Genuine conservative Southern belle born
in the wrong era. Soundly refuting
liberals online since 2000. NOTE: That is NOT
me pictured at left. :)
in the wrong era. Soundly refuting
liberals online since 2000. NOTE: That is NOT
me pictured at left. :)
| Fox NY | Oookay: ‘Hologram’ to greet and guide travelers at N.Y. airports |
0 |
| John Nolte | 0 | |
| The Hill | Propaganda: HHS signs $20M PR contract to promote healthcare law |
0 |
| CNN | 0 | |
| ABC News | Pushback: Swinging at Bain, Obama Ignores What Private Equity Is |
0 |
Audacity of Truth
"Diplomacy":
"People are saying what in the world is going on with North Carolina, we look like Mississippi." - NC Gov. Bev Perdue (D) on the passage of Amendment One, 5-11-12
House “Planet Warming” hearing cancelled – due to snowstorm
If I’m not mistaken, this has also happened to Al Gore in the last couple of years. He gave a gw speech in the middle of a really bad snow storm. Delish 
Update: This was also posted at Drudge:
SAVE IT FOR A SUNNY DAY: Maryville Univ. in St. Louis area cancelling screening of Al Gore’s ‘Inconvenient Truth’ because of a snowstorm…
Heh.
RSS feed for comments on this post.
IF these models play out, which assumes A LOT of things.
Sheesh…
Constant belittlement?! I made a single comment. What are you smoking?
Gore didn’t bow out with grace and dignity. He fought, and lost. Throw in his disgraceful act of denying military personnel their right to vote and I can use MANY terms to describe him. Grace and dignity are NOT two of them.
Al Gore: “The snows of Kilimanjaro are melting.”
Skeptic: “Yeah, but it snowed in Pennsylvania in February. Everything’s ok.”
I’d like to ask you skeptics if you’ve seen the movie. In the past, when I’ve argued with others, I actually took the time to research the other point.
As if global warming meant that there would be no more snowstorms, ever.
Duh.
Go ahead, tell the folks suffering from drought in the southwestern U.S. that one snowstorm somewhere else is proof that it should be raining.
Global climate change is happening, and to a certain degree due to our own fowling of the environmental nest. The level to which these things are happening is in dispute, not the cause/effect itself.
If only the gw skeptics had as much interest in proving their “economic disaster” model as they did in disproving the relatively well developed climate change mathematics. Here’s my opinion (and I recognize it for what it is… only my opinion): Fighting climate change is going to make some businesses richer, and some poorer. You can tell the ones worried about getting poorer, they’re the ones funding many if not most of the scientists in disagreement with Al Gore.
Al Gore: “The snows of Kilimanjaro are melting.”
Yeah, but they are going away not because of global warming but due to a localized effect due to reductions in local precipitation due to deforestation that has occurred during the past few decades. Claiming that they are going away because of global warming is one of the detestable, and easily provable, lies Gore uses to try and sell the unsellable.
Try something else, this one has already been proven to be BS.
The level to which these things are happening is in dispute, not the cause/effect itself.
Not only the magnitude of the effect is in question, but the cause is as well. Get it straight. CO2 is a very poor choice of a cause, particularly man-made CO2, but it serves an anti-capitalist and anti-industrial agenda much better than solar or natural CO2.
Bakalva that chart is misleading and you know it. It shows the biggest percent increases per country. By your logic, if the US puts out a billion tons of Co2 every day for 30 years, but India goes from 1 ton to 2 tons, then India is the problem.
Nice try though.
Severian, how is manufacturing more solar and wind power in the US anti-capitalist and anti-industry?
How is Toyota opening a new plant in the US to build enough Priuses to meet demand anti-capitalist and anti-industry?
How is repealing tax breaks to the oil industry (which has record profits) and giving tax breaks to the renewable energy industry anti-capitalist and anti-industry?
Please explain.
How is having General Electric produce more Compact Fluorescent Lights (which have a higher profit margin) instead of regular incandescent bulbs (which have a very low profit margin) anti-capitalist and anti-industry?
