Global Warming Protestors in the Snow

Quebec City Climate Protest

Quebec City Climate Protest – Photo credit: © Greenpeace/Robert van Waarden (License Creative Commons “Some Rights Reserved”). Image resized from original.

Thousands of protestors, mostly dressed in high tech nylon and plastic cold weather gear, tramped through the snow in Quebec City last Saturday, to protest against global warming.

According to The Globe and Mail;

The organizers aimed to press provincial and territorial leaders to turn the tide on oil sands expansion and the corresponding development of pipelines.

“They were just really, really there to send a message to get the premiers to focus on climate because it is an important thing to focus on and it’s just not on the political agenda right now,” said Ms. Hassan.

Red-clad protestors formed a thermometer to send a message about climate change. Meanwhile, #ActionClimat was trending on Twitter.

Premiers from across Canada are set to hold a summit on Tuesday to discuss what role provinces can play leading up to the United Nations Climate Change Conference in Paris later this year.

Read More:

I must say I like their taste in plastic snow gear. The bright red petroleum based plastic outfits made a terrific contrast against the late season snow. At least this protest didn’t have to be cancelled due to extreme cold, like the cancelled Yale protest in February this year.

One protestor displayed a sense of humour, unless their intriguing placard was an extra subtle attack against tar sands, the significance of which eludes me – on a par with marching through the snow to protest against global warming.

Everything is OK

Protestor picked up the wrong placard? Photo credit: © Greenpeace/Robert van Waarden (License Creative Commons “Some Rights Reserved”). Image resized and cropped from original.

233 thoughts on “Global Warming Protestors in the Snow

  1. Inverse water melons?
    The irony is that it was the derivatives of crude oil that were keeping them warm – of course, they could always use natural stuff like fur to keep themselves warm.

    • But fur comes from cuddly seals and pet poly bears, you cannot wear that!
      Perhaps they should go naked instead, and see what Mother Nature does to humans who don’t modify their environment to suit their needs.

      • In the future, people are really going to laugh at this.
        At least, that’s if they have the intelligence and the freedom to laugh stupid stuff.
        Just in case they don’t – I’m laughing about it now, on their behalf.

    • No no Peter, the same mindset protests against police use of coyote fur on parka hoods. 🙂
      (Coyote fur has useful properties, IIRC including that frost does not stick to it.
      Tens of thousands of farmers would happily donate some. 😉
      But if they are willing to compromise, they could wear coats made of caribou skin, their hair is hollow so insulates. (AKA reindeer on the Russian side of the globe and in the area of AK where some were imported to a century ago.)
      Paraphrasing a western Canadian slam at the federal government’s attacks on the petroleum industry decades ago, I say “Let the activists freeze in the dark”.

  2. Oh shaks!
    I thought that we in Canada are immune to this nonsense!
    I guess I overestimated the IQ of my fellow citizens.
    Oh well…

    • Most countries have their share of people who have bad luck when they think …
      Oh, they have not reached that stage yet … (like a flock of sheep …)

      • “”Totalitarianism knows no boundaries. The “Group Think” disease is everywhere and can only be fought by continually putting sunshine on the facts.””
        That is true only when the sunshine is allowed. I have been getting hammered by computer attacks especially in the last week. Here, and when using FB and Disqus. I can not even access my WordPress main page right now. It shows blank. The attacks are pretty clever. I can post a comment on CNBC for example, then go back 10 minutes later and Disqus will not show up on the same page that I had just visited and commented on. I can then switch to my XP computer admin, open the same page, and Disqus opens with all comments. My XP limited user has been hacked. I do not have the skill level to defend against that. If I only read and do not sign in anywhere to comment, then I am ok, But when ever I sign in then I am vulnerable here and everywhere else.

      • Both UAH and RSS adjust their data Daniel.
        I’m not really surprised that you didn’t know this though. Doesn’t seem to be much that you do know.

      • “Both UAH and RSS adjust their data Daniel”
        sure they do.
        the satellites are not even measuring temperatures, but microwave radiation and calculates temperatures from that. then the weighing of the altitudes for the different channels etc etc.
        very interesting work.
        “I’m not really surprised that you didn’t know this though. Doesn’t seem to be much that you do know.”
        who said i didn’t know that?
        but i do guess that was not meant with the “massaging” of data.

      • “the satellites are not even measuring temperatures, but microwave radiation and calculates temperatures from that.”
        And ground thermometers aren’t measuring temperatures either Daniel. They are measuring the expansion of mercury or the increase in electrical resistance and calculates temperatures from that.

      • “And ground thermometers aren’t measuring temperatures either Daniel. They are measuring the expansion of mercury or the increase in electrical resistance and calculates temperatures from that.”

    • Janus: Come out here to BC and you’ll see how NOT immune we are to this nonsense. Faux Environmentalist capital of Canada.

      • And BC is having a cool wet spring. Nothing new. Most temp record highs were in the early 1940s. Finally starting to get some snow on the mountains.
        Yet they still keep going on about climate change. I have seen nothing that would make me believe that things are somehow different now compared to the past. I was born and raised in Vancouver and its the same old thing as far as I can see.

      • Daniel Kuhn,
        “warming in the last 18 years.
        “is WUWT claiming that UAH is “massaging” the data?”
        I’ll let you tell us what that rate of warming is based on the trendline on the graph.
        Funny, how we can agree that there has been warming but because I/we believe that the rate will be less(my guess is only around 1 degree C this century), along with the evidence to support this, we get called “Deniers” .
        The science was settled on the known law of photosynthesis over a century ago, so we should stop fighting a battle against the earth greening up and life flourishing.

      • “The science was settled on the known law of photosynthesis over a century ago, so we should stop fighting a battle against the earth greening up and life flourishing.”
        oh yeah, CO2 is plantfood, and we all know that the limiting factor on this planet is the huge lack of CO2…..
        oh dear. if it only was that simple.

    • Regrets ‘janus’, there’s:
      – hypocrite David Suzuki
      – pipeline protesters on Burnaby Mountain, well dressed against the rain
      – overt violence in a protest in NB
      – Andrew Weaver, who is clueless about economics
      – Dave Obee, editor of the Victoria Times Colonist who publishes much climate alarmism
      a very long list of scare-mongers who think they have a right to control other people.

    • Anyone who digs deep into the background of these people will probably discover that a sizable number make a living doing these protests. The question then is who is supplying the funds that keep them going.

    • In fact, extensive research paid for by the Federal government shows half of Canadians have below average intelligence.

    • Maybe les Québécois could take care of their own outdoor Air Quality Health Index, instead of worrying about the Oil sands in Fort McMurray. I’ve kept Environment Canada’s Air Quality Health Index widgets on my desktop for the past three years because Montreal is about 130 miles from where Bill McKibben lives, and look at it about four times a day. Apple also has the widgets available on their US site.
      Here is the outdoor Air Quality Health Index for April 15, 2015:

      • BTW, the Canadian outdoor Air Quality Health Index measures a basket of pollutants, including, from their point-of-view, CO2. Fort McMurray is consistently twice as clean as the eastern locations.

      • Hey the hockey season is over in Quebec and they love a party ( no reason needed). But they should have been wearing blue and white coats it would have mirrored the actual weather a bit better.

    • Good to see what?
      I tell you what is good to see: the excellent use of petroluem-based materials keeping modern humans (no matter how dumb they are) warm and dry.

      • no problem with petroleum.based materials aslong the CO2 does not end up in the atmospehre.

      • no problem with petroleum.based materials aslong the CO2 does not end up in the atmospehre.

        So where are you going to put it? Please don’t tell me you are one of the gang who want to bury it with the ridiculous CCS boondogle?
        BTW isn’t funny that the CCS gang advocate burying gases at pressure underground, but oppose fracking?

      • Aren’t plastics a by-product of refining gasoline, kerosene, diesel, and heating oil? If it weren’t for the value of those distillates, plastic might not be affordable.

      • Re: “no problem with petroleum.based materials aslong the CO2 does not end up in the atmospehre.(sic)”
        Here in Europe, a fairly large chunk of out renewable energy output is the result of burning waste. In other words, stuff made from oil reaches the end of it’s life and is then burned.
        Often recycling these materials would be better for the environment. But, we burn them anyway because we have renewables targets put in place by the E.U. And we must meet them now, at seemingly any cost.

    • Nice mischaracterization of the debate. The question has always been whether or not the world is warming more than natural fluctuation. Is it warming at a rate above the more or less continuous warming trend since the end of the Dalton minimum and beyond that above the warming trend which has been going on since the end of the Maunder minimum.? We are currently so far off warming above natural background rates that the debate has shifted to is there any warming at all. Whether the current warming rate is nothing or next to nothing, the conclusion is the same. The models which the fear campaign is based upon are useless. Time to review the science. Not since the Spanish Inquisition was repealed in 1834 have the permanently terrified had such a socially acceptable outlet for their irrational fears.

