Deep freeze continues with windchill warnings in eastern and central Canada


TORONTO – It will be another bitterly cold morning across much of central and eastern Canada with windchill warnings remaining in effect.

Environment Canada has issued such warnings for most of Ontario and Atlantic Canada.

Many people in the Atlantic provinces will also have to contend with a blizzard today in addition to windchills that are forecast to dip to as low as -35C.

A cold air mass settled in early this week but many people may see some relief from the cold starting this weekend.

Environment Canada’s forecast high for Gananoque, Ont. on Sunday is -2C, while Moncton, N.B. is expected to get a mix of rain and snow on Monday with a high of plus 6.

Filed under:

Deep freeze continues with windchill warnings in eastern and central Canada

  1. 20 below and sunny in Sowesto. Time to kill off any bugs travelling from the US.

  2. Someone should invite both David Suzuki and Al Gore to a town hall meeting….where everyone can take turns kicking them in the nuts.
    Can’t take much more of this Global warming……gas bill is getting a bit high, and the penguins are having to walk a lot further this year to the breeding grounds.
    Oh..and russian “climate change researchers” spent most of the time since Christmas locked up in the arctic Ice that wasn’t supposed to be there.
    Don’t you just HATE it when the REAL climate doesn’t match those models? I mean..seriously, is the Climate itself now a climate change denier?

    • Should read, “Antarctic ice”………though, the North is in the same state.

      • It’s cold here right now because of axial tilt. It’s hot in Oz. The climate is still changing I’m afraid.

        • It isn’t just this year or this time of year. The ice has built up by 60% since NASA scientists predicted in 2008 that it would be completely gone by 2013. 2013 has been a particularly cold year but the buildup in ice has happened over five or six years despite the continuing carbon emissions.

          • New ice….thin ice…..the old thick stuff has gone.

          • Ice that is 15 feet in thickness is somehow “thinner” if it is 5 years old vs. 100 years old? How so?

          • It is not seasonal ice because it is thickening every year and is not melting.

          • I don’t intend to argue global warming with you. The science is there.

          • umm…Emily, you are aware that the “Science” you reference has been wrong almost 100% of the time according to the models right?
            Of course, don’t worry about your “science” being discredited by reality. The CBC has got your back.
            In a story last week, they covered the ice-breaker getting stuck, followed by Drought or hot weather in austrlia, and another story about warm weather elsewhere.
            In effect, they tried to cover up the fact that the “scientists” on the icebreaker was 100% wrong, by providing examples of weather than had nothing to do with the story in other areas of the world.
            It was a desperate – but transparent attempt, to lessen the impact of the reality of just how wrong the “climate alamists” are.
            The CBC knows that some ill-informed folks would buy it..and you Emily, have just provided the receipt that proves it.

          • Kindly don’t post denier woo here. Most media are even refusing to publish your nonsense anymore. Try the Flat Earth society.

          • It’s not just my nonsense, Emily….
            It is also the nonsense from a few thousand other scientists that don’t buy into the Global Warming hysteria who are also denied publication. That’s the whole point. If the science is “settled” then the global warming adherents should welcome the opportunity to hear different views and tell those who hold them why they are wrong. Instead, they insist on censorship for opposing theories….why is that?
            That is why the shallow-minded still believe global warming is happening. It doesn’t matter how much reality doesn’t match with the theories……if the right scientists say it is so…that’s good enough for them.
            Well done, Emily… base your opinions upon one half of an argument.
            so you can sit at home and listen to the sound of one hand clapping.

          • Sure, James. The media, scientist, journals, governments, the UN – they’re all part of the conspiracy to silence thousands of scientist that know the truth! You can’t provide any evidence of this…but hey, evidence doesn’t matter.

          • Lenny,
            If you spent any time thinking, or searching on your own… may have a different view.
            If however, you insist upon ONLY reading, or accessing the views fo those who prefer to censor those with different theories, you will remain in the dark.
            The truly sad part, however, is that not even your ignorance is of your own making.
            Your thought process is about as complex as an onion with only one layer. You and Emily should start a club.

