Jump to content
3000AD Forums
Sign in to follow this  

Perhaps We Should Call It ôGlobal Woolmingö?

Recommended Posts


The Conservative Voice


by Michael John McCrae

Perhaps We Should Call It ÔÇ£Global WoolmingÔÇØ?

December 03, 2005 10:04 PM EST

If you have not read: ÔÇ£Global Warming BluesÔÇØ, Thursday, December 01, 2005, By Steven Milloy (Fox News.com) you donÔÇÖt now what youÔÇÖre missing. I am sure Mr. Milloy wrote the piece in a serious mood in an effort to report facts that are quite contradictory in a matter of science that is very important to millions of people.

Yet right up front Mr. Milloy tells us: ÔÇ£The 11th annual meeting of global warming enthusiasts in Montreal isnÔÇÖt turning out to be a very happy event. Even though this is the first opportunity for the burgeoning global climate bureaucracy to celebrate the full implementation of the Kyoto Protocol, the realities of science, economics and politics are raining on its parade.ÔÇØ

I am sure that everyone who has placed their faith in the ÔÇ£Kyoto ProtocolÔÇØ is perplexed that their great plan to clean up the worldÔÇÖs climate and put and end to greenhouse gas emissions is not only being ignored by the United States; but is facing an unsuccessful initial implementation as well.

It would not be so bad if ÔÇ£Global WarmingÔÇØ was an exact science. But ÔÇ£Global

WarmingÔÇØ seems to be anything but exact in much of its contradictory findings from the different ends of the earth. To quote Mr. MilloyÔÇÖs article:

First, a new study published this week in the journal Nature (Dec. 1) turns global warming alarmism on its head The headline of the New Scientist report (Nov. 30) on the study nicely captured its import, Failing ocean current raises fear of mini ice age.

The quote continues: That conclusion, however, doesnt jibe at all with the reality of European climate, which began warming 200 years ago and is now setting the modern records for warm temperaturesThe European Environment Agency, in fact, claimed on Nov. 29 that Europe is currently facing the worst warming in 5,000 years with 1998, 2002, 2003 and 2004 being the four hottest years on record.

Wait a minute! Wait a minute! A ÔÇ£mini ice ageÔÇØ denotes a cooling; doesnÔÇÖt it? Yet the recent annual trend for European temperatures is toward the hotter? How do we explain that? To Quote the article: ÔÇ£While temperatures can only go up or down at any given moment, global warmers seem to want to have it both ways so that any change in climate, regardless of direction, can be attributed to human activity.ÔÇØ

And that is the important thing. No matter how the temperature goes, it has to be manÔÇÖs fault and therefore we need things like Kyoto to keep men in check and put money into the pockets of environmentalists who need a purpose for all those years of climate study; when they could have gotten a real job somewhere. The article continues:

ÔÇ£The British newspaper The Independent, for example, reported in its Nov. 30 article about the Nature study that ÔÇ£the real evidence does point to a possible one degree Centigrade cooling over the next two decades.ÔÇØ But the newspaper reported in another same-day article that, ÔÇ£the [record hot] summer of 2003 was triggered by global warming caused by man-made emissions of greenhouse gases.ÔÇØ

So there you have it. Both sides of the ÔÇ£Global WarmingÔÇØ controversy out of both sides of the mouth of the same publication on the same day! The next 20 years will see Europe get one whole centigrade degree COOLER; even though none of the countries that have signed onto Kyoto have actually implemented any of the ProtocolÔÇÖs priorities.

From the article: ÔÇ£Such contradictory reporting casually ignores the reality that greenhouse gas emissions canÔÇÖt simultaneously cool and warm Europe.ÔÇØ

ARGH! This is as bad as the report that admitted that the higher a nationÔÇÖs pollution levels the lesser the effects of ÔÇ£Global WarmingÔÇØ; proving it was more beneficial to process more emissions; not cut back.

Mr. Milloy says: ÔÇ£ItÔÇÖs cooling. ItÔÇÖs warming. ItÔÇÖs disaster. ItÔÇÖs fantasy. Whatever ÔÇ£itÔÇØ is, it canÔÇÖt be comforting to the Kyoto believers in Montreal who seem to think they know for certain whether and how human activity impacts global climate.ÔÇØ

Perhaps we should rename the whole process ÔÇ£Global WoolmingÔÇØ?

Then comes this bombshell from the Swiss (Quaternary Science Reviews ÔÇô Nov 05): [a] ÔÇ£study reviewed prior efforts to reconstruct global temperatures of the last 1,000 years. It concluded that natural temperature variations over the last millennium may have been so significant that they would ÔÇ£result in a redistribution of weight towards the role of natural factors in [causing] temperature changes, thereby relatively devaluing the impact of [manmade] emissions and affecting future predicted [global climate] scenarios.ÔÇØ

The study pointed toward the natural. The manmade stuff had little global impact compared with the natural. So the conclusion here is: ÔÇ£If that turns out to be the case,ÔÇØ the researchers stated, ÔÇ£agreements such as the Kyoto protocol that intend to reduce emissions of anthropogenic greenhouse gases, would be less effective than thought.ÔÇØ

And Mr. Milloy concludes:  senior U.S. climate negotiator Harlan Watson was on very firm ground when he stated this week in Montreal that, I reject the premise that the Kyoto-like agreement is necessary to address the issue.

And all the other attendees to the Montreal conference concluded: When you walk around the conference hall here, delegates are saying there are lots of issues on the agenda, but there's only one real problem, and thats the United States,

The reality of all this ÔÇ£Global WarmingÔÇØ talk is that nobody is sure of anything. One

thing everyone is quite sure of is that: ÔÇ£the economic cost ÔÇô 2 percent or more of global economic productivity ÔÇô is a steep and certain price to pay for extremely uncertain, and potentially negative, consequences.ÔÇØ (And, of course, this is all George BushÔÇÖs fault!)

The bottom line for Kyoto is: ÔÇ£the Kyoto protocol itself has been a colossal flop. European signatories to the treaty arenÔÇÖt meeting their current emissions reduction targets, arenÔÇÖt likely to in the future, and are looking for ways out of their commitments.ÔÇØ

And this was foreseen by the United States long before this conference. The United States saw itself as the only nation that would abide by all the requirements of the Protocol while all the other countries begged off or asked for financial aid to meet its goals under the treaty. Eventually the United States would be footing the entire bill.

This isnÔÇÖt the last weÔÇÖve heard of ÔÇ£Global WarmingÔÇØ or of Kyoto, but it should be.

It's warming, it's cooling, it's gonna be so hot that we are going to have to abandon the coastal cities, we're gonna have a mini-Ice age, and of course it is all man's fault.

Sorry folks, Kyoto is now dead, and the global warming goofballs are discredited.

Their true believers of course will cry and scream how it's not true, that man IS causing global warming, or global cooling, or whatever it is today, but they are WRONG.

The TRUE scientific evidence points to a natural process that man has little to ZERO effect on.

We can't do a thing about it, the earth does what it does, and crying like Chicken Little's only makes you look like alarmist ninnies with a guilty conscience.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites


Btw Steven Milloy, running JunkScience.com, has always sided on EVERY subject he has written with the industry, no matter what was the subject and its localisation both geographically and in time, be it from transgenic engineering to climatology passing by chemical contamination.

Not saying your wrong, Nomad, but usually when you want to discredit someone's opinion, you post examples of why they are not credible.

In the case of someone who has allegedly made contradictory claims, it shouldn't be too hard to do so. Also, I can find nothing to support your assertion that Millroy is discredited in the science community. Could you post a link?

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this