  3. The jobs and prosperity created in Alberta and Saskatchewan are helping all of Canada. There are thousands of Quebecois working in these two provinces and the wealth through taxes are distributed across the country to help sustain the ‘have not’ provinces.
    It is also sad that these folks have no idea where their lifestyle comes from.

    • It’s probable that many of them work for a company in a related field to the energy industry and just don’t know it….

    • The true irony is that without oil and cheap energy they wouldn’t have time to protest at all nor would they be able to gather in numbers. They would have to spend their entire life working hard just to make ends meet. And without oil, transportation must be done by horse or foot, which greatly limits how far you can conveniently travel. The irony is that the protest against oil is only possible because of oil.

    • Ummm, these are not good times for Alberta and Saskatchewan mainly due to the price of oil, but also to the NIMBY attitude.

    • Scheduling an anti-global warming rally in Quebec City in Early April of an exceptionally cold winter indicates a certain lack of planning skill. Not only does it make their point poorly, but there aren’t going to be a whole lot of tourists, picknickers, etc to make the point to. And the few passersby are probably going to be looking at the ground to avoid slipping on the ice, not at the protest.

  4. It must have been the evil Koch brothers who organised that late season snow. Surely Gaia would not be so cruel to all those nice protesters as to take the mickey out of them in such a way.
    I think this can only get better. Soon there will just be two diehards in red, oil based super polymer, ‘irony’ suits, holding up a tattered banner in three feet of snow and with irony in their very souls.

  5. “Thousands of protestors, mostly dressed in high tech nylon and plastic cold weather gear…”
    In much the same way the Occupy Wall St people needed cell phones, laptops, WiFi networks etc. all created by the very companies they were protesting about.

  6. “What is this thing called love?” is a wonderful example to use when you parse “Everything is OK”
    Personally, I think the placard holder is a a Muslim activist on the wrong march. His placard actually says: “Everything IS – OK?”

      • Nice one, Mark. Would have been a good joke to have another ‘demonstrator’ next to him holding a placard with LAHOMA on it.

    • Actually is a not so clever cliched phrase touted by “illuminated” people about the non-believers-illusion that everything is ok and should not change, vr. gr., that we are all calmly “asleep” in the cooking bowl; is the same cliché used to ridiculize non sympathizers(majorities) from stopping them at the ballooting table, so frustated misorganized idiots in small violent groups help messianic dictators get to office.

  7. Is it just me, or is there a delightful irony in watching global warmists freeze their nuts off in the snow?

      • you think protesting AGW is ironic when there is snow? your understanding of AGW is really that limited?

      • But Daniel,
        We’d all been told that because of gorebull warming “children aren’t going to know what snow is” ©Prof Viner
        Looking at that picture it seems to me that any children dragged along to that march by their mis-guided parents definitely know what snow is…

      • “We’d all been told that because of gorebull warming “children aren’t going to know what snow is” ©Prof Viner”
        where and when? a study or just an interview?
        “Looking at that picture it seems to me that any children dragged along to that march by their mis-guided parents definitely know what snow is…”
        not according to the vast majority of experts.

      • Daniel Kuhn
        You wrote

        not according to the vast majority of experts.

        No. In reality,
        not misguided according to the warmunist web sites whose untrue propaganda deludes Daniel Kuhn.

        • Daniel Kuhn

          listening to the vast majority of experts is considered evil here?

          When the desired policies from those self-selected “experts” being paid by Big Government for Big Government and Big Finance result in the death of millions, and the long-term harm to billions by deliberate energy starvation and hardship?
          Yes. Those self-selected “experts” and their politicians deserve to be called “evil” and the need to be stopped before they kill more innocents.

      • Daniel, the claim that the vast majority of scientists support this nonsense has been refuted so many times that only the willfully obtuse could possibly still believe it by now.

      • “Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts”
        -Richard Feynman
        Knee-jerk acceptance of “authority” is more than just sad, it’s dangerous.
        How I wish Dr. Feynman were still around to kick some ass.

      • David smith. Yes he can make such dumb predictions. But i think scientists should know better. But maybe he believed it. I dont know. But to get your projections from the media is not a good idea anyway.

      • “Daniel, the claim that the vast majority of scientists support this nonsense has been refuted so many times that only the willfully obtuse could possibly still believe it by now.”
        i don’t know if the majority of scientists accept AGW and think it might be a problem. and i don’t care at all.
        But most scientists that are actually researching the climate system and the relevant components accept AGW and that it might be a problem.

      • Daniel, still. That’s what the people heard. That’s what they believed, and that is what the public acted upon: a blatantly wrong prediction, repeated ad-nauseum and taken at face value by millions for years. I STILL hear people referencing this interview, saying how we should enjoy the snow while it lasts, etc.
        To say “you shouldn’t get your predictions from the media” is fine for a few. Those of us who are personally invoved in the fight and have the ability, knowledge, and the desire to go more in-depth and read the more nuanced predictions that have been circulating in climate circles. However, >95% of humanity even in developed countries does not have that luxury, either lacking the access, the understanding, or even the time to research this themselves (after all, we cannot expect everyone to know everything. That’s what the media is for).
        A respected climate expert being interviewed by a respected publication should be held up to a standard of “expected to be mostly correct”, and is reasonably open for ridicule when the prediction is laughably off base.

      • “That’s what they believed, and that is what the public acted upon:”
        i doubt that anyone acted on it.
        ” repeated ad-nauseum and taken at face value by millions for years.”
        really? where?
        “I STILL hear people referencing this interview, saying how we should enjoy the snow while it lasts, etc.”
        the only ones i ever heard citing it where those that argue against AGW,
        ” However, >95% of humanity even in developed countries does not have that luxury, either lacking the access, the understanding, or even the time to research this themselves (after all, we cannot expect everyone to know everything. That’s what the media is for).”
        yes, sadly true. but i think there are alot better reports about the findings and conclusions of the ARs in the media than one scientist making one comment in an interview.
        “A respected climate expert being interviewed by a respected publication should be held up to a standard of “expected to be mostly correct”, and is reasonably open for ridicule when the prediction is laughably off base.”
        i surely expect better from a scientist, but not from the media, it is a pretty sensationalist statement, so sure they loved to have it. it sells.
        and yes, such a vague prediction like he made is reasonably laughed off base.

      • Why do you constantly make political statements? Are you a politician or a scientist? Politicians look for consensus, a scientist looks for evidence. Clearly you are the first based on what you have been saying.

      • “Why do you constantly make political statements? Are you a politician or a scientist? Politicians look for consensus, a scientist looks for evidence. Clearly you are the first based on what you have been saying.”
        are you talking to me?
        i try to stay away from politics and ideology.
        all i really care about is science.
        im not a politicster, im not a Scientist. So a consensus comes very handy.
        and is commonly used in science even by scientists.

      • Daniel says:
        i try to stay away from politics and ideology
        As if. From one who stated that he was an ‘Occupy’ protester, that statement is unbelievable. The ‘Occupy’ movement is 100.0% political ideology.

      • “As if. From one who stated that he was an ‘Occupy’ protester, that statement is unbelievable. The ‘Occupy’ movement is 100.0% political ideology.”
        please? i never said anything like that.

      • Daniel Kuhn
        RACookPE1978 has provided no “dishonesty”. Only you have presented falsehoods in this discussion.
        Also, I do not need “saving” from your insane ravings: your insanity is not catching. My salvation is none of your business.
        I have repeatedly told you with explanation

        The IPCC is only permitted to say AGW is a significant problem because they are tasked to accept that there is a “risk of human-induced climate change” which requires “options for adaptation and mitigation” that can be selected as political polices and the IPCC is tasked to provide those “options”.
        This is clearly stated in the “Principles” which govern the work of the IPCC.

        These are stated at

        Choosing and justifying “options” for political policies is politics and is NOT science.
        Furthermore, if clicking a mouse were not too difficult for your mental abilities then you would have seen that the IPCC regularly considers how those “principles” are being applied to achieve the IPCC’s stated political purpose of all its Reports and then amends or approves its practices to ensure that political purpose is achieved.
        The very start of that document says

        Approved at the Fourteenth Session (Vienna, 1-3 October 1998) on 1 October 1998,
        amended at
        the Twenty-First Session (Vienna, 3 and 6-7 November 2003),
        the Twenty-Fifth Session (Mauritius, 26-28 April 2006),
        the Thirty-Fifth Session (Geneva, 6-9 June 2012) and
        the Thirty-Seventh Session (Batumi, 14-18 October 2013)

        I yet again request that you slither back under your bridge.