          • Evidence. That’s all I need. I’d love to live in your world and believe whatever suited my fancy on nothing more than faith, but I’m afraid I’ll need some evidence. And unless I’m missing something, all you do is make assertions.

          • You’re in the wrong place James….the Flat Earth society is down the hall.

          • Ah yes, the media is part of the global science conspiracy. But, you haven’t provided the slightest scrap of evidence that the scientists on the icebreaker were wrong.
            I know “evidence” isn’t a concept you’ll on real familiar terms with, but repeating something over and over again isn’t it.

          • Oh look at that – another media editorial that you think is science. And it even included the laugher, ” So if the ice is still so thick they’re getting caught in it, it’s bad PR for their theory.”
            Which is just another iteration of the lie that scientists “were stuck in ice that they said doesn’t exist”.
            But we know that the scientists were there to :
            “2. explore changes in ocean circulation caused by the growth of extensive fast ice and its impact on life in Commonwealth Bay”

          • I’ve got a couple of ice-breaker captains who would disagree with you, Emily.

          • I don’t intend to argue global warming with you. The science is there.

          • You won’t argue global warming because you simply don’t have a clue about it….other than what other people would have you think.

          • We need some kind of organization for the anti-fluoride people, the anti-wifi people, the anti-climate change people, the anti-vaccine people, the anti-evolution people, the anti-GM people etc… you can all hold meetings and be wacko together.

            Wait…I know. We can call it the Flat Earth Society!

          • the only anti on your list that applies to me, is the reference to climate change hysteria.
            All the others’ are the creation of your own anti-depressant addled mind.

          • You’ve provided nothing to refute.

          • Lenny….
            Given your grasp on any subject, you wouldn’t know what to refute in any event.
            In order to “refute”…first you must need to understand.
            Pass that barrier…and then come back.

  3. Cold is good for our business. This blizzard; not so much.

  4. Hey Macleans, if you weren’t so terrified of destroying your climate change narrative, you’re missing a great story in Antarctica. Pretty ironic, the kind of story media usually love. You should look into it.

    • The only Antarctic news story I’ve heard is about passengers being rescued from a ship stuck in ice.
      Please tell us about the “climate change narrative” “destroying” story they’re hiding from us. Set the truth free!

      • John? John?
        Did the black helicopters take you?

        • They tried. It was too cold to land.

      • “Passengers” being rescued.

        Yeah, I guess you could call them that.

        Any idea what those “passengers” were doing there? You kind of need to know that to appreciate the irony.

        • Climate change means….climate change.

          It’s summer in Antarctica, john

          • That’s right Emily…the Climate has been constantly changing. and right now we are still getting over the last ice age….and believe it or not, we’ve been getting over it for a few thousand years now. And then it will change again.
            Greenland though, won’t be seeing any grape vines for a while… the vikings will have to wait a while longer.
            Oh ….and Emily, climate change has NOTHING to do with Humans. It is that big ball of burning hydrogen in the sky that controls climate. Don’t let anyone tell you different.
            the climate has been changing for millions of years…..and we aren’t having any impact.
            Although, it is fun to watch these “scientists” tie themselves in knots trying to save their reputations and government funding…..most of which goes to their respective salaries and livlihoods by the way.
            That’s why they will grasp ANYTHING…and why they are so ticked that KYOTO was such a failure. When time goes on, and the Climate DOESN’T change…they’ll look like the liars they are. Now they can’t claim to have saved the world…when the world saving Kyoto didn’t pan out according to plan.

          • Not interested in Denier crap, sorry.

          • That’s your biggest problem, Emily……you restrict yourself to sources that ONLY agree with what you believe. That is why your arguments are so lame and easy to refute.
            Your entire premise consists of “you’re wrong…and I’m right”…
            and no facts get in the way of your preconceived beliefs. Strange really..that you spend so much time attacking religion, or people of faith who believe things without evidence.
            Anyone reading your posts can see you do exactly the same thing. At least people who believe in God admit their beliefs are faith based….and not evidence based.
            Your beliefs therefore, are only found in one category.

          • LOL The science is there, your bombast is boring. Ciao.

          • Yes, Emily…there is science there, However, only one side of the science is being reported. The others’ are all being silenced.
            That’s the point.