Get it straight. CO2 is a very poor choice of a cause, particularly man-made CO2…
You get it straight. Carbon dioxide is carbon dioxide, regardless of source. It absorbs infrared radiation, and that is not in dispute.
MattM wrote, “Nice try though.”
EVERYTHING we do causes CO2 output. All of our commerce. The tiling job I did in my master bathroom last weekend where I ‘drove’ to the store to by tile and ‘drove’ to another store to by ‘backerboard’ and the companies who had to produce the materials and ship the materials created CO2 output.
OUR prosperity is what is the problem Matt. We create more CO2 by existing each day than anyone in a third world nation who simply CONSUMES WHAT THEY EAT during that same 3 day weekend as I.
The problem for you is our prosperity, NOT what progress we are making in efficiencies and environmental improvements. We do more to help the environment with our prosperity than any other nation and YOU ignored my question about what solutions you would implement. I count that as a failure on your part during the communication. Please don’t fail us Matt. Tell us what you’d implement for solutions – THIS QUESTION is open to all leftists not just MattM.
How is having General Electric produce more Compact Fluorescent Lights (which have a higher profit margin) instead of regular incandescent bulbs (which have a very low profit margin) anti-capitalist and anti-industry?
Forced production of a product is anti-capitalist, period, regardless of said product.
MattM asked, “Severian, how is manufacturing more solar and wind power in the US anti-capitalist and anti-industry?”
If it costs 3 times more for the energy1, then I would say it is not something the free market would adopt unles forced to pay for it and that is socialism and anti-industry.
There are certainly alternatives to fossil fuels like wind and nuclear that cost as much or less than fossil fuels but enviros are against nuclear and it would take 1 million 2 MegaWatt windmills (covering an area larger than CA) to replace the energy needed to power just our cars not to mention our homes and manufacturing and service industry needs. Yet a 100 Kilowatt generator is JUST being developed in a lab in Colorado.
1 Cost charts are on the last page – notice solar costs 3 times more for energy than fossil fuels[back]
You get it straight. Carbon dioxide is carbon dioxide, regardless of source. It absorbs infrared radiation, and that is not in dispute.
Oh, so would you care to give us a dissertation on the logarithmic effect of increasing CO2 on absorbtion? Care to give us some numbers? Do you even know where CO2 lies on the list of “greenhouse” gases? What is the number one most important greenhouse gas, the second, etc.?
The problem domain is miles more complex than you think, or perhaps than you can think. If you were taught in modern government schools it’s not surprising the concept of a logarithm is alien to you unfortunately.
And “regardless of source?” That’s the rub isn’t it? If CO2 is the problem they say it is, and mankind is not producing the bulk of it, that’s not a very anthropogenic problem now is it?
MattM asks a strawman question, “How is having General Electric produce more Compact Fluorescent Lights (which have a higher profit margin) instead of regular incandescent bulbs (which have a very low profit margin) anti-capitalist and anti-industry?”
You yourself admit there is more profit for GE to produce and sell CFL’s. NOBODY here said they are against GE making CFL’s thus your strawman question.
The point is that CA is considering a bill to mandate CFL’s but incandescents and halogens and other specialty bulbs have their purpose (number 1) and number 2 CFL’s are only 5% of the market share of bulbs sold. To change the supply and demand question so radically would cause prices to go up – the poor would have to fork over the $2 currently or the $10 possibly per bulb or live in the dark or maybe the government can create a program for the poor to have light.
Essentially – there is a place for ENCOURAGING the purchase of CFL’s through PR and that can be done for FREE if the drive-by legacy press stops ATTACKING Bush when he has spent more than any other country on climate change issues. The press could educate the American consumer better on what folks like you and I know that CFL’s use 25% of the energy for the same amount of light and last 5 times longer than incandescents.
The point here with us conservatives is – why must it alwasys come down to a leftist solution or we can attack the conservative as NOT CARING.
It’s a tired old pattern by leftists.
MattM asks another strawman question, “How is Toyota opening a new plant in the US to build enough Priuses to meet demand anti-capitalist and anti-industry?”