      • Daniel Kuhn
        I replied to your latest lies in the ITER thread.
        Dealing with unspeakably vile troll’s like you is important to me but not as important as staying alive.
        I fit in slapping down the likes of you between my medical treatments and I provided my answer to your most recent nonsense immediately upon return from a cardiac assessment. My previous reply to your astonishingly infantile assertions contained many misprints because I typed too soon after taking pain killers.
        My reply says

        Liar posting as Daniel Kuhn:
        You have not refuted any of the IPCC’s own official documents that say all its Reports are political documents which are adjusted to agree with IPCC SPM’s which are published before its so-called ‘Scientific’ Reports are completed.
        You have “debunked” nothing.
        You have posted a straw man by some person you claim was involved in providing one Report.
        You have yet to provide anything that is both true and relevant.
        I will again respond in the unlikely event that you do manage to provide something both true and relevant. Until then, I am willing to leave things as they stand because I am content to have demonstrated that the IPCC says its Reports are intended to be political documents and they are. And I am content that you have demonstrated you have nothing other than lies and a straw man to support your untrue and ridiculous assertion that the IPCC Reports are scientific Reports.

      • Richard
        i am still waiting for evidence of your claim the the IPCC calls the AR’s political documents.
        i showed you sofar one link where they call them scientific reports.. i can show you more, want more?
        where is your evidence?

        • Daniel Kuhn

          i showed you sofar one link where they call them scientific reports.. i can show you more, want more?

          What the IPCC politicians, bureaucrats, secretaries paid-for-results “scientists” and liars “call” their reports is irrelevant. They can “call” them anything they want – and whatever these political hacks “call” their papers – it will not change the fact that these are political advertisements (er, documents) written for an explicit political agenda and political goals FOR the UN, BY the UN, AGAINST the industrial world FOR the taxes and Big Finance carbon-credit trading schemes first invented by ENRON.
          Now, “if” they were moral and had exhibited integrity and honesty in ANY of their previous work and advertisements (instead of re-writing them in secret by one person against the voted results of the committees), then I would perhaps consider soem parts of their advertisements valid. But they have never been honest nor moral in the past.

      • “What the IPCC ….. “call” their reports is irrelevant. ”
        but Richard made a specific claim, he claimed the IPCC calls them political documents, but they don’t.
        “political advertisements”

      • “(instead of re-writing them in secret by one person against the voted results of the committees)”
        you got evidence for this accusation?

      • Daniel Kuhn
        I made no “latest claim” and you cite no such “latest claim” that you assert I made. I cannot provide evidence to support a “latest claim” I have not made and which only exists as a delusion in your head.
        Early in that sub-thread I provided a complete explanation with references, quotations of, and links to official procedural documents of the IPCC that say the IPCC’s so-called ‘Scientific’ Reports are adjusted to agree with the IPCC Summaries For Policymakers which politicians and/or their representatives consider, amend and approve “line by line”.
        You have not refuted in any way the facts that these IPCC official procedural documents decree and which ensure all IPCC documents are the political documents they are intended to be.

        You ask RACookPE1978

        “(instead of re-writing them in secret by one person against the voted results of the committees)”
        you got evidence for this accusation?

        No, not an “accusation” but a certain fact.
        I remind that in my explanation of IPCC Procedures for you I wrote

        Each IPCC Summary for Policymakers (SPM) is agreed “line by line” by politicians and/or representatives of politicians, and it is then published. After that the so-called ‘scientific’ Reports are amended to agree with the SPM. This became IPCC custom and practice when prior to the IPCC‘s Second Report the then IPCC Chairman, John Houghton, decreed,

        We can rely on the Authors to ensure the Report agrees with the Summary.

        This was done and has been the normal IPCC procedure since then.
        This custom and practice enabled the infamous ‘Chapter 8′ scandal so perhaps it should – at long last – be changed. However, it has been adopted as official IPCC procedure for all subsequent IPCC Reports.

        Either you don’t know of this scandal or you are pretending to not know.
        The immediate response of Ben Santer (i.e. the Lead Author of Chapter 8 of AR2) to Houghton’s instruction was for Santer to be the “one person” who made a complete re-write of the Chapter so its statements were reversed because they refuted the SPM.
        This outraged the late Fred Seitz, former president of the U. S. National Academy of Sciences, who wrote this op ed in the Wall Street Journal in an attempt to inform the public.
        I copy an extract fro Seitz’s op ed because you have repeatedly demonstrated that one click of a mouse is too great an effort for you to correct your ignorance.

        The participating scientists accepted “The Science of Climate Change” in Madrid last November; the full IPCC accepted it the following month in Rome. But more than 15 sections in Chapter 8 of the report–the key chapter setting out the scientific evidence for and against a human influence over climate–were changed or deleted after the scientists charged with examining this question had accepted the supposedly final text.
        Few of these changes were merely cosmetic; nearly all worked to remove hints of the skepticism with which many scientists regard claims that human activities are having a major impact on climate in general and on global warming in particular.
        The following passages are examples of those included in the approved report but deleted from the supposedly peer-reviewed published version:
        * “None of the studies cited above has shown clear evidence that we can attribute the observed [climate] changes to the specific cause of increases in greenhouse gases.”
        * “No study to date has positively attributed all or part [of the climate change observed to date] to anthropogenic [man-made] causes.”
        * “Any claims of positive detection of significant climate change are likely to remain controversial until uncertainties in the total natural variability of the climate system are reduced.”


      • ooh richard, very impressive, someone made similar claims you made and just like you, he also did it without a shred of evidence…….
        very telling richard, very telling.

      • Daniel Kuhn
        Please provide any evidence that any “someone” made unspecified “claims”.
        I have provided no “claims” and I don’t need to provide evidence for claims I have not made.
        I here provided you with clear explanation with references, quotations of, and links to official procedural documents of the IPCC that say the IPCC’s so-called ‘Scientific’ Reports are adjusted to agree with the IPCC Summaries For Policymakers which politicians and/or their representatives consider, amend and approve “line by line”.
        You have not refuted in any way the facts that these official IPCC procedural documents decree and which ensure all IPCC documents are the political documents they are intended to be.
        You have not even attempted to refute the irrefutable facts I have provided.

      • Richard
        in your post here :
        you make the claim:
        “The IPCC says its Reports are political documents and they are.”
        yet failed to provide any evidence.
        and the IPCC calls the ARs “scientific reports”
        “Since then the IPCC has delivered on a regular basis the most comprehensive scientific reports about climate change produced worldwide, the Assessment Reports.”

        • So you cite the political advertisements of a political organization written BY that same political organization to “prove” that political organization is itself NOT a political organization writing advertisements for its political goals?
          And you think that establishes “truth” or accuracy in a scientific debate involving the world’s energy supplies, energy prices, and the survival of the world’s governing classes who sponsor, use, and support that political organization writing the advertisements?

      • RACookPE1978
        trying to save richard with your dishonesty?
        i quote the IPCC because Richard claimed that ““The IPCC says its Reports are political documents and they are.””
        they do not say that, they say they are scientific reports.

      • This argument between Richard and Daniel is such a great example of how the debate has occurred on the broader scale. Richard points out what is in the actual record but something for which following up on the references is difficult and time consuming. Daniel simply denies reality and pretends that a propaganda point about supposed consensus is enough reason to ignore observed reality. Well Daniel you are not a scientist as you say, being a scientist is more a manner of approach than training. If you are not going to take the time to check and understand the references presented by Daniel than you are wasting our time.

      • Daniel Kuhn:
        I have replied to your disgraceful and untrue attack on RACookPE1978 together with refutation of your most recent laughable attack of me. My reply is here.
        My reply summarises the IPCC’s statements that all its Reports are political documents and quotes the IPCC’s claims that the IPCC monitors and amends production of IPCC Reports to ensure they are the political documents they are intended to be.
        I apologise that my reply is in the wrong place in this sub-thread because you have repeatedly demonstrated you lack the mental capacity required to click a mouse so you can read a link.

    • Back in the 1980s, when I was a student at UW-Madison WI, I and a buddy would join the ‘protest du jour’ on campus with our own signs designed to ‘spoof’ the protest. As an example, we were the most sincere and determined ‘protesters’ to show up for one ‘animal rights’ rally. My buddy’s sign said “INSECTS ARE PEOPLE TOO!!” and mine shouted “STOP THE SENSELESS SLAUGHTER OF INSECTS ON OUR NATIONS HIGHWAYS!” We made sure to get right in front of the news cameras, at every opportunity!
      We succeeded in making a number of protests laughable, from the public perspective!

