Indeed they have. See for yourself at the “Tropical Glacier Retreat” page on the RealClimate website. Go to Section 3, “Kilimanjaro: Icon or Red Herring?” Interesting reading.

HERE IS 100% SCIENTIFIC PROOF THAT OUR PLANET IS COOLING:

http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2008/03/24/lorne-gunter-perhaps-the-climate-change-models-are-wrong.aspx
Dozens of nations worked together to gather this ARGO data that was supposed to PROVE global warming.

I must give credit to my country’s National Post newspaper for balanced reporting in giving us “deniers” a voice: http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/posted/pages/climate-change-the-deniers.aspx This ongoing DENIERS SERIES is excellent.

Peace to all

You ask a lot of seemingly innocent and forthright questions. Well let’s answer some:

“If that’s the case, why don’t they plant more trees?”
As another noted, they are poor. They cut the trees for fuel and to open new agricultural land. There isn’t a stick of wood left in neighboring Somalia, one of the world’s poorest lands. In the US, forests cover more land today than at any time in recorded history. Of course, we’re very rich.

“The climate is changing though, wouldn’t you agree?”
Without doubt. A million years ago, a continental glacier a mile thick covered where I now live. It disappeared, then reappeared. Altogether four cycles of glaciation and post-glacial warming have affected my area over a million years. Today, I only have three feet of snow in my yard, and that only in the winter. So we’re either heading toward another glacial period or in a warm period. I hate it when those glaciers come!

“We do have serious risks if we continue business as usual don’t we?”
Do we? If we’re the Soviet Union, under communism, yes. We’ve degraded and contaminated our country and debilitated our people so that they are basically worthless. If we’re the United States, we’re the freest, most productive nation that has ever existed, and one that has spread peace and economic and environmental improvement over the globe for many years. Of course, that status may be endangered now, as there seem to be many Americans longing for the good ol’ days of Soviet Unionism.

“We can’t keep extracting natural resources and dumping our toxic waste into the eco system and it not have an impact can it?”
Once upon a time we dumped stuff. Today we strictly regulate such stuff, and recycle a vast amount of material. We, at least we rich humans, are trying to minimize our impact while striving to remain rich. Our activity may have an impact, but it is generally small in the natural order of things (there are some notable departures that should be studied). If you want to see truly large-scale “dumping of toxic waste” then examine the oceanic (and to a lesser degree, continental) rifting systems that drive plate tectonics. Imagine the amount of material from the earth’s interior that is deposited in in the oceans – CO2, H2SO4, Na, Mg, Hg, As, and so on and on. At the other end, in the subduction zones, volcanoes spew and geothermal fluids are created and spill stuff into the sea. Geology is great stuff.

Certainly there has to be a better way to do our business on this earth isn’t there?
Well, based on my answers above, rich is the key to minimizing man’s impact (unless extinction is your goal. It isn’t, is it?). Rich implies capitalism. Marxism, communism. socialism, Islamism – all have produced despair, poverty and more or less environmental damage with no thought to correcting it. I suggest you read a lot of stuff you have obviously missed, starting with Adam Smith’s “The Wealth of Nations”, and then take Geology 101/102 at your local college. Beware living on the ‘Net. That can impair your education because you are exposed to fools constantly. It should be taken in moderation.

Good luck
jafco

REPLY: I always find it amazing when another “knows” (perhaps by teleconnection) that someone didn’t read something. And Spencer what of the sublimation related to lack of forestation and evapotranspiration? No comment there? Did you not read the full posting?

Nature will of course be the final arbiter of this argument. We’ll see what it looks like in 8 years.

Because it’s expensive and they’re poor. Because they needed the wood. It’s really as simple as that.

If they could have afforded to replant, they never would have deforested in the first place. (That is why I am such a fervent advocate of affluence and wealth creation.)

We do have serious risks if we continue business as usual don’t we? We can’t keep extracting natural resources and dumping our toxic waste into the eco system and it not have an impact can it?

Yes, repeat, no.

Our “continuing business” is fast changing as here we sit. As usual.

Nautral resources will never be a serious problem. At most, temporary kinks, quickly resolved. That I can say with almost complete certainty.

As for the waste, it depends very, very much on where and how we dump it. Often there are cheap and easy ways to process it into that which is more benign.

The key (again) to the solution is wealth. It is only the poor countries of this earth that have a real problem with pollution or resources. No rich country on earth hasn’t seriously cleaned up its act.

Certainly there has to be a better way to do our business on this earth isn’t there?

There is, we are. It is a continuing process. But these things take a little time, some effort and a lot of wealth. We have the time, we work hard, and wealth is a highly persistant, createable (and recyclable) resource.

You wouldn’t disagree with that would you?

No, but we are well on the way. They never taught you what was going right with the world when you were in school. Only what was wrong. But there are two sides to that story.

These are the first “interesting times” in all of our history that are not also an ancient Chinese curse. (Consider this, and be awestruck.)

We are at a “tipping point”, all right. An economic tipping point. A political tipping point. A cultural tipping point. The tipping point of Childhood’s End. All things are possible (effective environmentalism being the least of it) if we can become a truly affluent world. We will, if only we aren’t actively prevented from doing so, I swear it.

This is also why we are confused. We tread on really, really new ground for almost the first time. Therefore our past wisdom fails us (yet it cannot do otherwise), and we must create a new wisdom. Our forefathers did not have that burden. Or that wonderful privilege.

If that’s the case, why don’t they plant more trees?

It is comforting reading your analysis and the responses by this online community. The climate is changing though, wouldn’t you agree? We do have serious risks if we continue business as usual don’t we? We can’t keep extracting natural resources and dumping our toxic waste into the eco system and it not have an impact can it?

Certainly there has to be a better way to do our business on this earth isn’t there?

You wouldn’t disagree with that would you?

Anyway, I enjoyed reading your post and the comments.