Who here said that they are against people buying and Toyota making Priuses. If you insist on making strawman arguments the conversation is not advanced.
We should be trying to hear one another’s perspective. Or you can imply accusations that aren’t true with your questions… incessantly.
To add to the above, I just love it when people who are completely scientifically ignorant decide to lecture about what is and is not important in atmospheric physics based upon reading media summaries and stories based on flawed IPCC reports. People who can usually barely add 2 and 2 and get 4 suddenly act like experts in climatology and atmospheric physics and try and lecture and talk down to everyone. Delusions of adequacy again and again…
Who here said that they are against people buying and Toyota making Priuses.
Yeah, they’re so important and popular that’s why Toyota has rebates and incentives on them now. And it’s a red herring argument, people want to buy what they want to buy, usually without any regard to whether or not it’s a good idea or if it actually accomplishes anything. I’m a lot more concerned about the potential toxicity of the batteries and electronics in a hybrid if not disposed of correctly than I am of CO2 induced global warming.
Sheesh – 70+ posts in this thread so far, but only 5 Valentine’s greetings have been posted in my Valentine’s day thread?
This time MattM asks a question with a false premise, “How is repealing tax breaks to the oil industry (which has record profits) and giving tax breaks to the renewable energy industry anti-capitalist and anti-industry?”
As you can see by THESE CHARTS, oil companies pay MORE in taxes than they actually make in profits.
And – HillaryEnergy coming to a marketplace near you were profits are seized to an even greater extent than the charts indicate will virtually guarantee that energy will be more costly – hurting more poor people – causing more harm to our economy and taking any incentive there is for investors to invest in the energy sector thus causing a decline in R&D and a decline in the ability ofr oil companies to maintain equipment they have or pay the people they employee or taking any incentive there is to meet the demand for energy with a supply of energy. HillaryEnergy is the WORST idea ever and more Americans need to be educated quickly as to the leftist solutions causing more harm to poor people (unemployment and higher prices).
Additionally I need to make CLEAR that your premise in your question is factually UNTRUE.
ST, 6 if you count my greeting in the previous open thread….
“The man strike me as false in many ways, not just his assertions, but his reasoning and why he is doing this and speaking out about that.
He also had many a problem with false assertions and claims before he ‘relinquished his claim in the 2000 election with grace and dignity.’”
–sanity
Ad Hominem (from Webster’s Dictionary): 1. Appealing to a person’s feelings or prejudices rather than his intellect; 2. marked by an attack on an opponent’s character rather than by an answer to his contentions.
The primary method used by the Republican Party in its political campaigns in recent years has been ad hominem attacks against its opponents. Al Gore was portrayed as a phony who made things up, and many false assertions were invented to try to create this image. All of the famous lies that Gore supposedly told, about Love Canal, inventing the internet, and so forth, were the result of deliberately mis-quoting and mis-characterizing things he said. The claims about his supposed lies are lies themselves. The same thing was done in the Swift Boat attacks against John Kerry. It ties in with a meta-narrative used by conservatives that only they are true and genuine, and their political enemies are phonies and elitists. I’m surprised that so many people refuse to see how their feelings are being manipulated.
In any case, repeating these lies has become like a sacrament among conservatives. It’s a way to bond, stir up righteous anger and mobilize against one’s political “enemies.” The fact that these beliefs are mostly fictitious doesn’t seem to matter.
The problem domain is miles more complex than you think, or perhaps than you can think. If you were taught in modern government schools it’s not surprising the concept of a logarithm is alien to you unfortunately.
Well, what you don’t know about me could fill several encyclopedias, but that’s all rather beside the point.
In your diatribe, you’re still talking about magnitude, not cause/effect. I revert to my original comments on the matter. There is evidence that CO2 concentration (BTW, I believe it’s second behind water vapor as far as greenhouse gasses go) has increased about 40% since the industrial revolution began, to the highest levels in perhaps 20 million years.
I am fully aware of the complexity of the climate models. Can you say the same about the complexity of the economic ones?
Sev – I’m also concerned about the CO2 output of manufacturing the 1,000 or so parts that are above and beyond the normal car parts.