  8. It is very late in the year for Quebec City to still have snow on the ground.
    How could anyone go to a global warming protest after the winter they just had which was -5.0C below normal, a level which is extremely rare for a whole season for any one location and would be close to the all-time record coldest winters.
    Quebec City/Region daily temps going back to 1742 if someone wants to check this winter against a very good long-term daily temperature record.

    • “How could anyone go to a global warming protest after the winter they just had which was -5.0C below normal,”
      informed people understand that their city is not the world.
      usually people interested in GLOBAL warming look into global temperature records.

      • Quite right, Daniel. We should ignore the RSS’s 18+ years of no warming and go with the UAH trend of 0.1C over what, 19 years? (using Mk I eyeball)
        So let’s go with that. Let’s really put a balanced response to this: close down a few Western economies; drive electricity prices through the roof so poor people can’t afford it; grow fuel instead of food; strip-clear forests for fuel; and generally truly f*ck up a whole load of other things which we like to call ‘civilisation’..
        And all, just so that you and your mates, with heads firmly stuck up your a*ses can feel so bloody good about having (NOT) dropped the global average temp (whatever that is) by 0.1 Deg C. For all this, YOU would argue the toss of RSS v UAH for ONE TENTH of one degree over a generational time period. You’re either evil or foolish..

      • Daniel,
        I just eyeballed the trendline on your UAH data and it seems to have risen 0.1 degrees in about 10years.
        0.1 degrees in 10 years! Oh my god Marjorie, get me my shorts as next year is going to be 0.01 degrees warmer than the last and i think my air conditioner won’t be able to cope with such a stratospheric rise!
        Get a grip Daniel…

      • “close down a few Western economies;”
        nobody plans that.
        “drive electricity prices through the roof so poor people can’t afford it”
        nobody plans this.
        ” grow fuel instead of food”
        dumb idea.
        “strip-clear forests for fuel”
        we are actually working to prevent exactly that.
        “and generally truly f*ck up a whole load of other things which we like to call ‘civilisation’..”
        the contrary is planned.
        your alarmism is quite amusing.
        “You’re either evil or foolish..”
        oh dear O.o

      • Harry Passfield
        You say to Daniel Kuhn

        You’re either evil or foolish.

        Surely, your use of the word “or” must be a misprint for ‘and’.

      • david smith
        so you admit the claim “NO WARMING” since 18 + years is wrong? only 1 out of atleast 5 global datasets shows no warming.
        hey, what did the remote sensing experts on your side actually say about the divergence of UAH and RSS?

      • Whoops:
        Marjorie, I’ve just read Harry’s comment and realised my mistake! Next year is going to be 0.005 degress warmer than this year! Do you reckon my air conditioner will be able to cope?

      • so you admit the claim “NO WARMING” since 18 + years is wrong? only 1 out of atleast 5 global datasets shows no warming.

        What I’m saying is that whichever data set you look at (GISS, Hadcrut, UAH, RSS etc) any warming that might have seen has been miniscule and way smaller than the error bars.
        Look at it this way, if you said to someone, “this summer is going to be a scorcher – it could be nearly 0.005 degrees warmer than last year” they would laugh in your face.
        As I said before, get a grip Daniel.

      • the contrary is planned.

        So Daniel, tell me what you think should be done to stop this frightening rise of 0.005 degrees a year?

      • on a global average?

        Global average or not, 0.005 degrees a year is infintessimaly small.

      • Reply to Daniel Kuhne:

        Nobody plans [that/this]

        Of course ‘they’ don’t, Daniel. Ever heard of ‘unintended consequences’? Ever thought that your desire to ‘prove’ that climate changes is just a tad hysterical? On balance, I think most people would prefer warmer to colder – even if they would be totally unable to feel the difference that your alarmism is hyping.
        Then again….”nobody plans that” is but the dim echo of the voices of those millions killed in pogroms in just the 20th century. Nobody planned them….Ha!

      • Daniel Kuhn:
        “On a global average”, during each and every year the global temperature rises by 3.8°C over 6 months and falls by 3.8°C over the other 6 months, and nobody notices.
        So, perhaps you can explain why anybody would notice – or have any reason to care about – a rise “on a global average” of global temperature by 0.1°C over 10 years.
        Hint: it may help you if you can work out WHY global (n.b. global and not hemispheric) temperature rises and falls 3.8°C during each year.

      • “Daniel Kuhn
        April 13, 2015 at 6:33 am
        nice cherry picking. “

        Not exactly Daniel. I took the most current date and went back to as far as I could showing no significant cooling or warming. That is the point: currently the trend is relatively flat.
        You will not find anyone here who does not accept that we have probably been warming since the end of the LIA. Exactly how much warming that has happened over that period is definitely debatable.
        Moreover, the primary issue: whether human CO2 emissions are having a detectable effect on the atmospheric temperature, remains uncertain. Most, even here, agree it should. But again, whether it is observationally detectable? Not so much agreement there.

      • Would that be the global data that hasn’t warmed for over 18 years?
        Would that be the global data that showed the temperature was warmer 1000 years ago, and much warmer 2000, 3000, and 5000 years ago?

      • Nor do isolated weather events indicate “climate change”.
        Which never stops the alarmists from blaming any and all destructive storms on human activity.

      • People interested in GLOBAL warming should consider how much of the globe’s temperatures are interpolated. They should note which areas have, historically, the greatest concentration of climate stations. They should note where climate stations are being dismantled, and where new ones are being opened. And they should note the well-documented adjustments being made to past temperature records.
        In the United States, 38 state all-time high temperature records were set prior to 1937. Another 8 were set between 1952-1985. Of the 4 records set since 1985, 3 were set in 1994 at recently-opened weather stations in the hottest areas of their state (including one at a NM nuclear waste disposal site). At two of those stations, average temperatures have since been falling.
        Regardless of the percentage of the globe occupied by the U.S., this does not correspond with the fearful prognostications that began in the 1980s. If only specific portions of the globe are consistently warming, then it is not GLOBAL warming.

      • Danial, the WfT data for Hadcrut4 ends in July 2014, for UAH it ends in Dec 2014. Hadcrut4 is missing 8 months of data, UAH is missing 3 months.
        If you really want to use a temperature data-base, I suggest using Nick Stokes’ Trend Calculator. Not only does Nick keep it up-to-date (automatically-monthly), it it also easy to calculate a CI trend (@ 95% confidence limits).
        Using the Trend Calculator, UAH shows no significant warming (@ the 95% confidence limit) for 18 years and 8 months; CI from -0.002 to 2.217 (March 2015 – July 1996).
        What is more interesting, is that none of the data sets show a significant warming at all since the turn of this century, now approaching 15 years.
        NOAA – State of the Climate, 2008;

        ”The simulations rule out (at the 95% level) zero trends for intervals of 15 yr or more, suggesting that an observed absence of warming of this duration is needed to create a discrepancy with the expected present-day warming rate.”

      “Mean, absolute minimum and maximum values suggest considerable variability in the climate over the past two centuries. Based on a variety of climate indicators, exceptionally warm years include 1808, 1848, 1870, 1953 and 1998, while cold years include 1809, 1816, 1818, 1875 and 1904. Analysis of frost days and growing season length suggest a reduction in cold temperatures over past 200 years, while the incidence of cold spells and heat waves has decreased.”
      “Historical observations of temperature from the 18th and 19th centuries are shown to be comparable to modern temperature data.”

    • Thanks for posting the link. FWIW, to the extent that I can recognize the sites, most seem to be from the Montreal area which is a fair distance from Quebec City. On a whim, I checked the temps for 1816, the purported “Year Without a Summer”. Last freeze in early June, some cool weather at times over the Summer, but the next frost is in mid-September. Definitely a cool year, but they for sure weren’t conducting sled dog races on the frozen St Lawrence in August.

  9. Stéphane Côté. This news articles doesn’t say that it wasn’t just people marching against climate change and tar sand. There were a lots of people representing the government Union that are going to be on strike this summer because the government decided that they needed to work a bit more and we need to cut spending to lower our deficit. Students are also there to protest against the Liberal government and the Austerity measures imposed on the government employee, the educations system and the health care system . A funny thing to note is that the green movement in Quebec are financed by the government of Quebec and the province of Quebec receive 2 thirds of the equalization ( perequation ) money which is money from Alberta Tar sand.

