Reality-Based Climate Forecasting: Stop the Bogus Predictions

No Coal, Climate Justice
No Coal, Climate Justice
Paul Driessen
Paul Driessen

U.S.A.-( These days, even shipwreck museums showcase evidence of climate change.

After diving recently among Key West’s fabled ship-destroying barrier reefs, I immersed myself in exhibits from the Nuestra Senora de Atocha, the fabled Spanish galleon that foundered during a ferocious hurricane in 1622. The Mel Fisher Maritime Museum now houses many of the gold, silver, emeralds and artifacts that Mel and Deo Fisher’s archeological team recovered after finding the wreck in 1985.

Also featured prominently in the museum is the wreck of a British slave ship, the Henrietta Marie. It sank in a hurricane off Key West in 1700, after leaving 190 Africans in Jamaica, to be sold as slaves.

As Fisher divers excavated the Henrietta wreck, at 40 feet below the sea surface they found – not just leg shackles and other grim artifacts from that horrific era – but charred tree branches, pine cones and other remnants from a forest fire 8,400 years ago! The still resinous smelling fragments demonstrate that this area (like all other coastal regions worldwide) was well above sea level, before the last ice age ended and melting glaciers slowly raised oceans to their current level: 400 feet higher than during the frigid Pleistocene, when an enormous portion of Earth’s seawater was locked up in glaciers.

Climate change has clearly been “real” throughout earth and human history. The question is, exactly how and how much do today’s human activities affect local, regional or global climate and weather?

Unfortunately, politicized climate change researchers continue to advance claims that complex, powerful, interconnected natural forces have been replaced by manmade fossil fuel emissions, especially carbon dioxide; that any future changes will be catastrophic; and that humanity can control climate and weather by controlling its appetite for oil, gas, coal and modern living standards.

If you like your climate, you can keep it, they suggest. If you don’t, we can make you a better one.

Not surprisingly, climate chaos scientists who’ve relied on the multi-billion-dollar government gravy train are distraught over the prospect that President Donald Trump will slash their budgets or terminate their CO2-centric research. Desperate to survive, they are replacing the term “climate change” with “global change” or “weather” in grant proposals, and going on offense with op-ed articles and media interviews.

“This is what the coming attack on science could look like,” Penn State modeler and hockey stick creator Michael Mann lamented in a Washington Post column. “I fear what may happen under Trump. The fate of the planet hangs in the balance.” (Actually, it’s his million-dollar grants that hang in the balance.)

A “skeptic” scientist has warmed to the idea that a major Greenland ice shelf may be shrinking because of climate change, a front-page piece in the Post claimed. Perhaps so. But is it manmade warming? Does it portend planetary cataclysm, even as Greenland’s interior and Antarctica show record ice growth? Or are warm ocean currents weakening an ice shelf that is fragile because it rests on ocean water, not land?

The fundamental problem remains. If it was substandard science and modeling under Obama era terminology, it will be substandard under survivalist jargon. The notion that manmade carbon dioxide now drives climate and weather – and we can predict climate and weather by looking only at plant-fertilizing CO2 and other “greenhouse gases” – is just as absurd now as before.

Their predictions will be as invalid and unscientific as divining future Super Bowl winners by modeling who plays left guard for each team – or World Cup victors by looking at center backs.

As climate realists take the reins at EPA and other federal and state agencies, the Trump Administration should ensure that tax dollars are not squandered on more alarmist science that is employed to justify locking up more fossil fuels, expanding renewable energy and “carbon capture” schemes, reducing US living standards, and telling poor countries what living standards they will be “permitted” to have.

Climate Funding
Climate Funding

Reliable forecasts, as far in advance as possible, would clearly benefit humanity. For that to happen, however, research must examine all natural and manmade factors, and not merely toe the pretend-consensus line that carbon dioxide now governs climate change.

That means government grants must not go preferentially to researchers who seek to further CO2-centrism, but rather to those who are committed to a broader scope of solid, dispassionate research that examines both natural and manmade factors. Grant recipients must also agree to engage in robust discussion and debate, to post, explain and defend their data, methodologies, analyses and conclusions.

They must devote far more attention to improving our understanding of all the forces that drive climate fluctuations, the roles they play, and the complex interactions among them. Important factors include cyclical variations in the sun’s energy and cosmic ray output, winds high in Earth’s atmosphere, and decadal and century-scale circulation changes in the deep oceans, which are very difficult to measure and are not yet well enough understood to predict or be realistically included in climate models.