If you just make an efficient car like a Honda Civic HX it has about 1,000 less parts than a hybrid car which has the same amount of internal combustion and transmission parts along with the inverters, batteries, electronics, wiring, regenerative brakes components, etc. The added weight of those components really do not add up to that much gas mileage savings though a hybrid does save gas. Take for instance a Saturn Vue or Honda Civic and then compare to the hybrid versions. The 3,000 in added cost or more and added CO2 to the atmosphere in making those parts should pause anybody from plunking down the extra cash. The savings in gas dollars would not be reached (if using the EPA numbers) for over a decade of Saturn Vue Hyrbid usage or Honda Civic Hyrbid usage. The CO2 savings would be many years also if you account for the amount of added CO2 to make the vehicle.
This all said….. nobody here including myself is against the consumer buying a prius and Toyota making it.
By claiming they’re strawman arguments, you clearly don’t understand what a strawman argument is.
Baklava, you want my answer on what I would do? I gave it to you.
If everyone switched out just 5 bulbs to CFLs, it would be the equivalent of taking 8 million cars off the road, and would reduce our nation’s reliance on energy.
US autos emit more Co2 than all but three entire countries’s emmissions. By increasing fuel economy to 40 mpg, by more than 10 million metric tons a year.
By investing in research for solar and wind power, the cost will come down. Encouraging companies (through tax breaks) to mass more renewable energy will bring the price down and reduce emmissions.
Ok, now that I’ve shown you can make a real change in the amount of Co2 we produce using today’s technology without harming industry, who else wants to try and reason why we shouldn’t do this?
Bob, It is Love Story, not Love Canal, but that is but one thing you have dead bang wrong. Al Gore did make up things and still does. The problem with the left is that he, like lying John “The Traitor” Kerry, got exposed and debunked.
The Swifties were telling the truth, and that is what galls you the most Bob.
MattM,
It is called Freedom of Choice. Lefties like you don’t believe in it, just command and control government. The same type of government that threatens to prosecute out of existance any company that dares sell kits to enable non-FFV cars to burn E85.
Personally I’d like to buy the components to convert my Ford 3.8L V6 to run on E85. The Orwellian EPA has the auto makers so scared that they won’t tell the owners of their non-FFV vehicles what components they need to convett their older vehicles to E85.
Well, what you don’t know about me could fill several encyclopedias, but that’s all rather beside the point.
Well, you’ve gone completely sideways, as expected. You throw out a couple of semi-technical concepts, and dodge the entire issue. And CO2 is not 2nd, methane is. The topic of discussion was the nonlinear effect of increasing CO2 concentrations on atmospheric absorbtion, and by association the relationship with the small part of CO2 that is actually produced by humans. The point is that the effects of increased CO2 concentrations, even if they have as large an effect on temperature as claimed, something that is definitely not remotely proven, are much less than claimed, and as humans are by no means the only or major cause of CO2 emissions, then our part in this worse case is much much smaller than claimed, and the effects of drastic reductions inconsequential. So, we need to devastate the world economy and reduce our ability to adapt to any climate change that does happen, and climate is never constant it always changes, in order to maybe reduce the effect by a tiny tiny amount. When there is ample evidence of the uncertainty in the theory and of alternate sources of warming that the AGW models don’t adequately address if they address them at all? Sounds smart to me!
PCD, is it asking too much for people to do a simple Google search before replying? There were fake stories about both Love Canal and Love Story, as you can read in the Wikipedia entries below. And since you claim that Gore “did make up things and still does” then please give examples. Also please explain, regardless of whether or not you like Kerry, why you call him a “traitor.”
Bob,
Wikipedia ia not a credible source for anything. Partissans have edited the contents so heinously that politicians and their aides have been barred form editing it, but that doesn’t bar hyperpartisan, such as yourself, ffom doing the dirty propaganda work for them.
Al Gore DID say on a late night talk show that he was the subject of Love Story.