    • Salut Stéphane. Je suis né à Montréal et maintenant je demeure en Alberta.
      I left Quebec in 1967, three years before the Quebec crisis, James Cross, Pierre Laporte, etc.
      Quebecois still have this thing about “La Conquête Anglaise” in 1759 when the European French were driven out of New France and the British took over.
      I recall the cancellation of the 2009 re-enactment of the Battle of the Plains of Abraham – we should have let the French win this time. 🙂
      After the “Conquest” of 1759, France was allowed to take back Québec under the Treaty of Paris of 1763. Instead, France chose Guadeloupe. The great Voltaire rejected Quebec as “quelques arpents de neige”, which even to this day I deem an outrageous insult, tabarnak!
      It is worthwhile to examine Quebec history in the context of this controversy. Like the global warming scam, the Quebec separatist movement is largely based on the BIG LIE.
      For 40 years, Canada and Quebec were held hostage by separatists, who spread many falsehoods, including the alleged cruelty of living “under the British boot”.
      In fact, France was a poor and uncaring administrator, and Quebec habitants were much better off and thrived under British rule.
      Here is some of the evidence:
      In the ~160 years to 1763 under French rule, Quebec population grew by only about 1 person per day.
      In the 60 years of British rule from 1784 to 1844, Quebec population grew by about 26 people per day.
      Quebec population growth shows two distinct linear trends, with a steep upward shift after commencement of British rule.
      In 1765 Quebec’s population was 69,810. By 1844 it was ten times higher, at 697,084. This impressive growth rate certainly does not indicate that the habitants were badly treated.
      Several generations of Canadians, ESPECIALLY the Quebecois, have had their lives and careers emotionally and economically blighted by Quebec separatism.
      It is apparent that the alleged grievances of separatists are, to a large extent, based on falsehoods.
      It is long past time to move on, and leave this foolishness in the dust.
      Source of population data: Quebec Yearbook, 1970, p. 137

      • Now I know from where Patsy Gallant’s composer, Ives Lapierre stole the melody for “From New York to LA”
        ” I’m a star in New York I’m a star in LA” = “Mon pays ce n’est pas un pays, c’est l’hiver”
        Inquiring minds want to know.

      • When my wife and I (mostly her) were active in RevWar reenacting, our group went to the last(?) Battle of the Plains of Abraham. Free tenting on Plains, easy walk to a breakfast place with great crepes. Wonderful event. I was amazed that the next one was cancelled. – “The claim that history is written by the winners doesn’t apply to Canada. Our history is written by the whiners.”

      • Allan MacRae , What I can tell you is that when I was younger, we were almost raised to hate the rest of Canada and those who spoke English in Quebec but it has changed a lot now, Thanks in big part to the new wave of immigrant that are finally showing Quebecois that the world is bigger then just Quebec and Canada and that we can all live together without fighting. The Party quebecois in the last election has been kicked out something really bad and is telling us that this party doesn’t have much more to go. I would say that in maximum 15-20 years this party wont exist anymore. Has for the population growth under the British, I would say that its mostly due to the fact that during that time, we were really religious people and priest were going door to door and telling couple that they needed to have baby’s every year or they would go to hell. That we needed more people to eventually take back our land from the British. The fact that the war was over is also a really good explanation has to why our population grew that much but something that we must not forget is that the British let us live, which is something unusual from a conqueror. When you ask most people that believe in the idea that Quebec should become a country, most of them cant even tell you why we should separate. They will only tell you, F*** the English !!! and wont really have any good answer. Personally I am not really patriotic but I am a Canadian before a Quebecois and I believe that we should open up a bit more to the rest of Canada. We could both learn from improved relation between Quebec and the Rest of Canada. When I see the English Community here in Quebec, the first thing I see is that they are more interested in giving there child better educations and care more about there community. I have been raised like a typical French quebecois and our mentality is that we don’t really need to go far in school. Just finish High school and maybe cegep and then leave the family house, get a girl friend, have some kids and teach them the same….. Now we live in a province were most Doctor, pharmacist, engineer, politician,… aren’t French Quebecois. They are Chinese, Vietnamese, arab, jewish, englophone,…..

      • Hello again Stéphane and thank you for your comments.
        I still retain a great fondness for Québec, and I believe it will all turn out well in the long run.
        My father was born in Eastern Ontario and graduated from Queen’s in Kingston in 1935 and went to work at the huge CIL explosives plant in Beloeil east of Montreal. My father had great affection and respect for the French-Canadians he worked with, and they felt the same way about him.
        Due to the war, the plant increased production tenfold for WWII, and he wound up supervising 3000 men at the young age of 28. His half of the plant had no fatal accidents throughout the war. He appointed the first French-Canadian supervisor ever, a very capable gentleman named Aurèle Bradley.
        Years later as summer students, my brother and I worked in the same explosives plant and we were referred to by the old-timers as “”fils de Joe” – and they looked out for us.
        My great regret is that so many Anglos and immigrants moved out of Quebec during the separatist era, never to return, They took their cultures, their work ethic, their education and their money with them, and made Toronto and other cities grow and prosper.
        When we were young, we regarded Toronto as a quiet little hamlet upriver where they took the sidewalks in at night, with a few banks and a lousy hockey team. Now it is the most powerful city in Canada, thanks to the separatists (but still has a lousy hockey team – plus ça change, plus ça change pas).
        Shortly before his death, Mordecai Richler was interviewed and asked about Montreal – he reflected that it was still a great city, but it was “much diminished”. Up to about 1970 we had something very special, and then we gave it all away.
        Good luck in the playoffs – I still cheer for “les Habs”.
        Best personal regards, Allan

    • Stéphane,
      Your Upper House of Parliament has always struck me as bizarre – somewhat of a throwback to the UK’s House of Lords. The members are appointed, and remain until they’re 75 years of age (unless they wish to step down); the spaces are ridiculously weighted to the E. Provinces. Perhaps this made sense once, but isn’t it time for a change?

      Pop. data from 2011, rounded off:
      Prov.   Pop.  # Sen.   Sen/Million pop.
      ON    12.85     24         1.9
      QC     7.90     24         3.0
      BC     4.40      6         1.4
      AB     3.65      6         1.6
      MB     1.21      6         5.0
      SK     1.03      6         5.8
      NS     0.92     10        10.9
      NB     0.75     10        13.3
      NL     0.51      6        11.8
      PE     0.14      4        28.6
      NT     0.041     1        24.4
      YT     0.034     1        29.4
      NU     0.032     1        31.3

      … and the numbers probably look worse in 2015 (Most growth in ON & QC, plus AB & BC).
      Unlike the systems in the US and Switzerland, where the individual States / Cantons each send two (elected) Senators to the Upper House, this system effectively creates a majority bloc from a minority 1/3 of the population (QC + Atlantic Provinces).
      ON: 12.85 M population, with 24 senators
      QC: 7.90 M population, with 24 senators
      BC+AB+SK+MB: 10.3 M pop., with 24 senators
      NS+NB+PE: 1.8 M pop., with 24 senators
      NL+NT+YT+NU: 0.6 M pop., with 9 senators
      Barring something remarkable, this system (ON & the West paying for QC and the Atlantic Provinces) is likely to continue indefinitely. How do you reform this? (Maybe I’m missing something, though: I’d appreciate any Canadian input here).
      And BTW, the only industries in the Far North which generate jobs and taxes are mining & drilling. These people apparently have one goal: cripple the economy.
      [Inserted “pre” html to create ASCII fixed font for table. .mod]

      • Well politics is something that I follow but, apparently not has much has you lol. Our system is a copy of the old system from the UK since were a Colony. In recent years, political party’s have been trying to reform it and even abolish the senate because most of them are people that have been put there has a favor from the elected party. So if your a really close friend to someone high enough, you can be selected and not elected. But for Quebec, we have always been special, most political party have been trying to buy the Vote in Quebec by giving us lots of favor such has putting people in the senate has a way of telling us: Look we care about you. Something that has never worked which would explain why the Conservative party is completely ignoring us and even told us that they could still win the majority next election even without Quebec. Has for the age to which senator have to retired, thank god its been changed. Before, Senator could stay in there seat even if they were 91 years old and completely senile. Has for the Mining industries, yes they are generating lots of work but they don’t really bring anything to the provinces, especially in Quebec where they aren’t forced to pay royalty and once they are done….. they just close every thing without even a thank you. They just close, fire everyone and doesn’t even pay for the reparations to the land. Its been like this for a really long time. There is a good documentary on the subject that you could watch. Its called The Hole Story by Richard Desjardins.

    • Contrary to what people think, the English did not conquer the French on Sept. 13, 1759, at the Battle of the Plains of Abraham. And the French didn’t surrender, either. As a matter of fact, it was a Scot – Brigadier-General James Murray – who accepted the capitulation of French forces five days after the battlefield death of General James Wolfe, and it was a Scot – Major Jean-Baptiste-Nicolas-Roch de Ramezay – who capitulated. De Ramezay was a Ramsay, a clan that traced its Scottish ancestry back to Norman origins in the 12th century. Looking strictly at the battle that made Wolfe famous, a Scot won it and a Scot lost it. For good measure, it took place on a field named for Abraham Martin, an early settler known as The Scot.

