Episode Overview

Podcast: Rebel News Podcast
Host: Sheila Gunn Reid
Guest: Tom Harris (International Climate Science Coalition, Canada)
Episode Title: "‘Experts’ claim Canada is warming rapidly, but what if the data is faulty?"
Date: January 8, 2026

Theme:
This episode explores claims that Canada is warming at twice the global average—a narrative underpinning government policy and massive climate spending. Host Sheila Gunn Reid and climate science advocate Tom Harris examine new evidence suggesting serious flaws, artifacts, and even possible corruption in the climate data used by Canadian authorities. The discussion questions the validity of foundational temperature records and shines light on how suspect data can ripple through policymaking, finance, and the broader climate narrative.

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. Questioning Canada’s Climate Data

• Opening Provocation:
  Sheila poses a central question: What if the federal data justifying Canada’s climate policies is flawed? (00:15)
• Main Claim:
  For years, the idea that Canada is "warming at twice the global average" has driven billion-dollar policies. Tom Harris argues this narrative is built on "shifting sand" since the underlying data is likely corrupted.
• Recent Evidence:
  Dr. Joseph Hickey, a physicist and data scientist formerly with the Bank of Canada, released a report claiming that most of Canada's reported warming is a data artifact—not a reflection of real temperature increases. (02:37)

2. Data Artifact Discovery

• 1998 Stepwise Temperature Jump:
  According to Hickey, in 1998, introducing new temperature sensors at numerous stations caused an artificial 1°C jump in recorded temperatures—unchanged thereafter. (03:10)
• Nature of the Artifact:
  This jump was not due to a natural event or climate change but issues with measuring devices or station environments (e.g., vegetation changes).
  "So what he found is that that is a data artifact... it's not caused by nature changing at 1 degree suddenly in one year." – Tom Harris (03:30)
• Sociological Influence:
  Tom provides a Soviet-era example where scientists manipulated temperature data for personal gain, suggesting similar societal incentives might influence today's data. (05:03)

3. Institutional Response and Accountability

• Government Reaction:
  When Dr. Hickey raised concerns internally, officials at Environment and Climate Change Canada brushed them off, asserting the shift was “probably a real temperature change” without deeper investigation. (06:20, 07:15)
• Lack of Scrutiny:
  Tom criticizes a pattern where data supporting the climate crisis receives little scrutiny:
  "If it supports the climate scare... it doesn’t seem like anybody really checks the data." (07:49)
• Second Example:
  Another Bank of Canada economist, McDonald Guimond, discovered statistical impossibilities in Environment Canada's data—such as instances where minimum temperatures exceeded maximums for over 10,000 days. Again, the response was shock but little corrective action. (09:45)

4. Financial & Policy Impact

• Policy Built on Flawed Data:
  The questionable warming narrative supports not just federal policies, but municipal ones too—Ottawa and Toronto’s climate plans directly cite the “twice the global rate” claim. (13:21)
• Massive Expenditures:
  Sheila and Tom highlight the $200B spent by Canada since 2015 on climate change efforts, predicated on the warming narrative. (20:54)
• Potsdam Institute GDP Study:
  Tom details how a single flawed global study, dramatizing loss of GDP due to climate change, was incorporated into Canadian bank stress tests—affecting lending rates and the direction of investment. The study’s glaring errors (e.g., Uzbekistan data anomaly) inflated projected damage, influencing real-world decisions until it was eventually withdrawn. (14:49–21:00)

5. Broader Global Context

• Impact on Global Data:
  Because Canada is large, errors here can skew global climate averages.
  "If Canada is that far off, where most of our warming just disappears, then maybe there’s no global warming anywhere." – Tom Harris (23:04)
• Skepticism About ‘Green Energy Leadership’:
  Discussion on how pressing for green energy in Canada ignores the country’s vast natural resources and the impracticality of renewables in its climate. (27:47)

6. Energy Source Debates and Personal Stories

• Clean Coal Advocacy:
  Sheila shares the return of “clean-burning Alberta coal” to conservative party policy, arguing for local, reliable, and cleaner coal electricity given Canada’s vast reserves. (30:25)
• Comparisons to Europe:
  Tom describes Europe’s high prices and continued reliance on fossil fuel backups despite aggressive green energy policies. (28:11–29:15)
• On Leaving Coal:
  Alberta and Ontario’s abandonment of coal didn’t decrease dependence; it shifted energy jobs abroad and increased costs while provinces continued importing coal-fired energy during shortages. (35:38)

