment Agency discarding actual historical data and substituting its models of what the data should have been, for instance.)

    Now Nakamura has found it again, further accusing the orthodox scientists of "data falsification" by adjusting previous temperature data to increase apparent warming "The global surface mean temperature-change data no longer have any scientific value and are nothing except a propaganda tool to the public," he writes.

    The climate models are useful tools for academic studies, he says. However, "the models just become useless pieces of junk or worse (worse in a sense that they can produce gravely misleading output) when they are used for climate forecasting." The reason:

    These models completely lack some critically important  climate processes and feedbacks, and represent some other critically important climate processes and feedbacks in grossly distorted manners to the extent that makes these models totally useless for any meaningful climate prediction.

    I myself used to use climate simulation models for scientific studies, not for predictions, and learned about their problems and limitations in the process.

So there's that.



 
Justin is meeting with disaster-philosophers' favourite marionette, Greta Thunberg:

(Sidebar: no one forgot your blackface, Justin.)

Liberal Leader Justin Trudeau said Friday he agrees with Swedish climate activist Greta Thunberg that he needs to do more to fight climate change.

And he also said his party — and not the Conservative party — is best suited to do that. Trudeau met Thunberg at a Montreal hotel in advance of the cross-country marches that are expected to dominate the federal election campaign today. ...

(Sidebar: what emissions were released into the air from your incessant travel, Justin?) 

Trudeau and Green Leader Elizabeth May are joining what is expected to be the largest of dozens of marches taking place across Canada. Most of the federal party leaders are joining marchers, who are demanding cuts to greenhouse-gas emissions.

One exception is Conservative Leader Andrew Scheer, who's spending the day in the suburbs of Vancouver for an announcement and campaign stops with candidates in Maple Ridge and Richmond, but not marching anywhere. Scheer has said other Conservatives will be joining marchers.

(Sidebar: why, Andy?)

 

Asked about the Montreal meeting with Trudeau afterward, Thunberg said she tries not to "focus so much on individuals," but she added:

"He's, of course, obviously not doing enough ... this is such a huge problem, this is a system that is wrong. So my message to all the politicians is the same: to just listen to the science and act on the science."

... says the angry, troubled girl with no science degree and frowns on command.

Because it's an election year, Justin makes all kinds of promises to distract people from his three incidences of wearing blackface:

Justin Trudeau is promising that a re-elected Liberal government would pay for the planting of two billion trees over the next decade to combat climate change.

Oh, like the things that eat carbon dioxide? Those things?




Free tip, slick - if you are trying to win an election, threatening to tax people back into the Stone Age is not helpful: 

At a candidate forum, Liberal MP Rob Oliphant was caught on tape saying “the price of gasoline needs to go up.”

He added, “we need to change our attitudes.”

Also:

Consider this: Canada has the ability to get off imported oil. We produce about twice as much each day as we use. It would be difficult, but not impossible, to ensure that, as Green party leader Elizabeth May suggests: “As long as we are using fossil fuels we should be using our fossil fuels.”

Self-sufficiency would have real environmental and economic benefits. It would ensure security of supply, and bring all production under domestic regulation. We can’t control how Saudi Arabia, Nigeria or Venezuela handle their production, but an all-Canadian market would ensure every barrel had to meet domestic environmental standards.

The reason we don’t do this is largely political. It would require building pipelines that activists oppose on environmental grounds, even though the alternative, shipping crude by rail, is worse for the environment, and more dangerous. It’s also cheaper to import foreign oil, even if it’s from countries with lower environmental standards.

Since we won’t take the steps to be self-sufficient, we import oil, much of it from Saudi Arabia. The Saudis, as is well known, lack the respect for human rights that Canadians enjoy. Women are treated as second class, political dissent brings long prison sentences, torture is common, executions frequent. Journalist Jamal Khashoggi was murdered and dismembered for angering the Crown Prince. ...

So, here we are, determined to keep importing oil from a country whose attitudes and repressive actions we despise. A country over whose environmental practises we have no control, and which is becoming more deeply entangled with a U.S. administration headed by a president Canadian climate activists can safely be said to revile. We’d rather do this than deal with the difficulties that would be involved in ridding ourself of foreign supply. We can’t bring ourselves to face the political troubles that would arise from trying to connect oil from the West to consumers in the East. Tens of thousands support a “global climate strike” but balk at pursuing an effective means of bringing all the oil we use under our own control. “Turning off the taps” is not a realistic plan. Sorry, it just isn’t. Some day it might be, but not yet, unless students want to live in unheated dorms while studying in darkened libraries.