Latest / Cultural Wars | America Out Loud News / Is Canada basing its climate policies on ‘decision-based evidence-making?’

Transcript

Is Canada basing its climate policies on ‘decision-based evidence-making?’ · Cultural Wars | America Out Loud News

• 0:07
  Mainstream media has betrayed our trust.
• 0:10
  Rather than tell us the whole story about the important issues of the day, they tell us only what they want us to hear.
• 0:16
  Your hosts, Tom Harris and Todd Royal will bring you the other side of the story.
• 0:27
  Like many nations across the Western world, Canada continues to spend hundreds of billions of dollars trying to stop climate change and getting ready for supposedly dangerous global warming.
• 0:39
  This makes no sense, of course.
• 0:40
  Warming has generally benefited humanity.
• 0:43
  And no nation, let alone Canada at only 1.5% of world emissions can stop climate change.
• 0:50
  It's been going on since the origin of the atmosphere billions of years ago.
• 0:54
  The only constant about climate is change.
• 0:56
  It changes all the time, no matter what we do.
• 0:59
  And if you were concerned about emissions, if Canada disappeared completely, China and India together emit one year's worth of Canada's CO2 emissions in less than two weeks.
• 1:16
  There are many drivers of this ridiculous crusade, but one of the main ones is that Canada is supposedly warming twice as fast as the global average.
• 1:25
  Indeed, that claim has made Canada the poster child of global warming for the United Nations and other institutions to site.
• 1:33
  The federal government, in particular, Environment and Climate Change Canada is the main source of this claim, one that's been endlessly repeated by mainstream media and politicians and is now quoted as part of the rationale for the climate change master plan in cities like Ottawa and Toronto.
• 1:51
  But what if the claim about Canada's rapid warming is not supported by sound science?
• 1:56
  What if the temperature data that is fed into the computations is corrupted by artifacts such as changes in the instrumentation or changes in the environment around temperature stations?
• 2:08
  And what does this say about the reliability of the so-called global temperature that has led the world to now spend five billion US dollars a day on climate finance to discuss his findings that most of Canada's warming over the past six or seven decades is apparently not real?
• 2:27
  We've invited Dr.
• 2:28
  Joseph Hickey, a data scientist with a PhD in physics in complexity science in particular to be our guest today.
• 2:36
  Dr.
• 2:36
  Hickey is the author of an important report that was published on December 23rd, 2025, titled Artificial Stepwise Increases in Homogenized Surface Air Temperature Data invalidate, published Climate Warming Claims for Canada.
• 2:52
  After completing his doctorate in physics at the University of Calgary, Joseph worked as a data scientist at the Bank of Canada and completed a postdoctoral fellowship at the University de Quebec at Trois Rivier.
• 3:06
  He's now president and associate researcher at Correlation Research in the Public Interest, a registered not-for-profit corporation based in Ottawa, Canada.
• 3:16
  So welcome to the show, Joseph.
• 3:18
  Hi there.
• 3:19
  Thanks for having me.
• 3:20
  Yeah, thanks for thanks for being here.
• 3:22
  Um you did a paper uh that that was uh artificial stepwise increases and homogenizes surface air temperature data and validate that's a key word here and validate published climate warming claims for Canada.
• 3:37
  Maybe we can get to do one of these for the United States.
• 3:40
  Can you tell us about correlation research in the public interest?
• 3:44
  Yes, that's our research organization.
• 3:46
  It's a registered not-for-profit organization in Canada, and we we do um research on topics of public interest.
• 3:55
  Uh, a lot of our work has focused on COVID topics, but we're also interested in climate change and and other uh topics as well.
• 4:03
  Wow.
• 4:04
  Um Canada and you know, there's so much between Canada and the United States now, but you certainly have a very pro-climate change, pro-global warming prime minister certainly has in the past.
• 4:17
  But we keep hearing these things with Canada that supposedly you're warming twice as fast as the global average that supposedly Canada is the poster child of global warming for the UN and other institutions to cite, and that the Federal Department of Environmental and Climate Change Canada is the main source of this claim.
• 4:37
  And I think now we even see, and Tom, correct me here, there it's become this rationale for climate change master plans in places like Ottawa and Toronto.
• 4:47
  Can you talk about this?
• 4:49
  Is Canada warming faster than the global average?
• 4:52
  And you know, is that the reason guys like Mark Carney get elected?
• 4:56
  Well, here's um what I uh the report that I have just uh put out with correlation research in the public interest uh a couple of weeks ago looks at the station level data, temperature data.
• 5:11
  So the data for individual weather stations um that is uh publicized, made publicly available by Environment Canada, which is now officially called Environment and Climate Change Canada, as you mentioned.
• 5:26
  And what I find is that in many, many stations across the country, when you look at the annual mean temperature, there is a large stepwise increase in the year-to-year uh temperature from one year to the next in 1998.
• 5:44
  And this kind of a large one-degree uh discontinuity in the temperature record is something that is always treated as an artifact in uh in temperature records in long-term temperature trend analysis, and that and this is because it's recognized and accepted by climatologists that any time you have a weather station that has been recording temperature data over decades, there are going to be what are called inhomogeneities.
• 6:13
  There are going to be breaks in the data, and it might be because the station has been re relocated at some point in time, um, which can be you can change its altitude, it can change it can be moved uh up to uh some number of kilometers uh away from its original site.
• 6:30
  The instruments change, which can introduce uh uh either sharp discontinuities or it can be more gradual biasing factors.
• 6:38
  And uh the other big category of changes are are what are called observational changes, uh things such as the time of day at which you record the minimum or the maximum uh temperature using the uh the thermometers that capture the extreme uh temperatures.
• 6:53
  So these different types of changes are really well known.
• 6:56
  Um there's there's lots of them.
• 6:58
  And so climatologists and scientists working at the National Meteorological Institutes, like Environment Canada and Canada, um, spend a lot of uh time and and put a lot of effort into trying to adjust the records to to try and remove these biasing factors to correct the steps that are that are known to uh to oh to pretty much always be present in any weather station that's been recording uh temperature over several decades.
