By James Taylor -December 13, 2021
In his 2006 Hollywood movie “An Inconvenient Truth,” Al Gore solemnly warns that “Within the decade there will be no more snows of Kilimanjaro.” A decade and a half later, Al Gore’s glum prediction is not aging well. In fact, a look at today’s 7-day forecast for Kilimanjaro shows snow falling atop the mountain every day for the next week. Moreover, high temperatures atop the mountain will remain at least 10 degrees below zero every day atop the mountain.
Take a look for yourself in the graphic below, captured this morning at the www.snow-forecast.com website:
Abundant snow atop Kilimanjaro is nothing unusual. Not only does snow still fall atop Kilimanjaro, the mountain has had snow cover every single day since Gore made his movie. In fact, so much snow fell in 2018 that there were record increases in snow depth on the mountain.
The author of the Just Kilimanjaro website recently reported that the entire mountain peak is covered with snow:
“The writer of this article observed during this week’s flight closer to the mountain, recovering snow piled up, covering the whole mountain peak.”
If Facebook and Big Tech are going to censor and ban global warming videos that they claim contain misinformation and factual errors, then Al Gore’s “An Inconvenient Truth” should be banned from the Internet.
James Taylor is the President of the Heartland Institute. Taylor is also director of Heartland’s Arthur B. Robinson Center for Climate and Environmental Policy. Taylor is the former managing editor (2001-2014) of Environment & Climate News, a national monthly publication devoted to sound science and free-market environmentalism.
Gore and many others have made their money so they no longer care.
And when today’s Bolsheviks take over, they aren’t going to care either.
I wonder if the downslope forests, cutting of which reduced the ice cap, not nonexistant local warming, have grown back.
That was my first thought as well. I would definitely like to know.
Considering that there have been repeated discoveries of leopards and other predators in the snows of Kilimanjaro, never mind repeated episodes of retreating and returning of the snow line, the idea that it will all go away just because some dork like Gore says so is ludicrous.
Here’s a link to the findings of predators up there in the snow fields.
Hemingway wrote about that in “The Snows of Kilimanjaro” long ago, and not much has changed since a movie based on that story was made.
My niece and a friend of hers went Africa a few years ago, and got into one of the guided hikes up the slopes. Her friend made it all the way up, but my niece got altitude sickness before she got that high up and had to go back down the slopes to their camp. Her photos tell you what a beautiful landscape that mountain sits in.
There;s one live caldera on the summit. The mountain sits on the east African rift zone, same as Erta Ale up north in the Danakil area. Some day far off in the future, that open up wide and split along the eastern side of Africa, but it’s so far off in the distant future that you can’t even use that info to scar politicians and ecohippies.
Warmists lie. Who’d a thunk it.
Where’s Al, and where’s our resident little wippersnapper nyolci? He needs to come and tell us that this is just a blip and his scientists know, without doubt, that the snow on Kilimanjaro will be gone in……a certain about of time. The models man. The models. It’s the consensus ya know!
Hell, even Attenborough on TV last night said it might get 6 degrees hotter by 2100 or was it 2050? – I forget..
Belgian climate activist Jean-Pascal van Ypersele said recently that near the end of this century the temperature in Belgium could reach 50 degrees Celsius during the summer. Yes, “could” reach. Well, many things “could” happen. This afternoon, an aircraft “could” crash in my garten.
In light of the precautionary principle you best get out of your house and go to a cafe to drink your lunch, Jean.
Better safe than sorry!
And don’t forget to bring a towel.
Well, really, I “could” win the lottery and not give any money to idjit politicians, couldn’t I? 🙂
nyolci Is Simon
I understood that nyolci was Hungarian. The pest of Budapest.
He/she/it also whines about how much better it was under the communists. Even though it admits to having been born after the fall of communism.
For a certain type of person its comforting to have someone else making all your decisions for you.
Apparently it was models all the way up.
Just as it’s turtles all the way down.
Nice Mia reference! Shoulda just listened to the AC run.
Well, that’s….. Inconvenient!
James, James (shakes head)…these are facts you are giving us. Haven’t you learned yet that facts are not allowed in the warmist world. It’s BELIEF, James, belief is the important thing. Take the UK for example. Here is a nation that is pursuing a net zero economy. CO2 comprises some 0.04% of the earth’s atmosphere. Mankind’s contribution is 3% of that – so 0.0012% (give or take). The UK accounts for 1% of that. So the UK is responsible for 0.000012% of CO2 in the atmosphere. Let’s say that this down to our two coal-burning power stations. China has more than 1,000 and is building more. Little Japan is building 22 more. But it’s the UK that believes it needs to become net zero in relation to CO2.