As for Kerry, A traitor give aid and comfort to the enemy in time of war. Not only did Kerry lie to Congress giving his false Winter Soldier testimony, Kerry met with the North Vietnamese in Paris, while Kerry was still in the Naval Reserves during the war in Vietnam, and then advocated for the North Vietnamese.
MattM said, “Ok, now that I’ve shown you can make a real change in the amount of Co2 we produce using today’s technology without harming industry, who else wants to try and reason why we shouldn’t do this?”
You did none of the sort. You gave conclusional answers but did not state how we get to the end result.
For instance – who is going to make everyone remove 5 perfectly working bulbs and buy $10 worth of CFL’s (which took CO2 to produce and ship) and took energy to go to the store and purchase and all of the servers which enable the transaction are using energy. Maybe everyone will do it without question but what I usually see from lefties are forced by government solutions like the one coming here in CA where CFL’s are mandated.
Another for instance: You talked about autos having 40 MPG average. How will that come to fruition??? There are about 10 ways to get that done. 1) Consumers of American can choose to forgo horsepower and luxury for economy and lower emissions – how is that for a free market solution 2) Governments can step in and mandate an AFE of 40 MPG with mixed results one of them being lighter cars and the other being less powerful cars
And how do you mandate such a high AFE when it’s hard enough for a Toyota Corolla to acheive 40 MPG. Families and prosperous people everywhere will not stand for small and less powerful. They would opt to keep and improve their existing more polluting older cars… I’m thinking. Acting like a switch out of ALL cars to an average of 40 MPG cars overnight is utopian thinking and not based on realism. We have made very good improvements in efficiency and emissions with auto engines in the last 20 years but CONSUMERS have chosen for a doubling of horsepower during the same 20 years….
Matt also wrote, “By investing in research for solar and wind power, the cost will come down.”
This country has invested more in these technologies by far than every other country. The investments ARE happening. You can’t very well speed up R&D faster than the amount of talented people able to do the research can do it unless you grow the pool of talent with more college graduates in the area.
My contention is that we are making significant progress AND we are not the ones people should be shaking their finger at AND the crisis mentality is not reason for leftist solutions which would make more people suffer especially the poor.
Oookay, PCD. Now I’d have to ask you for proof that Wikipedia is unreliable. The only factual study I know of showed that Wikipedia was about as reliable as the Encyclopedia Britannica in a survey of science articles in the two sources. What about your own reliability? You present no facts, no examples, no nuttin’. I guess you’d rather stick to your ad hominems — heck, I suppose it’s so much easier when facts don’t matter, eh?
Matt also wrote, “By investing in research for solar and wind power, the cost will come down.”
Your mission if you choose to accept it is to convince “Not in my backyard” Kennedy to allow Windmills there.
“Al Gore: “The snows of Kilimanjaro are melting.”
Yeah, but they are going away not because of global warming but due to a localized effect due to reductions in local precipitation due to deforestation that has occurred during the past few decades. ”
I love how severian knows everything! He always knows the Right Answer(c) for any given situation, even while acknowledging the rediculous complexity of the problem domain.
Sev, did you take up Exxon’s offer of $10,000 to refute the latest IPCC report? If not, why not? You obviously know all the answers and claim to have relied on hard data for all your assumptions! It should be the easiest 10K you’ve ever made!
“Al Gore DID say on a late night talk show that he was the subject of Love Story.”
then there’s a video somewhere and we can put this to rest. When you find a link to the video, please post it…I promise to forward it to all my liberal friends.
PCD, you can see in the Wikipedia entry that the author of “Love Story,” Erich Segal, acknowledged himself that Gore (and his college roommate, Tommy Lee Jones) was the inspiration for his Love Story protagonist. The mistake that originated from the Tennessean newspaper was that Love Story was specifically about Gore’s relationship with his wife Tipper. But Gore would be factually correct to say that Love Story was about him, at least to the extent that the character was based on him. Is that so complicated?
Oh, and for all those whining about how unfair it is to note the delicious irony of a global warming hearing being called due to snow, I don’t recall hearing you disavow or complain this past summer, when every high temp day was greeted with headlines of Record High in 1000 Years! and such despite the fact that it wasn’t, that as recently as the 1930′s temps were as high or higher in much of the country. You ,know, the 1930′s, before most of the CO2 increases had occurred. So don’ come around whining about us on this issue, to do so is pure hypocrisy.