    • Stéphane coté
      April 13, 2015 at 4:21 pm

      Some years my wife and I visited Montreal in the winter. It was a truly enjoyable visit, and I was strongly advised by an emigrant Greek to try smoked meat while I was there. The only “problem” we experienced was when my wife accidentally apologised to a Quebecois for not speaking English. The Quebecois was quite indignant because she was under the impression she was speaking English. Things were smoothed over after purchasing an excellent croissant and a good coffee.

  10. This anti-warm demonstration is the saddest thing on earth and I am laughing to death. I wondered last month if these crazy people would dare to do a march demanding a new ice age and they did!
    When they planned this march they hoped it would be sort of warm so people would say, ‘Geeze, I wish I was freezing to death again!’

    • This is pure “group think”. It’s reminiscent of George Orwell’s “1984”.
      I bet you 5 people in that crowd would have no other answer to the question: “What makes you think the Earth is steadily warming”? Answer: “Because the overwhelming consensus (you know, the fraudulent 97% number) of scientists say so”…….
      Nuff’ said.

      • BTW, I think the woman to his right (LHS of photo, with indecipherable banner in cursive, wearing Jamaican stocking-cap) is eyeing his “Everything is OK” banner with suspicion.

  11. From my own experience Canada seems to be on board with climate change more than The US or some countries in Europe even. I have discussed the matter briefly with a few of my Canadian friends. Every one of them had the same comment. “climate change is happening, the signs are all around us.” My own response would be that i have been living and playing in the outdoors most of my life and I haven’t noticed anything strange. i realize the power of suggestion and there was a time when I bought into this environmentalism ideology. That was just the tribe I was in. They somehow think I’m missing some sort of spiritual mother nature gene. i have no idea how seemingly intelligent people believe this stuff. The only way to speed up the downfall of this fraudulent movement is tho have rational liberal environmentalists who are informed on the science have a moment of clarity and just say “enough is enough”
    Hopefully this will happen sooner than later

    • Except everything is NOT ‘OK’. I still have ice on the ground here in New York, the lakes still have some ice and it is mid-April long after the ice should be gone and the trees have barely begun to show buds, not one flower anywhere.
      That march is insane. If Canadians truly believe we should cool down the planet they should be told that all Ice Ages begin just south of Hudson Bay. Not at the North Pole itself, at Hudson Bay.

    • “climate change is happening, the signs are all around us.” We as Canadians are just being our polite selves in this case the majority would not say that but probably thinkl something different.
      And to all of you trying to “talk” sense to Daniel Kuhn, you must be Canadians waaayyy too polite.
      And at Daniel, “the science is settled” Obama and Kerry at major press conferences

    • Charlie,
      Are your friends possibly of the leftist, academic persuasion? Herein may lie the answer. The type of people that see “the signs are all around us” tend to want so desperately to see the signs that they convince themselves that they are seeing the signs. Then there are those senior Canadians such as myself, of practical education (engineering), who in their substantial lifetimes have seen warm and cold, deluge and drought that are not amenable to the power of suggestion by warmist Svengalis. As a Canadian that perhaps mingles with a different crowd than Charlie, I hear a preponderance of opinions that CAGW is bullshit and Al gore a buffoon.

      • i heard only the same explanation when discussing climate change briefly with an older educated gentleman from England. He told me that “they” just want you to think that all of Europe is on board with climate change. I have researched this topic on my own for a few years but i think taking advice from older educated people on this issue is not such a bad policy considering they have experienced the most climate in their lives and they have been fed the most bs over the years by the media, politicians, and the government. “respect your elders” doesn’t seem to be a popular ideology with the types in these marchers. That just seems to be what it looks like from my point of view. Ignorant “know it allness” sadly from college educated Jon stewart or Bill maher fans. You underestimate the propaganda power of those type of people with this generation.

    • Hmmm. My experience with Canadians has been the opposite. I’ve encountered many in recent years in Costa Rica where there is something of a real estate buying frenzy going on among Canadians. When I ask them what they think of climate change, they invariably say the whole thing is stupid.

    • 0.18C. You would be hard pressed to find a thermostat that could regulate your house within 0.18C per hour, let alone 0.18C per century. Yet people are not dropping like flies due to the 2-3C change per hour more typical of household thermostats.
      For the earth to naturally regulate a large portion of the globe to within 0.18C over a century, when the temperature at each station might vary as much as 10-15C in a single day, tells us that whatever effect humans are having on the climate, the climate appears to be changing in such a way as to resist human influence. In other worlds, the effects of natural climate change are to minimize anthropocentric climate change.

      • Thank you Fred
        You have summarised (better than I could) what I have been trying to say to Daniel Kuhn further up the thread.
        The infintessimaly small temp rise is not going to burn us all to death in some sort of fiery maelstrom.

      • ferdberple says: In other worlds, the effects of natural climate change are to minimize anthropocentric climate change.
        I think the puny effects from we humans have on the climate does not even rise to the level of noise.

    • Euan,
      You might want to emphasize that the So. Hemisphere “warming” you calculated comes out to 0.18℃ per CENTURY (0.018℃ per decade, practically zero). Some people might be confused at first. I certainly was.
      Tracking a limited number of high quality stations over a long time period would be a far better method than what is done today (no agreement on a “Dow Jones Average” for Global Temperature).
      Personally, I’ve always felt that “Global Warming” should be measured by taking a few hundred readings at roughly equally-spaced locations in rural land areas for the range of latitudes where most humans reside (from approx. 40 deg. S to about 55 deg. N). thereby ignoring the poles — which are difficult to measure and prone to erroneous results as well.
      I’ll look forward to the explanations for the differences in the So. Hem. warming trend between your calculations and those of HadCRUT4 and BEST.

        Plotting at a more reasonable Y-axis scale shows that 1880 to 1980 is effectively a flat line, i.e. zero warming. Also little cooling in 1884, the year after Krakatoa, no sign of the 1998 el nino warming, and a very curious but real cold snap in the mid-70s that shows up in numerous records in Central Australia and Sn Africa. Makes you wonder if this is actually planet Earth 😉
        Kurt, I agree. I believe that global land temperatures could be adequately characterised with 1000 carefully curated long and continuous records. Going the BEST route of gathering gazillions of records has the effect of putting data analysis out of reach of the ordinary person with a Mac and XL and is not necessary. The Earth comprises a mosaic of congruous climatic zones. All you really need is a handful of good records from each zone to characterise its history.

      • Such a network has been set up by NOAA across North America called the Climate reference Network. It’s purpose was to create data that is so good that it does not need to be altered after the fact (implying that all the other data tables have been altered). Results after 10 years? A slow but net decrease. Likewise with NASA satellite records.

      • Interesting that you bring up “Dow Jones Average”. Nobody in the industry uses the Dow anymore because it only has 30 components and is not representative of the market. The S & P 500 is the standard used by professionals. The uninformed public and media and politicians use the Dow.
        The parallel here is that you pare the measured data down to too few points and it looses value as data; one giant anomoly with one data point and the index is screwed. Sound familiar?

  12. The people of Quebec already changed the climate of their project via the James Bay hydro project; “an environmental political phenomenon often regarded as a “first build, then paint green,” policy”
    The establishment of reservoirs containing large amounts of standing water has the ability to produce local climate changes. Alteration of annual precipitation patterns, increased abundance of low stratus clouds and fog, and warmer autumns and cooler springs, leading to a delay in the beginning and end of the growing season, have all been observed in the vicinity of the project’s major reservoirs.[36] The doubling of the freshwater input into James Bay during the winter decreases the salinity of the seawater, thereby increasing the freezing point of the bay. The resultant increased ice content at the northern section of the project in the winter has cooled warm air currents more than usual, bringing harsher Arctic weather, including strong winds and less precipitation, to south-central Quebec. The tree line at the southern edge of the development has shifted noticeably southward since the project’s construction.[37]

    • Nice description of a local project influencing local climate.
      I am sticking with the “climate zones” of the USDA, Canada, British Isles, Australia, etc.
      These climate zones have importance.

  13. In Canada, money is taken from the “have” provinces and given to the “have not” provinces. This amounts to about $1000 given to even man, woman and child in Quebec, largely a result of resource development in the “have” provinces.
    Per capita benefit (2012)
    Quebec will receive the most from equalization payments in the 2013-2014 year.
    If the people in Quebec really want to do something about global warming, they could start by giving up the $1000 they are each taking out of the pockets of other Canadians. In that way the rest of Canada could afford to slow down our resource development, as we wouldn’t have to carry the weight of 8 million Québécois at $1000 each on our shoulders.