You will not see a discussion of any of this in the British media – indeed, it is absolutely forbidden on the BBC. Facts are anathema to these people – belief is all that matters.
So right. Uk’s contribution to co2 =3/5th’s of bugger all. So why this persistence with what is clearly a lost argument, could it be pride or could it be prejudice ? ! Or indeed just plain pride and stubbornness. As I have said before you can lead a horse to water but . . .
The full expression is ‘two thirds of five eighths of **** all.’ Which coincidentally is the exact amount of Commonsense in the House of Commons.
Because each community found their top idiot & then voted them into Westminster, for them to lead us to the promised land … going well so far don’t ya think ?
You mix valid points with rubbish, John. Like blending a bit of cat urine into a fine sauce, it’s not a minor flaw, it spoils the whole meal.
Don’t discredit the skeptical argument.
The UK is irrelevant to the amount of CO2 increase in the atmosphere, that is true. The UK can go to net zero and emissions will still rise due to China and India among others. You could increase emissions and it would not make a material difference. So obviously it’s pointless and likely suicidal madness for the UK to pursue the Princess Nut-nuts agenda.
Human emissions are indeed much smaller than natural sources, but here’s where you are going astray. Natural sinks are larger than natural sources, so that nature is a net sink.
Not only are natural sources fully absorbed by natural sinks but also about half of human emissions are soaked up.
In contrast, there are no human sinks. Human emissions are about twice the amount of the annual increase in CO2 content of the atmosphere. Do the math! If only half of what we put in stays in, nature is not the cause of the increase in CO2.
A couple of centuries of small annual increases have brought the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere up from 280ppm to 418ppm. About a third of the CO2 in the atmosphere today corresponds to this rise. To deny this is foolish, discrediting, and unnecessarily counterproductive. It allows the alarmists to dismiss all your good points by pointing to your glaring error.
The effect of CO2 enrichment has been the wonderful greening of the earth, with India becoming a net exporter of grain. You remember India, the country that Ehrlich told us in his Population Bomb would starve by the hundreds of millions by the 1980s.
If CO2 enrichment has had any effect on temperature, it has also been wholly beneficial.
Empirical studies of the effects of increasing CO2 put the so-called equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS) at about 1.7 degrees per doubling of CO2.
At that rate, it’s extremely unlikely that we have enough economically extractible fossil fuel left to raise temperatures by even 3 degrees above the low starting point of 1850.
Arguably, 15-20% of the current increased agricultural productivity of nitrogen-sensitive crops (grains and grasses, and trees, for example) is due to this increased CO2. You would not like to see the weeds if CO2 hits the optimum of 900-1000 ppm at current temperatures.
Fortunately the beginning Solar Minimum should shortly reduce the rate of increase, as the ocean surface temperatures gradually cool.
What makes you think that weeds could not be controlled by the same methods used today? You would not like the looks of a field that has had no weed control for a few years.
The greening of the Earth is a net sinking of CO2.
Besides, rate of CO2 rise is constant from the 50’s (when measurements began). This ibdicate the human fingerprint is (yet) indistinguished from natural sources.
Of course global greening is a sink. Is that supposed to refute my comment somehow?
The thing that has been consistent is that the number of CO2 molecules in the atmosphere goes up every year by LESS than the number of CO2 molecules that human activities contribute. This means that natural sinks (one of which is global greening) have to be taking up the equivalent of all of the natural sources plus some of our emissions as well. How can nature be the cause of rising CO2 when nature absorbs more than it contributes?
In contrast, there are no human sinks. How is the greening of the world you mention not a sink?
Humanity is unnatural? Yes, CO2 is rising, and we have noticed it. Therefore, we must be the cause? – non sequitur.
Nature will absorb all that it needs to.
The effect is very poorly named as there is virtually no connection to how an actual greenhouse is warmed and how the atmosphere retains heat and keeps the planet warmer.
Aside from that, there is no doubt that the planet is warmer and the warmth is widely distributed because there is an atmosphere. There is also no doubt that water and water vapor are major factors. Any effect from other gases is likely negligible and and totally overwhelmed. It is difficult, though, to deny that other gases have some effect, however small.