I love how severian knows everything! He always knows the Right Answer(c) for any given situation, even while acknowledging the rediculous complexity of the problem domain.
Sheese, when you’re proven wrong you don’t take it very well do you? If you don’t want to be so easily debunked, try coming up with some fact that isn’t so mind numbingly obviously wrong and obvious propaganda. Which means, don’t come back with over 90% of what Gore whines about in his stultifyingly dishonest and boring movie.
Sev, did you take up Exxon’s offer of $10,000 to refute the latest IPCC report? If not, why not? You obviously know all the answers and claim to have relied on hard data for all your assumptions! It should be the easiest 10K you’ve ever made!
That you repeat this totally discredited lie, propagated by a leftist UK newspaper, and taken as the gospel truth by idiot Democrat politicians, with a straight face tells me everything I need to know about you. The money is to analyze it, reputing the report is not a criteria for the honorarium, and it’s common practice for think tanks, left, right, and center, to pay such fees for external analysis of issues they are interested in. Nice use of the red herring about who pays for it too, considering that Exxon accounts for only about 1% of the donations the AEI receives. But thanks for repeating the usual leftist lies, Goebbels would be proud, as would Orwell.
“Oh, and for all those whining about how unfair it is to note the delicious irony of a global warming hearing being called due to snow, I don’t recall hearing you disavow or complain this past summer, when every high temp day was greeted with headlines of Record High in 1000 Years!”
Actually, at the time it did bother me, and I did complain, because simple-minded conservatives would take that same non-argument and turn it around the next time there was a cold day. So no, actually.
As for the rest of your rant, I can only assume you were speaking to GW believers in general and not to me, as I’ve made no factual assertions regarding global warming that you’ve refuted.
I do love how you completely sidestepped the obvious opportunity to make $10,000. you must be rich or something.
But then you said:
” and such despite the fact that it wasn’t, that as recently as the 1930′s temps were as high or higher in much of the country. You ,know, the 1930′s, before most of the CO2 increases had occurred. So don’ come around whining about us on this issue, to do so is pure hypocrisy.”
If we were discussing “national climate change” or something, then your comment would be relevant….instead it sheds a light on either your misconceptions of the science, or your willingness to distort. Just like references to the “medieval warming period”, it is meaningless in this debate. Why? because national temeratures in the 30′s and the midieval warming period were not GLOBAL, they were LOCAL phenomena (midieval warming period was local to europe), and therefore cannot be used as counters to arguments about GLOBAL climate change.
I think I know why you won’t be getting a $10,000 check from Exxon anytime soon.
Severian, the U.S. National Climatic Data Center said that 2006 was the hottest year on record (i.e. in the last 112 years). So people making such claims have the facts on their side. No such facts apply to the recent snow storms. They were just snow storms. Big deal.
Al Gore: “The snows of Kilimanjaro are melting.”
Yeah, but they are going away not because of global warming but due to a localized effect due to reductions in local precipitation due to deforestation that has occurred during the past few decades. Claiming that they are going away because of global warming is one of the detestable, and easily provable, lies Gore uses to try and sell the unsellable.
Try something else, this one has already been proven to be BS.
From realclimate.org:
The Heartland Institute’s propagation of the notion that the Kilimanjaro glacier retreat has been proved to be due to deforestation is even more egregious. They quote “an article published in Nature” by Betsy Mason (“African ice under wraps,” Nature, 24 November, 2003) which contains the statement “Although it’s tempting to blame the ice loss on global warming, researchers think that deforestation of the mountain’s foothills is the more likely culprit.” Elsewhere, Heartland refers to this as a “study.” The “study” is in reality no scientific study at all, but a news piece devoted almost entirely to Euan Nesbit’s proposal to save the Kilimanjaro glacier by wrapping it in a giant tarp. The article never says who the “experts” are, nor does it quote any scientific studies supporting the claim. The Mason news article is what Crichton quotes as “peer reviewed research” proving that it is deforestation, not global warming, which is causing the Kilimanjaro glaciers to retreat. (George Monbiot’s article in The Guardian documents a similar case of systematic misrepresentation of glacier data by skeptics.)
link here.