Another is the anomalous warm water areas that develop from time to time in the Pacific Ocean and then are driven by winds and currents northward into the Arctic, affecting US, Canadian, European and Asian temperatures and precipitation. The process of cloud formation is also important, because clouds help retain planetary warmth, reflect the sun’s heat, and provide cooling precipitation.

Many scientists have tried to inject these factors into climate discussions. However, the highly politicized nature of US, IPCC and global climate change funding, research, regulatory and treaty-making activities has caused CO2-focused factions to discount, dismiss or ignore the roles these natural forces play.

The political situation has also meant that most research and models have focused on carbon dioxide and other assumed human contributions to climate change. Politics, insufficient data and inadequate knowledge also cause models to reflect unrealistic physics theories, use overly simplified and inadequate numerical techniques, and fail to account adequately for deep-ocean circulation cycles and the enormity and complexity of natural forces and their constant, intricate interplay in driving climate fluctuations.

Speedier, more powerful computers simply make any “garbage in-garbage out” calculations, analyses and predictions occur much more quickly – facilitating faster faulty forecasts … and policy recommendations.

The desire to secure research funding from Obama grantor agencies also perpetuated a tendency to use El Niño warming spikes, and cherry-pick the end of cooling cycles as the starting point for trend lines that allegedly “prove” fossil fuels are causing “unprecedented” temperature spikes and planetary calamity.

Finally, the tens of billions of dollars given annually in recent years to “keep it in the ground” anti-fossil fuel campaigners, national and international regulators, and renewable energy companies have given these vested interests enormous incentives to support IPCC/EPA pseudo-science – and vilify and silence climate realists who do not accept “catastrophic manmade climate change” precepts.

Chris W. Cox, Donald J Trump, Wayne LaPierre
Chris W. Cox, Donald J Trump, Wayne LaPierre

The Trump Administration and 115th Congress have a unique opportunity to change these dynamics, and ensure that future research generates useful information, improved understanding of Earth’s complex climate system, and forecasts that are increasingly accurate. In addition to the above, they should:

Reexamine and reduce (or even eliminate) the role that climate model “projections” (predictions) play in influencing federal policies, laws and regulations – until modeling capabilities are vastly and demonstrably improved, in line with the preceding observations.

Revise the Clean Air Act to remove EPA’s authority to regulate carbon dioxide – or compel EPA to reexamine its “endangerment” finding, to reflect the previous bullet, information and commentary.

Significantly reduce funding for climate research, the IPCC and EPA, and science in general. Funding should be more broadly based, not monopolistic, especially when the monopoly is inevitably politicized.

This is not an “attack on science.” It is a reaffirmation of what real science is supposed to be and do.

About Paul Driessen:

Paul Driessen is senior policy analyst for the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow ( and author of Eco-Imperialism: Green power – Black death and other books on environmental issues.

Most Voted
Newest Oldest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Marianne Brown

Climate change is real but it is naturally caused by the sun, cosmic rays, the galaxy and cloud cover. This is something that has happened since time began. Global warming is not man made and we are not going to all die, however I do agree that we should look into renewable energy and the funding of looking into green house gases which are less than 0.1% of the green house gases should be scrapped and reinvest the funding into finding how to successfully use and transport the energy captured from renewable sources. This can be used in the West… Read more »


I dont understand why my posts dont show up. No foul language or personal attacks were used. Is it normal to have such a loong wait for comments to post?


A retired scientist from NOAA just came forward as a whistle blower and showed that NOAA had used different unreliable water temps from ships rather than buoys to change the results when they showed that the climate hasnt been warming like they thought it was in the last 15 yrs. They used the ship temp numbers and all of a sudden they got the results they wanted. This is just one of many times they have been caught fudging the numbers to say man is the cause of global warming. I spent 10 minutes searching the internet and found dozens… Read more »

Mike Murray

Nice sign in the first picture, however it has a misspelled word. It should read “CLIMATE JUST ASS”.


Deep and meaningful contribution to the debate there Mike Murray

Wild Bill

. There never was a “green house gas” until the EPA coined the phrase. Then EPA started adding to the so called “green house gases” , and that made their fiefdom bigger. Big money in the form of grants has corrupted the science of the entire debate. All those e-mails that got out talking about how the statistics did mach their models so they need to change the statistics was pretty telling.
I don’t know the man made global warming part, but I do not believe in the “peer reviewed articles” or the EPA.