Without an atmosphere the planet on average would likely have a similar temperature, but the dark side and the poles would be much colder and the sunny side and the equator much hotter. How much different the average would be is
Yes the greenhouse effect is poorly named. Real greenhouses work by blocking convection. The radiative effect of certain gases that absorb infrared photons is a different phenomenon. At best we could say that this effect partially blocks radiation analogously to how a greenhouse blocks convection.
Except it cannot. The moment sunlight reaches Earth’s surface the CO2 is already saturated. Split second*. You cannot add more energy to the CO2 over the course of the day. Solar irradiance on the planet’s surface is the sole (95%) driver of heat.
*This is can be proven- if CO2 retained heat (or eg the atmosphere) in any appreciable manner- you would NOT feel instantaneous drop in temperature walking into shade.
I was mostly referring to water vapor Ruleo. And why do so many people seem to think that they need to deny the existence of a GHE rather than to just recognize that it’s not dangerous and indeed benign? Warmer nights in winter especially at high latitudes. What’s so scary about that, that we need to pretend it isn’t real?
Average would be just about the same as on the Moon. -38C, some 54C degrees less than the current average.
>>there is no doubt that the planet is warmer and the warmth is widely distributed<< have you actually looked at the temperature?
You are plain wrong when you ascribe the rise in atmospheric CO2 concentration to human activities (i.e. to the anthropogenic emission of CO2).
You are assuming the variations in the ‘natural’ sources and sinks of CO2 are smaller than the anthropogenic emission.
We know as certain fact that your assumption is wrong.
The annual rise in atmospheric CO2 would relate to the anthropogenic emission of CO2 if one were directly related to the other. But they do not relate: in some years almost none of the anthropogenic emission seems to be absorbed in the sinks, and in other years almost all of it seems to be absorbed. Accounting errors may be responsible for some of this discrepancy (for example, some emission may be recorded as having been emitted in the year after it was emitted) but all such errors would be overcome by applying a 3-year running mean to the data.
The IPCC applies a 5-year running mean to its Bern model’s output because that ‘fiddle factor’ is required to obtain a fit between the model’s output and the atmospheric CO2 measurements made at Mauna Loa.
In one of the papers we published in 2005 we reported 6 models that each provides agreement with the annual Mauna Loa data without use of any smoothing: 3 of our models assumed a significant anthropogenic contribution to the rise and the other three assumed there was no anthropogenic contribution to the rise.
(ref. Rorsch A, Courtney RS & Thoenes D, ‘The Interaction of Climate Change and the Carbon Dioxide Cycle’ E&E v16no2 (2005) )
I expanded on findings in that paper in a paper which Ed Berry has posted on his blog at
Much other data also indicates the observed atmospheric CO2 rise is a response to natural variations of the carbon cycle.
Importantly, changes to atmospheric CO2 concentration follow changes to global temperature at all time scales.
At long term the ice core data indicate CO2 increases after warming at centennial and millennial time scales
Present day circumstances are indicated by direct measurements which indicate changes at the shortest term. The seminal work on this was
Kuo C, Lindberg C & Thompson DJ, “Coherence established between atmospheric carbon dioxide and global temperature” Nature 343, pages 709–714 (1990)
Its Abstract says,
(emphasis added: RSC)
That study was conducted using Mauna Loa data. Subsequent studies confirm its findings but show the lag of atmospheric CO2 concentration changes behind global temperature varies with latitude and is in the range 5 to 9 months.
The above and much else strongly suggests the observed rise in atmospheric CO2 concentration is probably natural. However, the model studies in my paper linked above prove – in 3 different demonstrations – that human activities may be the cause of the rise. These findings arise because the total anthropogenic CO2 emissions (i.e. CO2 emitted by human activities) are less than the cumulative errors in the measurements of CO2 emissions from nature. This suggests that nothing can be shown about causality of atmospheric CO2 concentration with any certainty, and that is what I concluded in my studies of the subject (see my link above).
However, Ed Berry has developed from some of my thoughts to obtain a breakthrough in understanding which I and all other authors failed to make, and this has enabled him to devise a method to quantify the natural and anthropogenic contributions to the rise in atmospheric CO2 concentration.