The “deforestation is causing Kilimanjaro to melt, not GW” meme, repeated so ably by renowned “physicist” Severian, originated when right-wing think tanks misquoted Douglas Hardy, a UMass climatologist who, after asserting that GW was playing a role, also mentioned the potential, but unproven, impacts of deforestation.
Ah jeez, not the realclimate apostles again. There’s more than one article:
Any other RealClimate lies you need debunked?
The thread is off track.
Yes – there has been a measured increase of .7 degrees to 1 degree celcius over a 100 year period.
The question is how much of it attributed to man’s CO2 output
and
what solutions do we implement toward the presented problem – if we can even affect the climate.
There is considerable doubt as to the reason for the rise in temperature whether leftist alarmists want to accept the science or not or name call those scientists “deniers”.
There is also reasonable people on the conservative side who are saying – hey wait a minute – leftists solutions that hurt people should not be implemented. Count me as one of those people. Tell me who has been hurt by the .7 degree change?
During the past 100 years life expectancy has gone from 45 for men and 49 for women (in 1906 to 75 for men and 79 for women (in 2006). There is more vegetation and forest in North America. Seems to me the .7 degree change does NOT warrant crisis mongering and hurting people with leftist policies. Creating poverty and having the federal government spend more than it already does on climate change when it already spends more than any other country is just ridiculous.
Although a preponderance of scientific evidence unquestionably supports the theory of man-made global warming, I think we do need to be careful in jumping to conclusions about every individual case. It seems like the studies that Severian links to offering alternate hypotheses for the recession of the Kilimanjaro glacier may have merit. It may not settle the argument specifically about Kilimanjaro, but, at least in this case, it seems that there are still legitimate questions. Of course, this doesn’t mean either that the remaining evidence supporting man-made global warming is anything less than overwhelming, or that Severian himself is anything less than insufferable.
This blurb from The Pew Center on Global Climate Change presents a nice synopsis about glaciers and global warming, specifically responding to issues raised in a novel by Michael Crichton (“State of Fear”) that purports to debunk the theory of man-made global warming:
I present this information in the interests of a fair and open debate (do you still hate me, Baklava?)
You “debunk” the realclimate article, which criticized the reference to a news article as a “study,” by citing the very same news article. Do you suggest covering Kilimanjaro with a giant tarp as well?
As for your peer-reviewed articles, none suggest that global warming is not playing a role in the retreat. They merely posit that deforestation, and resulting lack of moisture, is a “likely forcing.” This does not equal “only forcing.” Of course, a scientist like yourself understands the concepts of forcing.
A larger point: GW does not have uniform effects across the globe. The tropics are less affected than the poles. Assuming deforestation plays a role, even a primary role, are you going to come up with alternate explanations for the glaciers retreating all across the globe?
Three of your four references come from Douglas R. Hardy’s work on tropical glaciers (the fourth from usenet is just a rehash of the “BETSY MASON” news article that was debunked in my original post).
From Dr. Hardy regarding his work:
“We have a mere 2.5 years of actual field measurements from Kilimanjaro glaciers, unlike many other regions, so our understanding of their relationship with climate and the volcano is just beginning to develop”, Dr. Douglas R. Hardy, a geologist at the University of Massachusetts and an author of the paper, wrote by e-mail. “Using these preliminary findings to refute or even question global warming borders on the absurd.” In short, Kilimanjaro may be a photogenic spokesmountain “no matter what the climatic agenda” but it is far from ideal as a laboratory for detecting human-driven warming. The debate over it obscures the nearly universal agreement among glacier and climate experts that glaciers are retreating all over the world, probably as a result of the greenhouse-gas buildup. “These climate skeptics are making generalizations not only to the rest of the tropics but the rest of the world” Dr. Hardy said. “And, in fact, global warming may be part of the whole picture on Kilimanjaro, too.”
link here