• 7:26
  So Environment Canada is seen as being one of the highest quality uh data sets in the world, is is the one that Environment Canada produces.
• 7:34
  It's called the adjusted and homogenized uh Canadian climate data.
• 7:39
  And so this is the data set that I used.
• 7:41
  It's supposed to uh have be state of the art uh in terms of its corrections that it's done.
• 7:47
  It's it's they've prepared the data and they've put it out there and promote it for long-term temperature trend analysis.
• 7:54
  But when you look at it and you you take the annual mean temperature, which is a good thing to do because the the raw data is daily data, but if you average over the year, then you remove the seasonality in the data.
• 8:06
  Yeah.
• 8:06
  So it's a good thing to do is to look at the annual averaging and how that those have evolved over time.
• 8:11
  And what you find is that there's a large stepwise discontinuity, exactly the kind of thing that is supposed to have been removed from the data that is present.
• 8:20
  Uh and and then if you'd correct for that one degree step, the result is that it removes essentially all of the warming for Canada over the past seven decades, which is the period that Environment Canada uses to do it's long-term uh okay.
• 8:38
  Okay, you I'm sorry to interrupt.
• 8:40
  So when I ask you the question, the first thing that came to my mind and Tom as well is every time I talk to Tom, I'm here in the Dallas, Texas area.
• 8:48
  It is literally 75 degrees here today.
• 8:50
  We're having a very warm winter.
• 8:52
  Every time I talk to Tom, or I'm sure you, you're caked in snow, playing hockey on snowmobiles, you know, you're you're in your gigantic coats and there's a massive snowfall.
• 9:03
  When I hear that it's warming in Canada, I think this is where the ridiculousest of all this comes because I start to go, well, where's the common sense in all of this?
• 9:13
  Because we as an American in the southern part of the United States, how is Canada warming when every time I say Canada, it seems to be snowing?
• 9:25
  And I'm being a little ridiculous here, and I understand I'm being a little fun here with you, but did people ever pose those questions to you when they go, um, Dr.
• 9:35
  Hickey, you're really smart in this, but I'm just going to use a little common sense to go.
• 9:39
  My my cousin Ethel up there in Canada every second I call her at see her on you know Zoom or FaceTime or visit.
• 9:45
  She's freezing cold, but you're warming.
• 9:48
  Huh?
• 9:49
  Help explain.
• 9:50
  Absolutely.
• 9:51
  If I could show you uh what it looks like outside the window, you'll see a lot, a lot of snow here in the Ottawa area.
• 9:59
  And
• 10:00
  And um, you know, we have a uh 10 kilometer long skating rink called the Vido Canal, and it's open uh already uh pretty early in the winter, and uh so yeah, no, it's it's certainly it's cold here, but but what I wanted to do is uh look at the data itself, you know, the what's supposed to be the best quality data.
• 10:20
  Yeah, and um what you do when you find that is that all of the warming that's calculated for Canada by Environment Canada um disappears once you remove this step that occurs in 1998, which is widespread across the country, it's in most of most of the country.
• 10:37
  There's the Western province of British Columbia does not have this feature, and there are some other stations in uh also in the West in Alberta and some in the north that don't have it, but otherwise it's pretty much this this feature is pretty much widespread across the rest of the country, which is uh the country that's the size of some continents, it's a large uh country.
• 10:59
  And um yeah, so that this is essentially uh the the main focus of the paper.
• 11:05
  Yeah.
• 11:05
  Now, when did you first become aware of this?
• 11:08
  Because it's it's a pretty big problem.
• 11:10
  You think the uh environment climate change Canada would have noticed it themselves.
• 11:16
  Right.
• 11:16
  And so I was working as a data scientist at the Bank of Canada, which is the central bank in Canada.
• 11:22
  So it's a crown corporation, it's uh a government agency essentially, a government institution.
• 11:28
  And um I was asked to do analyses of temperatures because the bank wanted to see if um there were correlations between changing economic activity and climate variables such as temperature precipitation, uh so on.
• 11:45
  And so I took the task very seriously, and I said if I'm going to, and I'm a physicist, and if I'm going to be studying the temperature data and using it to compare with economic uh data, I need to understand the temperature data.
• 12:00
  And I need to check the quality of the data and see if it's uh if it's if it's valid, if it's usable in this way.
• 12:09
  And so I did some various uh checks, and what I after exploring several different things, what I came to decide was a good high level or first approach check on the quality of the data was to do these annual averages of of the temperature for individual stations.
• 12:28
  And that's what led me to seeing this it jumps out when you see it.
• 12:32
  The the data is fluctuating around a plateau annual average temperature over the years, and then suddenly in 1998, it jumps up to a new plateau one degree higher, and then continues to fluctuate around that new plateau.
• 12:47
  So it's a step, if you think the data is flat, and then it steps up to a new plateau and it stays flat and at the new uh plateau.
• 12:56
  And so this is the kind of thing that this is does not seem to be natural climate variability when you look at it.
• 13:03
  It's not it's not a slowly increasing trend.
• 13:05
  And so I asked Environment Canada what was going on with this and how would they explain that.
• 13:13
  And I wanted to see if they would have an explanation that would allow us to continue working with that data as is, or whether it would need to be corrected before we could do the work that we wanted to do, comparing with the economic uh data.
• 13:26
  And the answer from Environment Canada, which uh those emails are in my report because I uh since uh that time I uh accessed these emails through access to information.
• 13:40
  So they're um part of the public record now.
• 13:44
  Uh they're in my report, which is on Correlations uh website, and you can see the responses of the senior Environment Canada climatologist, Lucy Vincent, who at first um said that she quickly checked the metadata for several stations and could not uh find any notes about switches to automation, which is something I had suggested might be a reason for this uh this feature, this step, because it's in some of Environment Canada's articles, they mentioned that many stations were undergoing the change to automation in the 1990s, and then I responded with a detailed article where I reviewed many different types of biasing factors, and there've been observational and experimental studies that have been done over the years comparing things like um what happens when you change the instruments from the old types of thermometers to the types that they use uh in automated stations, or another important feature is the screen that protects the thermometer from solar radiation.