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• On The 1998 Data Jump:
  “Suddenly in 1998, when they brought in 70-some-odd new temperature sensors, the temperature suddenly jumped up 1 degree C... That is a data artifact… not caused by nature changing one degree suddenly in one year.”
  – Tom Harris (03:15)

• On the Incentives Behind Temperature Reporting:
  “In the Soviet Union, the scientists who were in the far north were given a bonus when the temperature was below a certain level... So they would push the temperatures down... When the Soviet Union collapsed... it appeared the whole north... suddenly jumped up in temperature… There can be lots and lots of things that affect data.”
  – Tom Harris (04:29)

• On Institutional Apathy:
  “Here you have the scientist most responsible for... billion dollar policy decisions, and all she could say was, ‘Oh, it's probably real temperature change.’ So, you know, it’s very fishy.”
  – Tom Harris (07:15)

• On Absurd Claims of “Warming Faster Than the World”:
  “No matter where they're from, their country is warming at a rate faster than the rest of the world.”
  – Sheila Gunn Reid (08:26)

• On Data Inconsistencies:
  “He found that the minimum was higher than the maximum for over 10,000 different instances... The average difference was 1.21 degrees, and the maximum was Cape Dorset, Nunavut, minimum 30 degrees higher than the maximum—impossible.”
  – Tom Harris (09:45)

• Financial Market Consequences:
  “Because they used this... banks were not loaning money as easily to fossil fuel companies... and giving really preferential terms to so-called green energy because, my God, this change in GDP was going to be catastrophic.”
  – Tom Harris (16:12)

• On the Pointlessness of “Green Energy Leadership”:
  “We're half snow-covered half the year... There are parts of this country you can't even build a road in. You think you're going to build a green energy project there, you're crazy.”
  – Sheila Gunn Reid (27:47)

• Trump as ‘Castor Oil’:
  “To me, Trump is a bit like castor oil. He doesn’t taste good but he’s good for you.”
  – Tom Harris (26:00, paraphrased at 24:53 and again at 38:09)

Timestamps for Key Segments

| Timestamp | Segment/Discussion | |-----------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| | 00:15 | Episode intro: questioning the climate data underlying Canadian policy | | 02:37 | Tom Harris introduces Dr. Joseph Hickey’s report on artificial warming artifacts | | 03:10 | Explanation: 1998 temperature jump due to sensor changes | | 05:03 | Soviet scientists manipulating data for financial incentives | | 06:20 | Hickey’s warning to Environment Canada; government response | | 09:45 | Data anomalies: minimum temps higher than maximums in 10,000+ cases | | 12:54 | Discussion of deleted historical data by Environment Canada | | 13:21 | Municipal policy (Ottawa, Toronto) relying on federal climate data | | 14:49 | Potsdam GDP study and its flawed adoption into financial “climate stress tests” | | 18:15 | How a single outlier (Uzbekistan) skewed global economic projections | | 20:54 | Massive Canadian climate spending justified by the warming narrative | | 22:10 | Canadian data’s impact on global climate assessments | | 23:27 | Potential repercussions: “Maybe there’s no global warming anywhere” | | 27:47 | Impracticality of Canada “leading” on green energy | | 30:25 | Return of “clean burning Alberta coal” to UCP party policy | | 33:45 | Personal anecdotes about coal plants and local air quality | | 35:38 | Alberta’s job losses from ending coal electricity; imports from coal-fired provinces/states | | 36:33 | Tom shares where to find more of his work (ICSC-Canada and America Out Loud News) |

Further Resources & Where to Find More

• International Climate Science Coalition:
  icsc-canada.com
  (Donations welcome; not industry- or government-funded)

• Tom Harris & Dr. Hickey Interview:
  America Out Loud News (7 PM, Saturdays & Sundays; podcast on Mondays)

• Article Link:
  Tom's feature: "Is Canada the poster child for politically driven climate data corruption?" at America Out Loud

Conclusion

This episode alleges that Canada’s climate crisis narrative is built on questionable data—specifically citing a 1998 measurement artifact—and notes that institutional incentives have led to a lack of meaningful data scrutiny. The consequences, Tom Harris and Sheila Gunn Reid argue, are multi-billion dollar misallocations, distortion of financial markets, and undermined trust in both science and government policy. The discussion further criticizes the Canadian climate and energy approach as impractical, calling for renewed scrutiny and transparency. Their closing notes invite listeners to seek out alternative climate science voices and remain skeptical of government-led narratives, especially where vast sums of public money and societal restructuring are at stake.