          • Stop crying, and start providing these facts and evidence you’re talking about.

          • Lenny,
            Fact would only help clarify the opinions of an open mind.
            Regrettably, you have no such organ.

        • Whewwww….you’re still with us.
          Now, try to stay focused. Tell us the Antarctic story that Maclean’s is burying that is “destroying (the) climate change narrative.” That’s the story we need to hear.

          • Just curious Lenny…what does climate change dogma say about Antarctic sea ice?

            As Emily pointed out…it’s summer there. What should that mean for the sea ice?

            In Antarctica, sea ice grows quite extensively during winter but nearly completely melts away during the summer

            How many ships are trapped in that non-existant ice Lenny?

            How is that nobody, in reporting this rather humourous and ironic story, mentions what these people are doing there?

          • No idea. But if you’d like to know what the science has to say, I’d suggest you read the relevant chapters of the current IPCC report.
            Now, why aren’t you telling us about the Big Story That Maclean’s Is Hiding?

          • Lenny….the fact you give any Credence whatsoever to the IPCC tells us all we need to know.
            In case you didn’t notice…the IPCC has been wrong 100% of the time.
            Listening to the IPCC is like watching Charlie Brown and Lucy play football.
            The IPCC of course, is Charlie Brown, and Lucy is the Climate. Every time the brain-trust at the IPCC believes they can make a field goal…reality pulls the ball away.
            The Big Story is not that Macleans (or any other Canadian Media) is hiding anything……the Big Story, is that so many Canadian writers and journalists seem to be incapable of asking pertient questions about the “science” being reported. Canadian media always go to the biased sources, and never seem to make mention of the thousands of real scientists who have a different interpretation of the data.
            but at least they are using real data…..and not the manipulated crap the IPCC uses.
            The IPCC is the King with no clothes……..but the media won’t interview the “kid” who points out the obvious.

          • For the record your original comment in it’s entirety was:
            “Just curious Lenny…what does climate change dogma say about Antarctic sea ice?”

            You’ve since added all the rest to it without any indication that you’d edited it.
            But no, the seas around the Antarctic aren’t ice-free in December. Which may be why they were in an, uh, icebreaker.
            Sorry but I’m missing the “humour” and “irony” in the story, or the significance of the fact that the ship was carrying tourists and scientists commemorating an Australians explorer’s Antarctic expedition. You’ll have to spell it out for me.
            Nor do I have any idea what any this has to do with the suppressed story capable of “destroying (Maclean’s) climate change narrative.” When are you going to get to that?

          • Read Cocoran’s article in the National Post today. It describes the ‘irony” of a group of climate-change scientists being stuck in Antarctic ice that they went there to prove doesn’t exist. The really interest part of the article is the description of NASA scientists’ prediction from 2008 that the Antarctic would be completely devoid of ice by 2013. However, that has not come to pass. Rather, since 2008, the ice levels are 60% renewed, even with all of the human carbon emissions. It is a very interesting development and not easy to explain with current

          • Not having read Corcoran’s piece I don’t know if its him doing the lying or you are, but the scientists weren’t there to prove Antarctic ice “doesn’t exist.”
            Nor do I have any idea what “NASA scientists’ prediction” you’re talking about, and I’ll have to assume that’s another whopper if you can’t provide substantiation. Certainly the 2007 IPCC Report made no such prediction, nor has any IPCC Report done so.
            If you had have simply followed the link I provided above, it would have saved you the trouble of commenting when you realized that the scientists obviously were expecting to encounter ice.

          • You don’t have to read the article in the National Post but many other people will, revealing you to be the a-hole you are. You really are an idiot if you call someone out for telling a whopper when you can’t be bothered to read the article offered for substantiation unless it is at your fingertips. Are you too inept to look at the National Post site? Feel free to continue to make unfounded claims and accuse people of telling lies, it truly reflects well on your credibility…NOT!

          • Are you too incompetent to provide a link to back up your assertion?
            Try reading my comment again. I called either you or Corcoran liars. Scientists were not there to prove “Antarctic Ice” doesn’t exist. What part of that don’t you understand?
            Now, tell me what unfounded claims I’ve made?