• 14:48
  What happens when you change that screen, or when the um reflective coating on the screen wears off over time, and so that the screen gets uh heated up more by the solar radiation.
• 15:03
  These are important effects that can uh cause biases of uh often around half a degree, it can be up to more than a degree or one or two degrees depending on the study, and depending on the uh the location and the climatological conditions that the instruments are in.
• 15:20
  And so I I included three large tables in my email to the Environment Canada researcher Vincent uh explaining how there could be many different types of biasing factors that could be responsible for this kind of uh discontinuous break at 1998.
• 15:36
  And the uh response was basically to brush me off and to say um we have not detected uh shift um that you that you the one that you've seen visually at 1998, because I had sent her graphs, but she so she used the word we have not detected a shift, and our results are in line with results from around the globe, which is this was the way that she answered.
• 16:01
  Now they the use of the word detected in her response is quite interesting because when you look at Environment Canada's articles presenting the adjusted and homogenized data set, which were authored by Vincent and co-authors, you look at their article, but they explain the method they use to detect these kinds of steps, like the one that I that I noticed.
• 16:22
  And the method is based on comparing pairs of stations that they call neighboring stations, and they can be often in different cities, they might even be up to a couple hundred kilometers apart, but they call them neighboring stations.
• 16:36
  And the idea there is that if a step occurs at one station due to changing the instruments, for example, or removing the station, they would do not expect to see it at the neighboring station.
• 16:48
  And so by comparing the two records, taking the difference of the two records, you will see the step showing up using doing that comparison.
• 16:57
  Now the problem with that is if the step occurs the same step occurs at both stations, then you don't detect it with their method.
• 17:05
  When you take the difference in the two records, since they both have the step, the step disappears uh in their in their method.
• 17:14
  And and I show in the report, I show how that's the case.
• 17:18
  And it turns out that in their article, they included a figure showing how they do their detection method where they happen to have used two of the stations, Moncton and New Brunswick and Frederick, New Brunswick, that have among the most striking examples of this step.
• 17:34
  And so it disappears.
• 17:36
  It disappears because you subtract it one from the other.
• 17:40
  So that I thought was quite interesting that uh she used the the word that she had not detected a step when you look at what that actually means.
• 17:50
  Uh that's not an explanation for this.
• 17:53
  Yeah, in the in the notes, in the notes under this interview, when it goes up on Monday, I'll put up some samples of the graphs where you show T min and the map minimum temperature T max and average, and you can see the big jump.
• 18:06
  It's huge.
• 18:07
  I mean, you know, they're they're measuring to tenths of a degree, and they have a sudden jump of a degree, like wow.
• 18:15
  Do you feel the research is shoddy?
• 18:17
  Because just listening to you right now, this you know, some people would go, oh gosh, there's a bias here.
• 18:23
  So you're wanting to show a bias to warming so I can whether more government control, more money towards renewables, hurting the fossil fuel industry, etc.
• 18:32
  But do you on just kind of a granular level though?
• 18:35
  Did you find when you're reviewing things, do you find the work and the research just to be shoddy work?
• 18:42
  Because that's what it sounds like.
• 18:43
  Lazy in some ways.
• 18:46
  They do an enormous amount of work, and they um are producing a product that has to have certain features that they that they're looking for that they that they have criteria for.
• 18:59
  But I think that this glaring one degree stepwise increase in most of the stations across Canada absolutely needs to be addressed.
• 19:11
  It's it hits you in the face when you see it.
• 19:14
  I I put it to that to the senior person at Environment Canada who's been intimately centrally involved in producing these data sets for 30 years since the early 1990s and knows all the ins and should know all the ins and outs of it.
• 19:30
  And she was not able to provide uh an answer.
• 19:34
  So that is something that's still unaddressed.
• 19:38
  The this data set goes through different generations, they called it when they update their procedures they use to do their adjustments or they include new stations and so on.
• 19:48
  And the fourth generation was released in 2025.
• 19:53
  So very recently.
• 19:55
  And there's that when you look at that fourth generation, it has exactly the same problem.
• 20:00
  Problem as the data set that I was using back in 2021.
• 20:03
  And so they have not done anything about this.
• 20:05
  And yet you pointed it out to them back in 2020.
• 20:09
  2021.
• 20:10
  Oh, okay.
• 20:11
  Wow.
• 20:12
  Like the one degree thing, I'm sorry.
• 20:14
  I'm just I'm just stunned of like that.
• 20:17
  That's that's that's glaring, but it's also stunning.
• 20:20
  What do you Tom?
• 20:21
  What do you think about that?
• 20:22
  Well, it it erases most of the warming.
• 20:25
  And uh Joseph, you were saying that after that step, the overall trend is negative.
• 20:31
  It's actually cooling since 1998, you know, in on average across the country.
• 20:37
  Right.
• 20:37
  And it's not just that if you're correct for this one degree step, it's not just that it removes most of the warming, but what it does is it produces a time series where there's no statistically significant trend.
• 20:49
  So that means it reduces all of the warming statistically speaking.
• 20:53
  Joseph, catch you a little bit on the on the research.
• 20:56
  So these data sets, and pardon me for being a little boring to the audience and to Tom.
• 21:02
  I'm assuming you're getting these data sets in an Excel spreadsheet.
• 21:06
  Yes, more or less, yes.
• 21:08
  Okay.
• 21:08
  So in other words, it's um people who do Excel or to explain data sets.
• 21:14
  It's just long columns of information, which if you understand basic sorting of an Excel spreadsheet, you can go through and look at the data.
• 21:24
  I think that's where I keep coming back to this feels like something's been manipulated.
• 21:28
  I've had to deal with data sets before.
• 21:31
  And when you have gigantic trends like with what you're talking, uh give a little background, Joseph, I've done things like uh economic clustering, you produce heat maps, where's where's companies located?
• 21:43
  You can easily find in a data set.