    • I wrote this circa 2002:
      The definitive study on Canadian tax transfers is:
      Mansell, Robert L. and Schlenker, Ronald. “The Provincial Distribution of Federal Fiscal Balances” Canadian Business Economics 3.2 (1995): 3-22
      Robert Mansell has updated his tables from time to time, and I have them up to 2002.
      Quebec is still number 1, receiving $217 billion in 2004$ from 1961 to 2002, but is doing much better this millennium.
      Ontario has overtaken Alberta as #1 contributor, at $314 billion, but Alberta is still #1 per capita.
      Per family of four, Quebec has received $129,000, Ontario has contributed $127,000 , and Alberta has contributed $422,000. You can double these figures with nominal interest.
      The Maritimes, Territories and some others have received more per capita than Quebec.
      The problem with these huge tax transfers , of which “equalization payments” are a subset, is that they encourage counterproductive provincial policies. Often, the money never gets past the bloated civil services of the “have-not” provinces, and never reaches the poorest people in these regions.
      Equalization was intended as a “hand-up”, but has become a “hand-out”, enabling and entrenching really poor government policies in the have-not provinces.
      The people in these have-not provinces would probably be better off now if equalization had never existed, and Canada would not have our half-trillion dollar national debt.
      Update to 2015:
      As a direct result of excessive tax transfers that skew economic priorities, New Brunswick, one of our most debt-ridden provinces, has recently banned fracking of its rich Albert County oilshales. I am not sure if the Albert County shales can be produced by fracking – my former company used to own large shale deposits in Albert County, prior to the development of shale fracking, and I visited the County in the 1980’s..

      • Thanks for that info, printed and in my wallet I get into arguments too often, now I have some ##’s. I also have some great french canadian friends that have moved to western Canada in search of a better life and have succeeded quit well. HO to them!

      • A similar problem is happening here in Western Australia. We have a similar situation were due to the fact that once had useless desert, but some nearly 50 years some enterprising men decided to see if the land might contain some minerals which we could mine and sell for a profit. Amazingly there was this mineral ore called Iron Ore that was found and found to be in abundance an soon other people and companies started to explore the region and found it rich in minerals, so they started to mine it. Things really got good in the past decade, until the past year saw the price tumble, but as a result of our wealth we a basically propping up the rest of the country, via the company taxes raised by the mining boom and the increased GST from our state while in real terms we saw a decrease in the money coming back. The states getting the money are those who have waste money of green projects and complain we have spent our money poorly. It seems the whole point of the green movement isn’t to save the environment, but for the expressed purpose of “sharing the wealth”.

  14. “I must say I like their taste in plastic snow gear. The bright red petroleum based plastic outfits made a terrific contrast against the late season snow. ”
    Years ago, I remember a chemist friend at Dow Chemical who would always say he couldn’t believe people burn petroleum when you can make such wonderful things from it. This was in 1980, first time many of us heard the words Global Warming.

  15. The real reason Quebec is protesting. Not only has Alberta got the oil, now they have Crashed Ice as well. Quebec is pissed.
    Quebec’s Crashed Ice event packs up and moves to Edmonton. The event was held in Old Quebec City for nine years and regularly drew crowds of up to 100,000 people. Its economic spinoff is estimated at $11 million.
    The president of Gestev, the company that organized the Quebec City event, said it’s possible Crashed Ice will return to Quebec in the future — just not in 2015.

  16. We don’t need CO2 to create hell on Earth.
    “The drive to a cashless society is supported by the UN Capital Development Fund’s Better Than Cash Alliance which aims to accelerate the shift to electronic payments, funded by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, MasterCard and Visa among others. But it’s Sweden that is blazing the trail.”
    We are moving toward a brain death Big Brother hell.
    And it looks like the world is full of useful idiots digging their own grave.

      • Very true. We also save all our paper statements. That way if anything really interesting happens, you can always prove where you were at least at the most recent monthly statement.

  17. Quebec and Ontario are about to sign a carbon trading scheme today…watch the other province follow in step…Canada is heading down the dark path now…and the media as far as i’m concerned is to blame.

    • Let’s not forget what’s on tap for the States to the South – such as Washington, where a “carbon” cap-and-trade resolution is just waiting in the wings – with a 2016 start date – and after reading, you will see they anticipate a base cost (to rise with time) trading volume that will generate – at the lowest cost, the first year after imposition – 1BN $US – that is one billion dollars US:
      This is the Senate version. There is also a House version with near-carbon-copy language (oh yes, pun very much intended).
      Insanity coming to a North American State or Province nnear you!!

    • Agree that the media is upside down on this. CBC just said imminent crop failures coming due to future 1 degree rise in temperature. But CBC is totally mad. I listen for the irony and stupidity that they issue.
      As for “Carbon” trading/taxes or whatever, most provinces already have a program. From afar in Alberta (we have a carbon tax), the Cap and Trade system that Ontario and Quebec are proposing appears to be nothing more than a way to financially reward the current government supporters and certain government corporations. IMHO. Rife with potential corruption but that is par for the course.

  18. Posted a few years ago – radical enviros blocking much-needed pipelines through Eastern Canada.
    Line 9 originally move crude oil eastward, then it was reversed to flow westward, and the latest approval reverses it again to flow eastward, so that large oil refineries at Esso Nanticoke (near Hamilton) and the Shell and PetroCanada refineries at Montreal can process cheaper Canadian crude instead of much more expensive imported crude.
    Crude can also be shipped eastward down the St. Lawrence River to the Valero refinery at Levis (Quebec City) and further to the huge Irving refinery at St. John NB. I suppose we can also export overseas with some added infrastructure.
    This was a sensible, no-brainer decision, that the radical enviros managed to delay for years, costing Canadians billions of dollars. At times, Edmonton Light crude sold for $60 per barrel while imported Brent crude cost $100 per barrel.
    We should hold these enviros financially responsible and send them the bill.
    Best to all, Allan
    National Post, 7Mar2014
    National Post,
    Conditions for Enbridge; harsh words for activists
    The National Energy Board handed a conditional approval to a proposal to reverse the flow and expand Enbridge’s controversial Line 9 so it can move western oil to refineries in Ontario and Quebec, and doled out harsh words to activists who disrupted its hearings.
    In a 141-page ruling released Thursday, the board said the decision “enables Enbridge to react to market forces and provide benefits to Canadians, while at the same time implementing the project in a safe and environmentally sensitive manner.”
    The federal regulator said the 30 conditions imposed on Enbridge would enhance the pipeline’s integrity and environmental protection, improve emergency response and require continued consultation. The regulator turned down a request by Enbridge to exempt it from a final check to ensure all conditions are met.
    The approval is final. It involves a 639-kilometre stretch between North Westover, Ont., and Montreal, as well as an increase of the pipeline’s capacity to 300,000 from 240,000 barrels per day. Enbridge also won permission to move heavy oil. The NEB had already approved the reversal of the western portion of Line 9, a 194-kilometre segment linking Sarnia, Ont., to North Westover.
    The federal regulator’s endorsement comes three months after a panel of regulators backed another major pipeline, Enbridge’s Northern Gateway from Alberta to the West Coast, after finding that Canada would be better off with the new project than without it.
    The pipelines are part of a build up of transportation capacity to expand markets for western Canada’s growing oil production. Two other major projects, Energy East from Alberta to the East Coast proposed by TransCanada Corp., and the expansion of the TransMountain pipeline by Kinder Morgan from Alberta to Vancouver, are also before regulators. The board’s decision was welcomed by the natural resources minister, who said the National Energy Board had conducted “an independent, scientific review” of Enbridge’s proposal.
    “This will protect high quality, skilled jobs in Quebec and create market opportunities for Western Canada’s oil producers,” Joe Oliver said.
    “Furthermore,’ the minister said, “by replacing higher-cost foreign crude with Canadian crude, the reversal will strengthen Quebec’s refining and petrochemical industries.”

  19. The mind set that wants to preserve millions of square miles of tundra and ice escapes me. Such land is useless to plants, animals, and humans. It can only be a simple aversion to change that explains it–freeze everything the way it is (including not letting the 3rd world develop I guess)…

    • Those are not protesters.
      That’s Cook’s consensus, right there.
      97% of snowmen, agree that warming is happening and is dangerous.

  20. So many of the protesters are young. Reminds me of my student days and the “Student Centre” crowd who solved all the world’s problems at the Stud Centre tables. At that time they were all “artsmen” and held in low regard by us engineering students who were studying the actualities and not fantasies. It is unfortunate for us that those Student Center types grew up physically, learned nothing further about the real world, and now are the ones who are passing the cap-and-trade legislation that is to saddle Ontario, Quebec, and California with unnecessary costs to no useful purpose.
    Ian M

  21. That is funny considering Quebec gets its oil from foreign governments like Nigeria, the Middle East and so on all delivered to Quebec via tankers that dock daily in that province. Now that is the definition of stupid. They get no oil from the Oil Sands to talk about.