Apparently the greenhouse affect was first recognized in the early 19th Century (1820s) and the term first used around 1910. (thanks Wikipedia) Any gas that prevents the escape of heat from solar radiation is a green house gas, including CO2 so that should not be disputed regardless of which side of this issue you find your self on. I respectfully disagree with your claim that the term “green house gas” was coined by the EPA. Regarding not “believing” in “peer reviewed articles,” I would hope you understand the term. It is non-peer reviewed articles that you should view with skepticism.… Read more »

Wild Bill

Really Dave , Wikipedia. You could have wrote the article or amended the article for Wikipedia. I understand peer review and it used to mean something, but now everything is so politicized that you have to look at who wrote what and what that person’s politics is.
You are not going to get the Chinese, the Indians, and the other poor countries to change. You will only strangle your own country. Time for the EPA to close its doors forever. The democrat party has made it and other federal agencies political.


I only cited Wikepedia for the history of the terms I used (and I did point that out). Peer reviewed remains the gold standard as it means that people without connection to those doing the study have reviewed it and can duplicate it. I cant understand the lack of intellectualism that has taken over the right. Believe what we want and disregard everything else regardless of the facts and consequences. You argue that peer reviewed climate science is all false and that global warming is some sort of left wing conspiracy to benefit the third/developing world to the detriment of… Read more »


Oldshooter: You sure have it all figured out. Please provide those of us who are not conspiracy theorists or know-it-alls such as yourself your scientific training. What are your graduate and post graduate degrees in? While your at it, cite a couple of peer reviewed articles you have written on the subject. You give a bunch of anecdotal nonsense as the basis for your position. Are you a member of the flat earth society as well? CO2 is not a green house gas??? Water vapor is the primary cause of global warming??? The Chinese could map Greenland in the past…… Read more »


Climate change is real. Many on the right want to politicize it. The vast quantity of research from climate scienctists from around the planet (including research done here) supports that it is real. I find it odd that hunters, fisherman and outdoors-men who post here are ( to a large degree) are opposed to climate science and continue to claim that it is not real. We burn millions of tons of carbon based fuels and add millions of tons to carbon to the atmosphere. While it is true that our climate has changed over the past hundreds of thousands of… Read more »


Bull! The changes over the last 700 years have been much more dramatic than recent ones. In the early 1400s both Greenland and the Antarctic continent were largely ice-free, enough so for their coastlines to be accurately mapped by the Chinese. In Roman times the climate was MUCH warmer in the northern European and British areas than it is now, or even than it WOULD BECOME, given the next century of predicted increases in worldwide temperatures, predicted by “global warming” believers, that is. In fact, even if the world WERE warming at an unusual rate (and NO model yet developed… Read more »

Donald Douglas

I find it REMARKABLY ODD that no climate change guru ever mentions GASES FROM FERMENTATION; wine,beer ,any distilled beverage, and ETHANOL are all fermented at some stage of production.The gases produced by fermentation are co2 and methane (mostly co2.)


yup. The cultivation, harvest, processing of corn into ethanol to blend with our fuel produces more carbon dioxide than is supposedly “saved” by the burning of that alcohol for fuel. Sort of the same scam electric cars run on. Sure, they emit zero pollutants… out the (non-existent) tailpipe. But d EPA ever take into consideration the environmental “load” of those cars to include the electricity generation, transmission, conversion into DC, and the VERY toxic lithium ion batteries needed to make those cars work? Not in any calculation I’ve ever seen. Coal, oil, natural gas, are all used as fuels to… Read more »


Climate change has been going on since the Earth was born. For anyone to think that we puny humans can make any significant change is rather arrogant.


And invariably expensive! Beware – be very sceptical – of any politician who says, “WE need this… and YOU taxpayers need to pay for it!”


Rex Tillerson believes man-accelerated climate change is real… so do most geologists. O16/O18 Isotopes don’t lie!


@Justin… “O16/O18 Isotopes don’t lie”

Possibly true, but if you cannot understand what they are ACTUALLY saying (or if, as usual, you intentionally misread it!), the data remains worthless… except to be available to deceitfully bolster your initial lie about global warming’s existence in the first place.

Larry Brickey

It’s real but needs constant reevaluation.