Just Assume We Have A Climate Crisis

Impose job-killing policies on the assumption that we’re causing a CO2-driven catastrophe.
By Paul Driessen

Ice Age
Just Assume We Have A Climate Crisis
Paul Driessen
Paul Driessen

USA –-(Ammoland.com)- Climate modelers and disaster proponents remind me of the four guys who were marooned on an island, after their plane went down.


“I don’t see the problem,” he replied. “Why can’t we just assume we have a boat, get on it and leave?”

In the case of climate change, those making the assumptions demand that we act immediately to avert planetary crises based solely on their computer model predictions. It’s like demanding that governments enact laws to safeguard us from velociraptors, after Jurassic Park scientists found that dinosaur DNA could be extracted from fossilized mosquitoes … and brought the carnivores back to special-effects life.

Climate models help improve our conceptual understandings of climate systems and the forces that drive climate change. However, they are terrible at predicting Earth’s temperature and other components of its climate. They should never be used to set or justify policies, laws and regulations – such as what the Environmental Protection Agency is about to impose on CO2 emissions from coal-fired power plants.



Discernible” (ie, detectable) soon metamorphosed into “dominant,” which quickly morphed into the absurd notion that greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions have now replaced natural forces and become the only factors influencing climate change. They are certainly the only factors that climate activists and alarmists want to talk about, while they attempt to silence debate, criticism and skepticism. They use the models to generate scary “scenarios” that are presented as actual predictions of future calamities.

They predict, project or forecast that heat waves will intensify, droughts and floods will be stronger and more frequent, hurricanes will be more frequent and violent, sea levels will rise four feet by 2100 [versus eight inches since 1880], forest fires will worsen, and countless animal species will disappear. Unlikely.



It’s no wonder the models, modelers and alarmists totally failed to predict the nearly-18-year absence of global warming – or that the modeled predictions diverge further from actual temperature measurements with every passing year. It’s no wonder modelers cannot tell us which aspects of global warming, global cooling, climate change and “climate disruption” are due to humans, and which are the result of natural forces. It’s hardly surprising that they cannot replicate (“hindcast”) the global temperature record from 1950 to 1995, without “fudging” their data and computer codes– or that they are wrong almost every time.


In 2007, Australia’s climate commissioner predicted Brisbane and other cities would never again have sufficient rain to fill their reservoirs. The forecast ignored previous drought and flood cycles, and was demolished by record rains in 2011, 2013 and 2014. Forecasts of Arctic and Antarctic meltdowns have ignored the long history of warmer and colder cycles, and ice buildups and breakups.

The Bonneville Power Administration said manmade warming will cause Columbia River Basin snowpack to melt faster, future precipitation to fall as rain, reservoirs to be overwhelmed – and yet water levels will be well below normal year round. President Obama insists that global temperatures will soar, wildfires will be more frequent and devastating, floods and droughts will be more frequent and disastrous, rising seas will inundate coastal cities as Arctic and Antarctic ice shelves melt and disintegrate, and 97% of scientists agree. Every claim is based on models or bald-faced assertions unsupported by evidence.

And still the IPCC says it has “very high confidence” (the highest level it assigns) to the supposed agreement between computer model forecasts and actual observations. The greater the divergence from reality, the higher its “confidence” climbs. Meanwhile, climate researchers and modelers from Nebraska, Penn State, Great Britain and other “learned institutions” continue to focus on alleged human influences on Earth’s climate. They know they will likely lose their government, foundation and other funding – and will certainly be harassed and vilified by EPA, environmentalists, politicians, and their ideological and pedagogical peers – if they examine natural forces too closely.



Above all, these supposed modeling experts and climate scientists need to terminate their biases and their evangelism of political agendas that seek to slash fossil fuel use, “transform” our energy and economic systems, redistribute wealth, reduce our standards of living, and “permit” African and other impoverished nations to enter the modern era only in a “sustainable manner,” as defined by callous elitists.






  • 7 thoughts on “Just Assume We Have A Climate Crisis

    1. Sent to John Ray, Dean W. knows him.
      John thinks is all bunk too.

      Did you hear what th EPA said about that junk ethanol mix at the gas station?

      It destroys your engine and its parts, it takes more to make ethanol than we get out of it and your mileage drops drastically. With less milage, you fill up more often, puttin money in the oil companies pockets.

      The only way around it is expensive marine gasoline, but only at some loctions, there is a web site and an app for hat too.

    2. This is the same hoax that has been going on since the ancient astrologers learned to predict eclipses and told the sheeple, “The gods are angry! You must pay more tribute or they will take the sun away!”

    3. This article paid for by corporate America, as any laws passed would impact their profit margins, so creating doubt is all they can do. It’s too late though. The sea levels ARE rising. The planet IS getting warmer, and stronger storms ARE coming.

    4. If you’re worried about the economy, rejoice! Demand for new technologies is what always drives periods of economic growth. Right now, too much of our growth is based on entertainment products and investment bubbles. Rebuilding the energy infrastructure could be like WWII and its aftermath without the wars. Oh, yeah, I forgot, ideologically we don’t believe in our own experience. If it doesn’t have the word “war” attached to it, we can’t spend money on it. Never mind.

    5. Nobody your infantile remarks on the drive for new technologies always drive economic growth is pure BNS, low energy prices drive economic growth. That allows people to spend their warnings on other things which are often new. Just something is new and different does not make it a success, Have you been able to by a quadraphonic music system lately. As far as you comment for on war is just like our fine President his efforts are going to leave the world a much dangerous place when he leaves office as opposed to when he came into office, but what the hell you and him will believe that we are not at war, unfortunately our enemies will not have that misconception.

    6. Massolo and government paid scientist are pure as the freshly fallen snow, No government paid scientist are just like the wind driven snow definitely contaminated, more than willing to give their paymaster what they want, even though is pure unadulterated male bovine fecal matter. I fear business less than government business cannot enforce their wish on you with the force of a gun, government can, wise up most evil in the world has been perpetrated by government the bodies are piled high over a hundred million people were killed by their governments in the twenty century and that trend is not going to change anytime soon. How people like you can be so ignorant of that fact is beyond me I think Stalin term useful idiot applies to you.

    Leave a Reply