          • Lenny…..they were there to show that the ice had decreased dramatically due to global warming……but the reality is, that the ice has in fact increased dramatically.
            That is an important fact that is left out in most media.
            Just because you are misinformed, is no reason to call anyone a liar. Better to call yourself lazy. If you can’t be bothered to do any research on your own, perhaps you should not make comments so as to avoid looking like an idiot in the future.
            In the present however …’re too late.

          • “…they were there to show that the ice had decreased dramatically due to global warming…”

            That is FALSE no matter how many times you repeat it.
            But hey, you’re convinced. So, instead of repeating it over and over again without providing a shred of evidence, why don’t you simply provide the source of this “fact”.

          • Lenny,
            As you are too lazy to do your own research, or actually see if what you believe is accurate, I provide you the following. there are other links which a simple google search will provide.
            I doubt you’ll bother clicking the link, but if you do, trry to keep an open mind. There are other links in this story. Everything folks on this site have been telling you is corroborated here.


            If that isn’t enough….go here.


            Please note: These are REAL scientists….not the UN beaurocrats of the IPCC.

          • Lenny….are you seriously trying to bolster your argument by telling us what you aren’t aware of?
            The expedition was by an Australian scientist who was trying to prove the ice sheets was shrinking by re-creating a voyage made by a man who also become stuck in the ice and had to walk out on foot. The guy’s ship got stuck….most of his crew died..etc..etc…
            The goal of course, was to travel the same route, and make it back easily because “The ice that trapped whatshisname” was no longer there…..but the reality is, the ice is not only still there….it has increased dramatically.
            As for the NASA scientist…..I think he’s referring to the kook who predicted that ALL of the ice in Antarctica was going to be gone by 2020.
            Lastly, lenny….the IPCC has been wrong 100% of the time, but if that is your best reference….fill your boots.
            Just maintain your position on the bandwagon with the other Lemmings.

          • “Lenny….are you seriously trying to bolster your argument by telling us what you aren’t aware of?”

            Learn how to read, James. I said quite clearly that the assertion that they were stuck in ice they were there to prove “doesn’t exist” is complete horses*&t. You’ve simply reasserted the same horses*&t.

            “..the IPCC has been wrong 100% of the time…”

            Heh. Making ridiculous assertions doesn’t make them real.

          • Actually Lenny, you wrote:
            “Not having read Corcoran’s piece I don’t know if its him doing the lying or you are, but the scientists weren’t there to prove Antarctic ice “doesn’t exist.”
            Nor do I have any idea what “NASA scientists’ prediction” you’re talking about, and I’ll have to assume that’s another whopper if you can’t provide substantiation”
            Thereby admitting you didn’t know the argument before you felt the urge to reply to one.
            And my reading is fine……it is your comprehension which is lacking. Go read the articles in question, and you will see that the expedition was exactly meant to show a decrease in the ice…which as we all now know (that is…for those who actually read the stories they reply to) is the exact opposite of what they found.
            As for the IPCC being 100% wrong…..please show me one example where they were proven correct. Just because they make pronouncements means nothing. Show us where the climate has changed, or show me how CO2 increases have caused warming. the IPCC is turning themselves in knots trying to show that they are not idiots….but are doing a poor job of it.
            “It’s the’s a heat trap”’s pollution..not letting the sun in….etc..etc…etc…
            No guys…it’s you in the IPCC… have been wrong again, and again..and again.
            And they will continue to be wrong because what they are practicing is not real science….it’s activism.

          • I see your problem. You have no idea what the difference is between assertion and evidence. It doesn’t matter if you claim the scientists were stuck in ice they were there to prove “doesn’t exist”, Corcoran claims it, or Christ himself claims it, IT IS SIMPLY AN ASSERTION YOU HAVEN’T PROVIDED A SHRED OF EVIDENCE FOR. Do you get that? Please tell me you can understand that.
            Now, this is very simple – Provide your evidence for what the scientists mission was. If your evidence is, “well, uh, that’s what Corcoran said…”, you HAVE NO EVIDENCE. Get it?