Ed Berry’s post of a paper of mine on his blog at the above link includes colour (blue) coding which he has added to indicate my thoughts from which he developed his own ideas. He has also posted on his blog a preprint of his paper that reports his quantification of the natural and anthropogenic contributions to the rise in atmospheric CO2 concentration. This can be seen at
His formal paper is available from behind a paywall at
The impact of human CO2 on atmospheric CO2 – SCC (klimarealistene.com)
I assume no such thing. I say that over any period of n years (integer n to eliminate the seasonal factors), there is more CO2 resident in the atmosphere at the end of the period than at the beginning, and over that same period human-caused emissions are roughly double the amount of increase in the atmosphere.
I’d suggest taking the period as 25 or more years just to minimize the measurement error on our emissions and the internal variability of the natural system.
I will try to read the Ed Berry paper to better understand where you are coming from.
Why has this new hypothesis never been the subject of a guest post on WUWT? If it’s such an important advance overturning a key IPCC claim, what’s holding you and/or Ed back? Certainly there are far brighter lights in the WUWT universe than for me to attempt to grasp this on my own. It should be discussed and tested by the true experts. When do you plan to submit a guest post?
You ask me,
“Why has this new hypothesis never been the subject of a guest post on WUWT? If it’s such an important advance overturning a key IPCC claim, what’s holding you and/or Ed back? “
I do not know and see no reason for me to ask why items are or are not guest posts on this blog.
I do know Ed Berry has published a preprint of his paper on his own blog and has published his paper in the formal literature. I reported that and provided links to those publications in my post above which you purport to be answering.
Also, it is simply true that,
“You are assuming the variations in the ‘natural’ sources and sinks of CO2 are smaller than the anthropogenic emission“.
You say the human emissions of CO2 are larger than the annual (or accumulated) rise in atmospheric CO2. I agree that is true, but so what?
The natural emission is also larger than the annual (or accumulated) rise in atmospheric CO2. Indeed, the natural emission is about an order of magnitude larger than the anthropogenic emission.
The magnitudes of variations in the sources and sinks for atmospheric CO2 are not known, and they may overcome any effect of the trivial anthropogenic emission of CO2. The available information suggests they do overcome the anthropogenic emission (see my post you purport to be answering), and the anthropogenic emission can only be the cause of the observed rise of atmospheric CO2 if they don’t.
It’s baffling that you appear to take offense at my suggestion to publicize this work and solicit feedback from some of the expert contributors on WUWT.
It’s disappointing as well that you persist with your dismissive tone despite my attempt to maintain a polite discourse.
If there is any value in your work, I am sure that someone who is competent at explaining it will eventually do so.
In the meantime I have better uses for my time, like rearranging my sock drawer.
That is not true. It has been shown that concrete structures absorb CO2 for as long as they are exposed to the air.
CO2 is extracted from the air for industrial purposes; there are experimental sequestration extractions as well.
Tree farms, particularly when they are planted for the express purpose of mitigating anthro’ CO2 should properly be considered “human sinks.”
Using CO2 to re-pressurize oil producing zones is a “human sink.”
None of these are major sinks, but then 4% of total annual flux isn’t major either.
I thought the CO2 used to enhance oil recovery came from power plants. So it’s preventing man cause CO2 from entering the atmosphere, rather than taking CO2 out of the atmosphere.
My understanding is that it comes from multiple sources. Whatever is cheapest or most convenient is used.
Does it really make a difference whether human-generated emissions are captured before they have a chance to enter the atmosphere as long as humans are responsible for sequestering it? As far as accounting is concerned, anthropogenic emissions are not measured, but are estimated from fuel sales.
It’s fine if you want to partition the sinks into natural and anthropogenic categories, that is just accounting. The fact remains that consistently and far outside of any measurement error on the total human emissions, the amount that the count of CO2 molecules go up in any particular period is only about half of the number of CO2 molecules emitted by our processes. If you wish to remove measurement error and internal variability of the natural sources, just look at 10 or 15 annual cycles.
If you want to claim that ocean outgassing is the source of rising CO2 levels, you need to show physical processes for how fossil fuel emissions are coupled to dynamic sinks that only act on our emissions or at least only act on land-based emissions as I pointed out in a previous thread on your recent posting a few days ago.
Then you need to show that the natural sinks over oceans are far out of balance with natural sources. If you have evidence of that, please show it.