    • albertalad

      That is funny considering Quebec gets its oil from foreign governments like Nigeria, the Middle East and so on all delivered to Quebec via tankers that dock daily in that province.

      Odd. Ontario (and almost all of the lands east of Detroit) are oil-producing – one of the first areas to drill oil in north America. Museum up there claims oil production well before Drake even.

  22. @winston bela April 13, 2015 at 8:29 am
    I would like to see the best ONE sensor in each country world wide, used to generate temperature data.
    If we argue that averaging wide areas is a rubbish idea to generate a global average temperature then doing the same with country data is just as bad.

  23. This is in Québec City. Snow on the ground is not unusual for that time of the year.
    The province of Québec must be, along with California, the strongest North American bastion of AGW brainwashing and generalized blind faith.
    The vast majority of Quebécois have never heard that there is a dissentic scientific opinion on the subject of AGW. AGW is taught in school as undisputed science.

  24. The Grand Solar Minimum will grant them their wish and cover their hometown with glaciers.
    Seal the border before they can make it outta there. It seems they *like* it a little fresh.

  25. Current weather conditions in Quebec City:
    21/03 means air temp 21°C, dew point 3°C. 70°F air temp.
    They should have waited a day or two!
    METAR CYQB 132000Z 21007KT 170V240 30SM FEW250 21/03 A3000 RMK CI1 CI TR PRESFR SLP161 DENSITY ALT 800FT

  26. The “Everything is OK” placard holder looks to be a follower of the “Love Police”. Watch a few of their “Everthing is OK” videos on YouTube –
    Basically Charles Veitch goes around telling people to consume more to be happy, and generally being very sarcastic in a funny way and taking the piss out of modern life.

  27. Of all the really scary things that could happen to catastrophize humanity, how in blazes did they decide that slight to moderate warming with benefits to most of the world over the next century is worth protesting?
    One would think that they would be more fearful of the opposite.

  28. Australia is looking into protestors who receive taxpayer funds:
    Video/Transcript: 10 April: ABC 7.30 Report: Conor Duffy: Environmental
    groups are being targeted by the Government and could be forced to shut by a push to strip them of their tax deductibility status.
    SABRA LANE, PRESENTER: Hundreds of environmental groups flourish around Australia. Some aim to save endangered species, some have the lofty goal of rehabilitating land that’s been degraded and some are overtly political,
    intent on using their environmental activism to stop development.
    A federal parliamentary inquiry’s been set up to examine environmental groups, specifically those that have tax deductible status.
    Green groups claim it’s akin to a star chamber.
    But Government MPs say they’ve identified more than 100 so-called eco charities which are being subsidised by the taxpayer to campaign against jobs…
    CAM WALKER, FRIENDS OF THE EARTH: I think like every environmental organisation across the country that employs staff, tax deductibility is the lifeblood of our organisation. So if the Federal Government is successful at getting through its attempts to cut off groups from the register, it will basically mean the ***political death of our organisation…
    MATTHEW CANAVAN: There are a large minority who are clearly engaged primarily in trying to stop fossil fuel development in Australia and I don’t think its right that Australian taxpayers, including people who work in the mining industry, are asked to fund those activities..
    .MATTHEW CANAVAN: We’ve got about 100 or 150 organisations that are engaged in activity which seem to have their purpose at stopping industrial development. Not just mining. Some of those developments include tourism
    developments or agricultural developments. But engaging in what I would view as the political debate, not the environmental debate…
    CONOR DUFFY: Friends of the Earth is one group that’s already been singled out by the Government for scrutiny. In the run-up to the last election it received a $130,000 donation which was spent on market research and used in
    conjunction with ***GetUp! for political campaigning.
    It’s currently being audited by the Tax Office. It’s been cleared in an Environment Department investigation.
    CAM WALKER: I wish we hadn’t taken this money and that’s simply because we have in Canberra enough people that are in control of government that are fiercely anti-environment and very ideologically so. So this has put us in the limelight, and as I said before, we’ve had an investigation, we’ve been found that we’ve done nothing wrong…
    ***GetUp has also received funding from Avaaz & Unions.

  29. Half an hour ago I posted an emphatic, yet politely worded, strongly skeptical viewpoint on the NATIONAL PUBLIC RADIO site, commenting on their report on a similar “march against climate change” recently held at Yale. I pointed out the satellite data showing no warming for 17 years, the geologic and historical records, etc. Would you believe the post was DELETED before my eyes when it hadn’t been up for 10 minutes? Out-and-out CENSORSHIP of anyone posting the actual science. Seen it with my own eyes now what’s going on–and will urge people to withhold their donations from that utterly biased propaganda mill. Yes, I am PISSED!

    • You must be new to this. I’ve seen literally hundreds of my comments censored on the internet

  30. I was extremely disappointed to read that the Ontario government will introduce cap and trade indirect taxes.. Quebec is already using the same cap and trade system that Ontario will join.. The timing especially seems strange when they have had no global warming in Ontario or Canada for at least 17 years and just came through two of the coldest winters ever in eastern Canada. There is no justification for taxing carbon in Ontario. This tax follows behind the most expensive GREEN energy policy in North America which has raised energy cost to such a high level that Ontario can no longer compete effectively with US or other provinces . These taxes will drive out more manufacturing and jobs out of Ontario as industry relies on carbon based energy and low cost energy and taxes to be competitive. Most of US coal plants will remain in operation after Obamas revamp of emissions and hence their energy costs will be much lower than Ontario’s. Ontario has already shutdown almost all coal plants Other than California , there is no cap and trade tax in US and they have lower energy costs . High taxes and high energy costs could l drive the rest of what is left in manufacturing out of Ontario, including automotive sector . It is already happening. Ontario should look at what is important for Ontario, not what California or QUEBEC is doing . They both have a different situation and economies entirely .CALIFORNIA doesn’t have to heat their homes in brutal winters with carbon based fuel like ONTARIO does. Quebec has cheap power due to water hydro power from Labrador.

  31. Kuhn is a prime example of the age old tenet – Dumb people think “A”, Smart people think “B”, Really Smart people think “A”

  32. I just watched the news and heard the Premiers of Quebec and Ontario lauding their new CO2 trading scheme. Apparently they are joining in a CO2-taxation scheme with California’s Governor Moonbeam Brown.

  33. Parkas and mukluks in April? How about snowshoes and snowmobiles? Ooops! Snowmobiles use fossil fuel. Can’t have those can we? Not for an anti-global-warming-demo?
    How did these demonstrators get to the demo? Surely they did not walk there from their hometowns? Not for an anti-global-warming demo?

  34. Red is an appropriate color for them. People who are sold on the idea that Socialism/Communism is a good political system will also be easily sold on the idea that the Earth is warming up at an outdoor rally on a cold, snowy day. Stalin didn’t call them “useful idiots” for no reason.

  35. A tax by any name….
    The sad consequence of the matter is the protestors are achieving results. The environmental groups are gaining traction as ON and QC have shown intent to conjoin in a cap and trade agreement, along with CA. The Canadian media (CBC in particular) are all enthusiastic and gushy. There will be an increasing frenzy to get these types of laws, taxes, agreements, regimes, in place before the cat is out of the bag, and the disconnect from the fantasy models to reality is truly revealed by the pause in global warming.
    The models can only show one direction for climate, ever onward ever upward. However nature has its own way and it is never constantly in one direction but very chaotic in ‘nature’ , No pun intended. Once the real truth evolves into public consciousnesses this game will be up, however what is there will remain like a blight upon the economy.
    So this will be one of MS. Wynne’s revenue tools. The revenue is courtesy of the ON voters and the the ‘tool’ of course is Wynne.

  36. Daniel Kuhn
    April 13, 2015 at 6:12 am
    warming in the last 18 years.
    is WUWT claiming that UAH is “massaging” the data?
    And you claim that that graph proves warming? Why do you think that a linear extrapolation of what is clearly part of a curve proves that has a very obviously reducing rate of rise proves warming? A best fit curve proves beyond question to all but those stuck in the mindset of signal analysis that preceded Fourier in the seventeenth century that climate scientists are a group of know nothings with more conceit than ability.
    Draw the five year average slopes and still tell me we have an escalating rise with forcing ie ever greater slope as claimed by these self opinionated, but based purely on performance, clearly utterly inept group.

  37. Quebec is mostly useless as a province. The only notable economic benefit that comes from Quebec are.. Chemical production (produces more toxic chemicals and gasses than the CO2 they hate) and Maple Syrup (Run by a ubber secret maple syrup cartel)
    … Also Quebec is the most corrupt province in Canada…

Comments are closed.