• 21:45
  Oh, there's a lot of um financial firms in Toronto versus Ottawa, you know, something like that.
• 21:53
  So is that what you were finding sometimes like these Excel data spreadsheets?
• 21:58
  Because I I really am.
• 21:59
  I'm a little uh I'm dumbfounded of how someone doesn't get it's one thing in a view to go, oh, it was like zero point one, but a degree that that's the data.
• 22:10
  It's discerning to me.
• 22:11
  The underlying data that that environment Canada provides is for a specific, well, for a station.
• 22:18
  Um, you know, it can be Toronto, Canada at the airport, and it's the daily mean temperature, the daily maximum temperature and the daily minimum temperature.
• 22:31
  So you can take any one of those, you have the data for every day, unless once in a while there's a missing day day, but otherwise you have the data for every day um for many decades, and then you can do things like take the annual average and then make a plot.
• 22:45
  Right.
• 22:46
  So now the data is um very you could say manipulated, very adjusted.
• 22:53
  And there are a lot of manipulations that are made to the data, and the government is open about that.
• 22:58
  They they show what the raw data looks like, and then they show what the adjusted data looks like, and you'll see that they've shifted the whole series up, for example, because uh one of the main reasons is that because they changed the observation time for the minimum and maximum temperatures in 1960 or 1961.
• 23:19
  Um that introduced what they find is a cooling bias in the data.
• 23:26
  And so for that reason, they believe um that they need to shift the series up to higher temperatures.
• 23:36
  Uh now this I'm sure they do.
• 23:38
  I'm sure they do.
• 23:39
  This this kind of adjustment causes some interesting problems.
• 23:45
  And that was another kind of a side point that was in this article is that in the access to information emails that I obtained, there were emails from another Bank of Canada employee with Environment Canada, where he had noticed.
• 23:58
  Um, and his name is Julian McDonald Guimont, and the emails are in the in the report.
• 24:02
  And he noticed that he had found 10,000 different instances where the minimum temperature for the day at a particular station was greater than the maximum temperature.
• 24:17
  Wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, come out.
• 24:19
  Sorry.
• 24:20
  I'm gonna be I'm gonna be today's uh LUDE here.
• 24:23
  Um the minimum temperature was more than the maximum temperature.
• 24:29
  That's not it, it sounds like a lot, and it is I mean, it is uh uh 10,000.
• 24:34
  But of course, this is we have hundreds of stations, and we have 365 days a year.
• 24:40
  And so this is the 10,000 instances only represents about say one percent of the data.
• 24:46
  So overall it's it's small, but it does show it's something that is uh it does show the kind of effect that their adjustments can have.
• 24:57
  It can have these kind of absurd effects because um they've done things like raise the minimum temperatures because they've decided that there's a cooling bias for XYZ reason.
• 25:08
  They raise the minimum temperatures across the board, and it can produce these kind of absurd situations where now all of a sudden the minimum is greater than the maximum.
• 25:17
  So um that's that's just I mean, there's lots of lots of things like this that can happen, and that's just one that where it's concrete.
• 25:26
  Um Mr.
• 25:28
  McDonald Guimont had created a table with all 10,000 examples, and he and he sent it to Environment Canada.
• 25:34
  Uh and said, please, what's going on here?
• 25:36
  Can you have it?
• 25:37
  And I and I'm sorry to keep harping on this, Tom, and and feel free to cut me off here, but it's it's not the hardest thing in the world to take all this data, put it in Excel, begin to do your arithmetic of the three different temperatures.
• 25:52
  You know, someone like you, Tom who understands this, or you, Dr.
• 25:54
  Ricky, backwards and forwards.
• 25:57
  Um, sort it properly, do some some, you know, let it do the the basic arithmetic, and you begin to you can find all these discrepancies.
• 26:06
  This this is not hard.
• 26:08
  My god, with AI now, you could certainly throw it in there.
• 26:11
  I think it just it boggles my mind because it's so destroys institutional trust.
• 26:18
  That's what you're in my mind what you're doing is destroying institutional trust.
• 26:22
  And when you work within one of these institutions, government institutions, there's an enormous amount of pressure to accept the environment Canada data as being high quality data that you can use out of the box.
• 26:35
  And if you start to question it, it's you basically are encouraged not to go down that road pretty strongly.
• 26:40
  So, but but at the same time, well, Environment Canada promotes that data for use in long-term temperature trend analysis, but they also have disclaimers where they say things like use this data with caution.
• 26:53
  Um because they know that there are a lot of um biasing factors that can affect the data, and they've tried to they say that they've tried to correct uh many of them, but they they even like they cannot catch all of the biasing factors.
• 27:11
  There are a lot of factors that are gradual that that can affect the record at the station over many years, like it can be like the growth of trees in the vicinity of the thermometers, can apply a gradual, maybe it's maybe there's more shade that's the the thermometers in the shade for more time out of the day as the tree gets larger.
• 27:31
  There are many factors like this.
• 27:32
  Uh the um irrigation methods that are used on the land around the thermometer, the thermometer um crops that might be growing nearby, um forest fire management practices that allow forests to grow, whereas in the past there would have been less forests in the area around these different there's many different things um that can that can impose a gradual bias that is very difficult to detect.
• 27:59
  Um there might not be any history at the station.
• 28:02
  Sometimes they have metadata notes about what happened at the station.
• 28:05
  So it's the climatologists know that that there are there are many of these biasing factors that can affect the data, and they tell the community, the research the the public to use this data with caution.
• 28:17
  Um, but that's not what happens when there are headlines all over the place, and even you know, in other countries, that Canada was warming twice the global average.
• 28:29
  Unfortunately, we have to go for a break now.
• 28:30
  We'll be right back with Dr.
• 28:32
  Joseph Hickey, a data scientist with PhD in physics whose focus is on complexity science, and we're learning that some of the data from Canada, the supposed poster child of global warming, may not be trustworthy.
• 28:46
  So stay tuned.
• 28:46
  We'll be right back after the break.
• 28:48
  This is Dr.
• 28:48
  Peter McCullough.