If fossil fuel emissions are always consumed by some coupled sink such as the land-based biosphere, then logically all land-based sources are subject to the same sort of sink since natural sinks cannot distinguish between CO2 molecules once they are in the air. So a hypothesis that says fossil fuel emissions will be quickly consumed before mixing into the bulk atmosphere must be a hypothesis that only the oceans drive atmospheric CO2 levels. Since such a hypothesis requires that the flux into oceans is very much smaller than the flux out of the oceans, it should be feasible to test empirically. Especially since IPCC science claims that the imbalance goes the other way.
Where’s the evidence of this, or how else is it possible for us to emit about double the amount that is increasing in the atmosphere?
I keep asking this, and keep not getting any answer.
I was correcting your claim that there were no anthropogenic sinks.
I have previously made the case that anthropogenic CO2 is probably underestimated, meaning that an amount less than 40% is retained in the atmosphere. Generally, only fossil fuels and calcining are used to estimate anthro’ CO2.
I don’t agree with your requirement for showing a “dynamic link.” First off, I’m not claiming that outgassing is even the primary source of rising CO2 levels, let alone the exclusive source. My previous recent articles have made the point that the major rise in CO2 is during the Winter/early-Spring. That suggests aerobic bacteria acting on detritus, and respiration from ‘trees’ that are not photosynthetically active. Ocean outgassing during this time will probably be dominated by upwelling deep waters along western coasts. As long as the temperature remains above freezing for the bacteria and fungus, and the roots of trees, the CO2 production will react positively to increasing temperatures. We know that night-time lows and Winter temperatures are increasing more rapidly than daytime and Summer temperatures.
I have not made that claim. It is a strawman argument. I envision the exchanges as a continuous process where the net change in the Winter is increasing, while the net change in Summer is decreasing CO2. The net changes are governed by whether the seasonal imbalances favor emission or absorption.
You have got your answer.
I guess you showed me
Does nature even differentiate between natural CO2 sources and man made ones? My point is this:
Lets say man-made CO2 is 3% of all CO2. Let’s say nature absorbs 30X the amount of human emmisions every year, between all sources. Logically, at maximum, only 0.001% of year on year CO2 gain is due to man made emissions.
Am I way off in my reasoning?
Oh course not. There’s no label attached to the CO2 molecules with a certificate of origin.
I don’t see how it’s possible for so many people to be unable to grasp the basic mass balance (in -out = accumulation)
If accumulation is smaller than the portion of the sources due to human emissions, then the non-human caused effect has to be a net sink. Which obviously means it can’t also be a net source. My formulation assumes that there is one global carbon cycle.
The only way around this would be to imagine that the carbon cycle is not tightly coupled between land and oceans and CO2 is not a well-mixed gas after all.
If they were largely independent and you could also show that land-based emissions (which would correspond to most of our emissions) are somehow rapidly consumed by a highly-dynamic sink, then possibly the land subsystem could be in a neutral or net sink state while the ocean system could be in a net source state. In such a case, the oceans could be responsible for the increase (net accumulation).
I don’t believe this is the case, but just trying to come up with a way that the oceans could be responsible.
In other words trying to keep an open mind without having my brain fall out.
Since human emissions of CO2 are only equal to 4% of all CO2 emissions (which is only roughly equal to the uncertainty in non human emissions), they cannot possibly be responsible for 100% of the increase in atmospheric CO2. This is clearly evidenced by the fact that the rate of increase in CO2 in the atmosphere since records began has not changed commensurately with increases in human emissions in recent history. If you want you can watch 9+ hours of various scientific explanations given by atmosperic physicist Murry Salby where he goes over the physics using multiple different mathematical derivations proving that humans can’t possibly be responsible for the vast majority of the increased atmospheric CO2 of late. Since atmospheric CO2 lags temperature in the long run according to ice core data, it seems logical to me that one should expect that since temperatures have increased over hundreds of years since say the little ice age of, that atmospheric CO2 should be steadily increasing over time as a result of that warming. I have put together a playlist of Murry Salby’s lectures on youtube for your convenience:
He also wrote a textbook on atmosperic physics which you kay find edifying:
Physics of the Atmosphere and Climate https://www.amazon.com/dp/0521767180/ref=cm_sw_r_apan_glt_fabc_TC3R1BV22A1B0MVGJMFE
Not sure why the link to the youtube playlist of all his lectures somehow got converted to an attempted embed/link to only the first one of his lectures but I will try again:
If you can find a way to shut the mouths of politicians and their ecohippie buddies, you’ll solve the entire problem. It’s a real shame that a branch of science has been so corrupted by anyone (and you know who they are) that it is no longer science: it’s a religious movement.
