Recently, Anne Thompson, professor of meteorology at Penn State accused the Canadian Government of failing its obligations to world climate.
It is unthinkable that data collection is beginning to shut down in this vast country, in some cases at stations that started decades ago.
Apparently Thompson doesn”t know that bureaucrats at Environment Canada (EC), as members of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), are responsible for reduced data collection.
The article is part of a wider attack by creators and promoters of the hypothesis that CO2, especially the human portion, was causing global warming or climate change. Known as Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW), the hypothesis was not subjected to normal scientific skepticism. Proponents actively worked to prevent it, as the leaked emails from the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia (UEA) demonstrate.
In his autobiography, Hubert Lamb explained why he established the CRU:
…the first and greatest need was to establish the facts of the past record of the natural climate in times before any side effects of human activities could well be important.
He recognized what was happening by 1978.
Since my retirement from the directorship of the CRU there have been changes there and in the direction of my own efforts. Professor Tom Wigley was chiefly interested in the prospect of world climates being changed as a result of human activities, primarily through the burning of wood, coal, oil and gas…
The opportunity for these ideas to become part of a political agenda came through the IPCC. Figure 1 shows Wigley with Phil Jones, who followed him as Director at CRU, at the preliminary meetings of the IPCC in Villach, Austria in 1985.
Maurice Strong set up the IPCC through the United Nations in conjunction with the World Meteorological Organization (WMO). This meant the IPCC was an unelected bureaucracy at all levels from the UN down to each weather department of every country. Few national weather agencies were more involved than Environment Canada (EC), whose Assistant Deputy Minister (the second in command), Gordon McBean, chaired the 1985 IPCC meeting.
Computer models are key to the IPCC circular argument. They”re programmed to the assumptions of the hypothesis, and therefore produce results that confirm the hypothesis. The problem is, nature hasn”t cooperated.
Donna Laframboise explained that climate modelers are insulated from real world checks and balances –
Nor has the IPCC subjected climate models to rigorous evaluation by neutral disinterested parties. Instead, it recruits the same people who work with these models on a daily basis to write the section of the Climate Bible that passes judgment on them.
Canada was central in IPCC modeling from the start.
The relationship between one country”s climate modelers and the IPCC illustrates this point. George Boer is considered the architect of Canada”s climate modeling efforts. As an employee of Environment Canada, he has spent much of his career attempting to convince the powers-that-be that climate models are a legitimate use of public money.
It was easy with McBean in charge. The Auditor General reported that between 1998 and 2005, Environment Canada (EC) spent $6.4 billion on climate change. The money came from reducing data collection and other services. Weather station were closed, some replaced with Automatic Weather Observing Stations (AWOS), to the detriment of the record and safety concerns. McBean oversaw the changes necessary to maintain the climate propaganda.
Meanwhile, the man who oversaw the department”s last major job-slashing effort warns that this will hamstring some environmental work. It was 1995 when Gordon McBean, as assistant deputy minister, carried out the program review that cut 38 per cent of Environment Canada”s budget, and more than 900 workers. His team closed 56 weather offices. “They (staff who used to work there) talked to the public, they did the visual observations.”
Weather service declined as bureaucrats expanded their political agenda.
Complaints against EC forced an that confirmed what I knew.
The Impact Group, a contractor working for Environment Canada”s Meteorological Service of Canada (MSC), has released materials that support the contention that policy is driving climate science in Canada, not the other way around.
The bureaucrats apparently limited the investigation;
The Impact Group itself failed to seek meaningful consultation with independent scientists. Over 90 percent of the scientists interviewed by The Impact Group were government employees, many of whom were inside Environment Canada. Not a single one of the 40-some Canadian and international climate experts who published open letters to Jean Chrétien and Paul Martin were consulted by the Impact Group in assessing the state of climate science in Canada and internationally.
Despite this, they couldn”t ignore the truth.
Canada”s climate change science program is being driven by a predetermined political agenda with a clear disregard of scientific needs. The Impact Group observes for example, that Canada collects “less climate science data per-square-kilometer of any other major country.”
Figure 2 shows how the reduction of stations used to calculate national averages – and thereby global averages – started in the 1960s. Just visible on the right side is the dramatic drop in the 1990s. This is more clearly seen in Figure 3, which also shows how the reduction creates a false warming.
Figure 4 shows the stations used in Canada to calculate the national average (black diamonds). Stations chosen are troubling. For example, Eureka is the only station for the entire Arctic region. Beyond inadequate, Eureka is a well-known anomalous climate, a warm refugia with unique plants.
Thompson blames the political government, but it was the bureuacracy of Environment Canada and the IPCC that caused the problems when they decided to use science for a political agenda. Seems to fit the old adage that when you point your finger, there are three fingers pointing back at you.