• 28:49
  You know me from America Outloud Pulse and the McCullough report.
• 28:53
  Well, I'm inviting you to join me in Nashville, July 2nd, 3rd, and 4th, for a truly historic experience in 2026.
• 29:00
  America Outloud News 250 slash 10 Nashville.
• 29:05
  I'm calling all patriots to be a part of this unforgettable weekend, packed with inspiring entertainment, incredible fireworks, and nationally recognized speakers who proudly stand for freedom, together with you and our partners, Clear and the Wellness Company, we'll celebrate two major milestones: 250 years of America and 10 years of America Out Loud News, led by Malcolm Out Loud.
• 29:30
  I can't wait to see you there because your presence matters and you are family.
• 29:35
  So make history with me and Malcolm.
• 29:37
  Register now at AmericaOut Loud.news forward slash Nashville.
• 29:42
  That's America Outloud.news forward slash Nashville.
• 29:45
  We'll see you there.
• 29:46
  Have you been looking for a healthy snack for on the go?
• 29:48
  But all the energy and protein bars are just too sweet and full of sugar preservatives and mystery ingredients.
• 29:54
  Well, not all energy bars are soft and sugary.
• 29:56
  Bear bars are a crunchy savory bar made from just six simple natural.
• 30:00
  Ingredients made with veggies, nuts, and seeds.
• 30:02
  Bear bars are plant-based, organic, gluten-free, contain six grams of protein, and are low temp dried for a unique crunch.
• 30:09
  To learn more, just visit barebar.com forward slash out loud and get the exclusive discount just for America out loud listeners.
• 30:16
  That's B E A R B A Rom forward slash out loud.
• 30:21
  Is there MRNA technology in your grocery store beef?
• 30:23
  You won't see it on the label, but it's there.
• 30:25
  100% grass fed, grass finished, mRNA free, hormone free, and vaccine free.
• 30:30
  Wellness farms.
• 30:31
  Order now at TWC.health backslash out loud and use code out loud to get your exclusive 20% off for AOL list.
• 30:40
  In just two minutes per day, you could reclaim your health and cut your grocery bill in half with one simple convenient product.
• 30:46
  Our doctor formulated green 85 juice formula's powerful dose of ultra concentrated essential nutrients, stops hunger in its tracks, and supplies your cells with what's missing in the grocery store food.
• 30:59
  Go to chemicalfree body.com forward slash out loud today, get nature's super multivitamin green 85, empower your immune system, cut down on your grocery bill, and save 20% on your first order.
• 31:11
  I'm Doug Evans, author of the sprout book.
• 31:14
  And I'm also a father with a three-year-old daughter.
• 31:17
  And that's why we grow sprouts.
• 31:20
  Did you know that you could take seeds, add water and get fresh organic vegetables in three to five days without soil, sunshine, or fertilizer for under a dollar a serving?
• 31:33
  That's the miracle of sprouting.
• 31:35
  And I want to share that with you.
• 31:37
  Go to the spouting company.com slash out loud and use the code out loud for a special offer.
• 31:45
  You wouldn't go a day without brushing your teeth or washing your hands.
• 31:49
  What about washing your nose?
• 31:51
  I mean, your nose does filter the air you breathe, air loaded with bacteria, viruses, and irritants.
• 31:56
  Make nasal hygiene part of your routine with clear.
• 32:00
  No messy bottles to fill, no drowning sensation.
• 32:03
  Clear is a natural drug-free saline with the added benefit of xylitol, which blocks bacterial and viral adhesion.
• 32:10
  Available in stores and online at clear.com.
• 32:13
  That is XLEAR.com.
• 32:15
  Feeling off lately, bloated brain fog, low energy.
• 32:19
  It could be parasites.
• 32:20
  The sound invaders that weaken your gut immune system and mental clarity.
• 32:23
  That's why Dr.
• 32:24
  Peter McCullough and the doctors at the wellness company formulated ivermectin and mabendazol cleanse.
• 32:29
  A medical grade solution designed to help eliminate parasites and restore balance.
• 32:33
  No gimmicks, just real medicine trusted by top doctors.
• 32:36
  Go to TWC.
• 32:50
  The American experiment was a stroke of genius and a world of oppressors.
• 32:55
  July 4th, 2026 marks 250 years since the sign in of the Declaration of Independence.
• 33:06
  America out loud dot news is that place to awaken your heart, soul, and mind to the outlook.
• 33:18
  If we are back, we're back with Dr.
• 33:20
  Joseph Hickey, which this is an absolutely fascinating conversation.
• 33:32
  But did you find within these data sets?
• 33:34
  And just remind everybody, it's just going to be long rows of data, generally in an Excel spreadsheet.
• 33:40
  Well, what you can do with that is run regressions to distill it down even further and even try to detect bias or detect causation or correlation.
• 33:49
  Did you even did you run regressions to even kind of distill the information down to the truth even further?
• 33:58
  Yeah.
• 33:58
  So I looked at um trend analyses for individual stations.
• 34:05
  And this is something that Tom was mentioning a moment ago, and it's in the report is that when you look at the trend for 1998 to 2018, so the 20 years after the the break that happens at 1998, what you find is that if anything, the trend is negative and the temperature overall is decreasing.
• 34:27
  And uh however, it's either negative in many cases or uh statistically insignificant.
• 34:35
  So that's to say that there's no evidence for warming over the 20 years after this break in the data that I've been talking about.
• 34:43
  Sorry, and as you take out the step, the warming for 70 years disappears.
• 34:48
  Well, that's right.
• 34:49
  That's the other thing I was going to mention is that when Environment Canada makes a statement about the temperature trend for all of Canada, they use a gridding procedure and they do averaging over space and they come up with a single time series that's supposed to represent the whole country.
• 35:07
  And when you look at that figure in their paper, you see this 1998 step again.
• 35:13
  And so what I did was I digitized the data from their figure, which is easy to do now.
• 35:18
  Uh there's online tools to do that.
• 35:21
  And I reproduced their trend analysis for their figure.