          • Lenny….
            the Australian scientist who organized the expedition; and who got stuck in the aforementioned “not there” ice…..explained the reasoning for the trip.
            As for Assertion and evidence… have it back-asswords.
            Consider: The IPCC has made numerous ASSERTIONS…and they have all been wrong. The actual climate, has provided EViDENCE that the IPCC has been 100% wrong.
            The level of CO2 has been growing, but the planet has NOT been warming.
            Now….do you see how foolish you continue to make yourself look with your ill-informed, uneducated posts?
            I would guess you do not.
            Now…before you demand I provide a LINK, or evidence…..consider that this may be your problem.
            You rely too much on other people for your thought process, and spend no time thining for yourself.
            Do some reasearch, and do some reading. THINK for a change, don’t just regurgitate.

          • “the Australian scientist who organized the expedition; and who got stuck
            in the aforementioned “not there” ice…..explained the reasoning for
            the trip.”

            Indeed. Yet you provide links to a bunch of kooks making claims about the purpose of the trip without provide a shred of evidence or the source of their claims. I tried to explain the difference between an assertion and a claim supported by evidence, but as simple as the concept is I’ve obviously failed. Though you can’t support your claim and are apparently too stupid to go to the actual source, I’m going to put an end to your suffering.
            We are going south to:

            1. gain new insights into the circulation of the Southern Ocean and its impact on the global carbon cycle
            2. explore changes in ocean circulation caused by the growth of extensive fast ice and its impact on life in Commonwealth Bay
            3. use the subantarctic islands as thermometers of climatic change by using trees, peats and lakes to explore the past
            4. investigate the impact of changing climate on the ecology of the subantarctic islands
            5. discover the environmental influence on seabird populations across the Southern Ocean and in Commonwealth Bay
            6. understand changes in seal populations and their feeding patterns in the Southern Ocean and Commonwealth Bay
            7. produce the first underwater surveys of life in the subantarctic islands and Commonwealth Bay
            8. determine the extent to which human activity and pollution has directly impacted on this remote region of Antarctica
            9. provide baseline data to improve the next generation of atmospheric,
            10. oceanic and ice sheet models to improve predictions for the future

            I’ve helpfully bolded #2 for you if it’s all too much for you to process.
            Now, I don’t blame you for believing the folks that lied to you like Corcoran and the other kooks you linked to, but I hope you’ve learned to exercise a little skepticism in the future.

          • “The level of CO2 has been growing, but the planet has NOT been warming.”

            Despite the fact that you don’t provide a shred of evidence for your assertion, and therefore none is needed in response. I’m happy to oblige. The only one that is 100% wrong, is you.

          • For your reading pleasure.
            Please note, these are REAL scientists……not the idiots of the IPCC; the majority of which are NOT climate scientists, or in fact, scientists at all.

            Bring Emily along for the ride. She can at least help you with the big words.

          • “Please note, these are REAL scientists.”

            Such a trusting little fella. Unfortunately you have been decieved again.

          • Lenny,
            Clearly, you haven’t seen the problem. The link you provide is from a group that has a vested interest in the “alarmists” being correct. You’ll note this group didn’t dispute the findings of those scientists who go against the IPCC report, it simply said they are discredited because their findings were not published.
            That’s the entire point silly boy. The other side of the story isn’t getting out….because the IPCC, and others’ refuse to publish anything that doesn’t adhere to their goals.
            As for all of them not being climate scientists….well congratulations. That also applies to the IPCC itself….most are not scientists at all….and those that are scientists, very few of them are involved in climate research.
            You need to start thinking critically bud.

          • “You’ll note this group didn’t dispute the findings of those scientists who go against the IPCC report…”

            No, they don’t dispute UNPUBLISHED “findings”. Nor did they phone people at random to ask what their “findings” are, or google for blogs and Facebook pages looking for “findings”.

            “.because the IPCC, and others’ refuse to publish anything that doesn’t adhere to their goals.”

            Evidence? No, you don’t have any, but that won’t stop you from repeating it. And if you had even the faintest clue on the topic you’d know that the IPCC isn’t a primary science publisher. But, of course, you don’t have the faintest clue. As that laughable claim demonstrates.