• 35:26
  And then I corrected the 1998 one degree step increase, removed that, and applied their their trend analysis to that corrected data.
• 35:37
  And when you do that, there's no statistically significant trend.
• 35:42
  So that's why that's the kind of analysis that's in the report.
• 35:45
  You can read about it, but that's why when I say that if you correct this for this 1998 step, there's no statistically significant warming uh for Canada.
• 35:53
  So yeah.
• 35:55
  My mouth is hanging open here at people know statistically insignificant means there's not even there's not even a number there.
• 36:04
  I can get into very boring things called confidence intervals, but when he's saying it's not statistically even significant, there's nothing to measure there.
• 36:12
  That's what he's really doing.
• 36:14
  It means in that corrected data, there's there's no warming.
• 36:16
  There's no evidence of warm.
• 36:17
  Yeah.
• 36:18
  I'm sorry, Tom, please you.
• 36:19
  But sorry, I didn't want to mention, I wanted to mention in this about about this one degree step increase, is that when you look at Environment Canada's papers that they've put out over the years, you go back to when they were first creating these adjusted and homogenized data sets, and they describe you know how in the records for weather stations, there's often these step discontinuities, and they need to correct for them.
• 36:45
  It might be because they moved the station or change the instruments.
• 36:48
  And what they say is when whenever we look at a temperature record and we see a step that's greater than 0.6 degrees Celsius, we always correct for that, even if we have no documentation at the station about what might have happened, there's no history.
• 37:06
  Um we're gonna automatically adjust for that.
• 37:10
  And that was back in 1999, and that's Lucy Vincent uh saying that in her in her article with her co-author.
• 37:18
  And that's the same researcher who um about 20 years later in 2021.
• 37:23
  I emailed and I showed her the one degree step increase in all these stations and asked what's going on, and and basically she attributed it to natural climate variability.
• 37:33
  Even though she had done the research to say it couldn't be at that point.
• 37:38
  That's right.
• 37:38
  In 1999, the procedure was that those steps definitely would be adjusted.
• 37:44
  So uh, even without any documentation, any any history to uh explain why the step might have happened.
• 37:52
  Now, if this dramatic stepwise increase from one year to the next from a low plateau to a high plateau, if this is natural climate variability, then this is not something that's compatible with carbon dioxide forcing.
• 38:07
  Uh you don't have there's no model that predicts that with a gradual accumulation of of CO2 in the atmosphere that suddenly the the annual temperature would jump up by one degree and stay at that new plateau for years uh following it.
• 38:24
  So and the and the other aspect of of that side of that way of thinking about it, is that if Canada has undergone a stepwise increase from one year to the next and its overall temperature, and that's something that's not compatible with carbon dioxide, then why wouldn't you find that similar kind of phenomenon around the world uh in Europe, Asia, United States?
• 38:52
  If this kind of thing can happen in Canada, then it must be so it would not be something that has only ever happened in Canada.
• 38:58
  And so it would be this kind of regime shifting of very very abrupt change in annual average temperature would be something that happens in other places in the world.
• 39:09
  You'd have to then presume that it would be responsible for the warming all over the world.
• 39:13
  So you see it, especially in border cities where there would be some sort of relationship between Detroit and Windsor, but you're saying it's not in the American data.
• 39:24
  Uh well, you know, I I've only looked quickly at the American data since putting the report out, and it does look like there could be some something similar in the American data.
• 39:35
  Oh, is that right?
• 39:36
  And now that I think it and I haven't looked in in detail at that, but I would like to do that.
• 39:43
  Uh the border locations.
• 39:45
  Yeah.
• 39:46
  Yeah.
• 39:46
  Now it strikes me that if they put in 72 Canadian reference climatological stations, they added those to the global climate observing system in that exact year.
• 39:57
  Isn't that the most probable cause?
• 40:00
  Because some of the other things you were listing were gradually thing, you know, gradual changes in environment or whatever.
• 40:06
  If for it to occur exactly in the year where they added these new stations, isn't that most likely a major cause?
• 40:14
  I think that's a really good hypothesis.
• 40:16
  I think that it's very possible that given that there was a plan uh to add a large number of stations around the country to the global network for the first time.
• 40:27
  This is a new global network, and it was going to be Canada's entrance into this important global network.
• 40:32
  There would have been an uh a governmental uh push to make sure the stations were at a certain say level of quality or uh meeting certain kinds of standards that might have this is this is speculation, but that might have involved um upgrading the instruments, so in other words, changing the instruments that might have been done very quickly within the span of a year across many countries, uh sorry, many stations in the country, in order for the government to be able to say, okay, now we're up to snuff.
• 41:04
  We have we have the latest and greatest uh instruments and uh um instrument housing apparatuses and so on at the stations across the country, and now we're ready to join uh the global network.
• 41:18
  That's that's that's that's plausible.
• 41:20
  I would like to look at the metadata they call it, which is the data that Environment Canada has uh includes notes on the history of the stations and when things have changed and so on.
• 41:32
  I did ask for that data when I was working at the Bank of Canada, and actually that email just happens to be in the access uh to information request, and um I was told that the data is not in a um easily accessible format and not publicly um available, something like that.
• 41:52
  So I think that that that data should be available to the public, but uh it's definitely not it's not easy to get your hands on it.
• 42:00
  Um so that would be interesting to look at the station history and and see if there's some notes about uh a change that might have happened at that time.
• 42:10
  Yeah.
• 42:11
  And and they still haven't answered your December 23rd report.
• 42:15
  No, there's no there has been no uh comment uh so far on that.
• 42:19
  Yeah, yeah.
• 42:20
  I I I imagine they're hoping that may mainstream media don't pick this up because then they'll be forced to reply.
• 42:28
  Yeah.
• 42:29
  Yeah.
• 42:30
  I I you know I've I'm just I don't know, I'm simply stunned.
• 42:33
  I would like to ask you just after the little bit of the American records that you've looked at.
• 42:40
  Do you feel comfortable even making a comment on a little bit of what you found so far?
• 42:45
  If you don't that's okay.
• 42:47
  The only thing I've looked at so far is a overall uh time series for the United States, and it does appear that there could be a um a step increase at 1998 in the American national level time series that the government produces.
• 43:03
  It it doesn't it's not as striking in the sense of it's not going from a low plateau stepping up to a new high plateau and staying there, um as you see in for the Canadian stations and even for the all Canada time series.
• 43:17
  Um so I need to look at individual stations in the United States, which I haven't done yet.
• 43:22
  It's a good thing that you don't work for the Bank of Canada anymore because when you were working for them, that was essentially working for the government.
• 43:29
  So you couldn't just jump out and put out a report like you did on December 23rd well that's uh no that's right.
• 43:38
  That's right.
• 43:39
  Um that uh I guess they were hoping you'd you'd work for the government forever and you can keep it a secret.
• 43:48
  Yeah, they should have given them a raise, you know.
• 43:51
  Give this guy a million dollars to keep him in the government.
• 43:54
  He's been running the Bank of Canada right now, then none of this would come out.
• 43:58
  Yeah, so so all the information you have in your report, it's there, it's valid, it's it's legal, it's legitimate for you to share this information.
• 44:07
  That's right.
• 44:07
  It's uh the emails are all um any anyone can access them uh through access to information.
• 44:14
  Um it's a you know program that in Canada where you can access uh government emails and other documents, and um so any anybody could get uh these emails themselves and see them, and the data itself about the temperatures is publicly available, and uh so this is all uh in the public realm.
• 44:36
  Do you know off the top of your head then what fraction of the supposed warming in the past 70 years?
• 44:42
  Do you think if it's just an artifact of the data instead of actual real warming?
• 44:47
  Well, if if we're talking about the warming for the all of Canada, which is uh yeah, the the main thing to look at, um Environment Canada does that from 1948 to 2018 or to the to the latest year, um, which now would be more like 2024.
• 45:05
  But uh in the in the paper that um I was using they go up to 2018, and that's because that's what was available when I started doing this in 2021.
• 45:16
  Um if you do that, you find and you apply their trend environment Canada's trend analysis method, you find an increase of 1.74 degrees Celsius from 1948 to 2018.
• 45:30
  Okay.
• 45:31
  And then if you correct for the the one degree step increase at 1998, you find a 0.29 degrees Celsius increase, but it's not statistically significant.
• 45:44
  Right.
• 45:44
  Now that's important because what the error bars when you look at them over the whole country is as big as 20.29.
• 45:51
  Um there's a certain statistical significance test that is used.
• 45:59
  And you know, when you apply that test, it's called the Mandels uh Tau test.
• 46:05
  It's the one that they use at Environment Canada.
• 46:07
  When you apply that, and and you when you when you use the data that they show in their graph that does have the step in it, you get the 1.74 degree increase, and it is statistically significant according to the test.
• 46:20
  But when you remove and you had you remove that step, you redo the analysis, leave the data exactly as is, except for removing the step, you get 0.29 degree Celsius increase, but it's not statistically significant according to the same statistical significance test.
• 46:36
  Wow.
• 46:36
  Wow.
• 46:37
  You know, it's it's interesting that various municipalities it means that it's indistinguishable from zero.
• 46:43
  Okay.
• 46:44
  It means you can't the chances that uh that that slope that you calculate is actually different from zero is very low.
• 46:54
  That's in a nutshell what it means.
• 46:56
  Wow, wow.
• 46:57
  Now you have various um municipalities like ours, because you're in the Ottawa area as well.
• 47:02
  Um City of Ottawa, you know, city of Toronto, they use the claim that Canada is supposedly warming it twice the global average as a major part of their rationale for multi-billion dollar climate change plan.
• 47:15
  So what sort of message would you give to these councils that maybe they should sort of back off a little bit until this issue is resolved?
• 47:23
  Well, I look outside and I would say don't cancel your snow removal budget.
• 47:27
  That would be the first thing, which is significant, of course, for a city like Ottawa.
• 47:34
  But um, no, I would say they need to look at the data.
• 47:39
  They need to have someone explain to them what this data is and how it needs to be interpreted, and uh how you need to work with data like this and and check the quality of it, and ask them what is their their paradigm about uh this this uh supposed warming that's happening.
• 48:00
  Is it something that happens all of a sudden in one year from one year to the next, and then you don't see any more warming after that?
• 48:06
  Is that the model that they have in mind that that all the warming occurred in in one year?
• 48:12
  Um I don't think it is.
• 48:14
  And and so they need to be exposed to some cognitive dissonance.
• 48:19
  Uh yeah.
• 48:20
  Because in Ottawa's case, they're showing a 1.8 degree rise over, I think it's like 60 years or something.
• 48:27
  But in reality, it's much less.
• 48:30
  Well, in reality, um, and I haven't done the analysis for Ottawa specifically, but um you remove the uh there's no statistically significant trend when you do it for Canada.
• 48:42
  So it's it's it's not just much less, it's that there is no evidence of warming.
• 48:48
  Yeah.
• 48:49
  Um, Canada's a huge country, so so our temperature measurements must have a significant input to the world average.
• 48:58
  Have you figured out you know, first of all, let's assume every other country was perfect and only Canada had this problem.
• 49:05
  Would it noticeably affect the world average?
• 49:09
  Well, I would look at it a different way.
• 49:12
  I would I would say this is um something that is always considered to be an artifact, this kind of discontinuity.
• 49:21
  When you correct for it, there's no warming for Canada.
• 49:25
  And so you have to then question whether biases and artifacts are being selectively retained in these data sets, and and does that apply across the world?
• 49:39
  And then if, on the other hand, a sudden abrupt change in the annual temperature from one year to the next, if that is natural, then that is not compatible with carbon dioxide forcing.
• 49:52
  And that would have to be occurring in other parts of the world.
• 49:56
  So, in other words, if it is natural in Canada, then it's
• 50:00
  It's probably explaining warming all around the world.
• 50:03
  And it's not something that's related to CO2.
• 50:05
  Because that's just not how there's no the paradigm of CO2 if influence on temperature works.
• 50:12
  So either it's an artifact, which is what scientists would always have assumed in the past for these kinds of abrupt changes, or it's something that's not compatible with CO2 and should be widespread because it can't just occur in Canada and only Canada.
• 50:27
  Yeah.
• 50:28
  Exactly.
• 50:29
  Yeah, you know, it sounds to me, you know, they always talk about evidence-based decision making.
• 50:34
  It sounds like decision-based evidence making.
• 50:37
  You know.
• 50:39
  Well, yeah, that's good.
• 50:42
  That's very good.
• 50:43
  Decision-based uh evidence-based data data production.
• 50:48
  Uh yeah.
• 50:49
  Well, yeah, it's interesting because uh one of my sisters worked in a government department that I can't name, but uh she was asked to go and find some data so to support what the minister had said.
• 51:00
  She went away and she came back and said, Well, there's no data to support it.
• 51:04
  They said, look harder.
• 51:06
  Yeah.
• 51:07
  So you sort of wonder, I mean, how much of this is just driven by political objectives.
• 51:12
  And especially when the one of the scientists who actually said it if a point six degree step occurs, it's it's not natural, it's an artifact.
• 51:21
  And then they brush off a one degree step.
• 51:25
  I mean, it's incredible.
• 51:28
  I kind of wonder too.
• 51:29
  Well, I want to ask you real quick.
• 51:31
  Just you know, this is very brave of you to publish a report like this December 23rd when you can have professional pushback from peers, threats from act activists.
• 51:42
  How has it been for you so far?
• 51:45
  Well, you know, that's this is why we formed correlation research in the public interest.
• 51:49
  Um, we are entirely independent, no funds from governments or corporations, just individual donations.
• 51:57
  Um you can see if you look at as soon as you look at the research section of our website and you see that all the reports that we've done.
• 52:06
  Um, I think any reader will see right away that we are independent, and we're willing to make analyses that establishment scientists won't do, essentially.
• 52:20
  They they won't they they they can't do it.
• 52:22
  Uh their their careers will be at risk if they do.
• 52:25
  And and so we're the we're one of the places in society where that can happen.
• 52:30
  And um we um we enjoy that we have that uh that freedom.
• 52:37
  And uh that's really important to uh to have uh I think uh um organizations uh doing that kind of work.
• 52:46
  Yeah, for sure.
• 52:46
  Because the government's not going to do it.
• 52:48
  Um that's very clear.
• 52:50
  Yeah, they're not well when one government employee finds mistakes in another government's work, they're not or another part of the government that they're not gonna go and tell the press.
• 53:00
  Yeah.
• 53:02
  Right.
• 53:02
  And and um they um might make some adjustments for I'm looking for the word um that was in uh environment Canada's response to the other Bank of Canada employee.
• 53:16
  Irregularities.
• 53:17
  When you're when there are irregularities, in other words, it's something that like the minimum temperature being greater than the maximum, it's it's just unbearable.
• 53:25
  You can't you have there has to have they have to do something about that, then they will address it.
• 53:32
  But um in other cases, like the case that I I uh put to Environment Canada, but the one degree stepping wise increase, they just brush you off, even if you are working within at another government institution.
• 53:48
  Uh yeah, that's what this report shows.
• 53:50
  You know, it kind of begs the question if a country as advanced as Canada, you know, who's supposedly part of the developed world, if we can make this mistake, isn't it possible that many countries, especially developing countries have similar big problems with their temperature data?
• 54:07
  Yes, uh climate and climatologists acknowledge that any station is gonna have big um discontinuities or or big uh uh moments, points at time in the data where um something unnatural happens, artificial or non-climatic, like uh stepwise increase or decrease or so on.
• 54:25
  But one thing I want to say in in in response to that question is that Canada being very organized and having a sense an army of scientists working for the government doing this kind of work, would be the kind of place that could quite quickly make a big broad change, like upgrade the or change the um technology at many stations in a short period of time.
• 54:54
  And so perhaps conversely, in a country like Canada, you could have this very broad widespread discontinuity affecting many stations at the same point in time or within the span of a year or so.
• 55:08
  Whereas that might be more difficult to accomplish in another country.
• 55:11
  So you might not see the same kind of glaring uh abrupt change uh in the temperature records in another country.
• 55:20
  That's yeah.
• 55:21
  Well, thank goodness, thank goodness you found it, because uh that work is so valuable.
• 55:26
  And how can people donate to the correlation research in the public interest group because you're doing super important work?
• 55:34
  Yeah, well, thank you for that.
• 55:35
  And and uh absolutely uh you can donate on our website, there's a donate section.
• 55:40
  Uh we also do our newsletter through Substack.
• 55:44
  Oh and uh so if you're on Substack, you can uh subscribe.
• 55:48
  Uh it's it's it's entirely free, but if you want to make a paid contribution, you can do that on Substack.
• 55:54
  And we have um an annual funding campaign going on right now on GiveSend Go.
• 56:00
  And um the link to that uh is uh is on our webs, our webpage, and uh we put that on our social media.
• 56:08
  So yeah.
• 56:08
  Well, that's wonderful, Joseph.
• 56:10
  Thanks so much for being our guest.
• 56:11
  Today's guest has been Dr.
• 56:13
  Joseph Hickey, a data scientist with a PhD in physics focusing on complexity science, and he works with this group called Correlation Research in the Public Interest.
• 56:23
  In fact, he's the president of that particular group, a registered not-for-profit corporation based in Ottawa, Canada.
• 56:29
  And I'll include a link to that group if you want to contribute, you know, under the podcast when it goes up on Monday.
• 56:35
  So thanks so much for being our guest today.
• 56:37
  It's been really interesting and very important, Joseph.
• 56:40
  Yeah.
• 56:40
  Thank you very much.
• 56:41
  I appreciate it.
• 56:42
  Okay.
• 56:43
  Well, this is Tom Harris, my co-host, Todd Royal, and Dr.
• 56:46
  Joseph Hickey, our guest, signing out from the other side of the story.