I can only imagine all those chubby, overfed politicians gathering in a clutch in the middle of winter, doffing their clothing in a blizzard and chanting nonsense until their become icepops. And it’s all because their predictions of the planet “burning up” were completely wrong…..
This is a common argument here; it can’t possibly do anything at a level of 0.04%. At that level, if the gas is HCN or H2S, you are eventually going to die, so don’t say it doesn’t matter because the concentration is small. It depends on a lot of things…
But those same wispy heights can still heat the savannah below because carbon traps it gives up back radiation from the freezing air and beams it down to the hotter surface and makes it hotterer.
Next time I want to cool something I’ll just leave it near the fridge . .
No you go that wrong Geoffrey, next time I want to warn my sandwich I’ll leave it next to my fridge’s open door 🙂
More foolishness. I respond only to defend the rationality of skepticism so that alarmists who try to say that WUWT has only irrational comments like yours will be forced to take your comment out of context.
The greenhouse effect, which is almost entirely due to water vapor, is a real thing. Energy from molecules radiating goes in all directions independent of the temperature of the objects that happen to be in the path. So radiation energy from a relatively cold object does impinge on objects that are relatively warmer. That doesn’t heat those objects because the warmer objects are radiating more energy in the other direction. It only slows the rate of cooling.
Because the hotter object radiates more, the flow of heat is always from hot to cold.
If you care about changing people’s minds on climate change alarmism, please stick to the real science. Claiming that there’s no greenhouse effect is no better than The Science ™ driving the alarmist agenda and allows them to dismiss valid skeptical arguments along with your errors.
Where is your sense of humor?
Yeah I’m just dead serious all the time. It’s a flaw.
Things that are funny are unexpected but with some element of truth and follow a certain logic even if the logic is twisted.
J Cuttance probably intended to be humorous but it was based on ridicule of reality, so no kernel of truth, no unexpected recognition of something true.
His/her comment supports a narrative that ultimately undermines global warming skepticism by painting us as science deniers.
I’m all for humor and ridicule of climate zealotry, but if the humor argues against reality, it’s counterproductive.
I understand your concern,. Alarmists rarely exhibit humor and may take a tongue in cheek comment seriously.
It has happened to me on occasion but has never stopped me from making stupid remarks that seemed funny to me.
It can be funny observing the indignation of some who do not see the humor.
Humor should be enjoyed without analysis.
JCuttance’s comment was supposed to be funny by ridiculing the idea of a greenhouse effect and misrepresenting what is meant by it. So it’s only funny if you reject the theory which is accepted as true by Anthony Watts and as far as I’m aware, every regular contributor to WUWT. Otherwise it’s not funny at all. If not challenged, it’s left to be seen as representing skeptical thinking on WUWT.
It’s a bit like being in a group of people and not sticking up for someone who is being unfairly criticized. People assume that you agree with the unfair criticism. Maybe others seeing you say nothing decide that they too should think that way.
“Because the hotter object radiates more, the NET flow of heat is always from hot to cold.”
That is true, however if the colder object is warmer than what was there before, then the NET flow is decreased.
Net energy flow from radiation yes. But the surface isn’t heated by back radiation, cooling of the surface is just reduced by the cool GHGs that are shielding the surface from frigid deep space.
He’s on ski trip – on top of Kilimanjaro.
Out looking for man-bear-pig.
Wonder how Al Gore feels about ‘inconvenient facts’ . .
He’s crying all the way to the bank to deposit his royalties.
More than a decade ago a UK judge rules that Al Gore’s Inconvenient Truth couldn’t be shown in schools without correcting 9 scientific errors. Mainly the pessimistic tone.
But also including that:
Well, actually it was human induced climate change. They were cutting the trees downslope, reducing the water vapor in the local air that would have been present from the transpiration of water from the leaves. Just not the sort of change they were claiming.
except even that didnt make a differance
D. J. Hawkins,
As you admit, the climate change was “not the sort of change they [i.e. Al Gore et al] were claiming”. In other words, the judge was right.
I fail to understand why your nit-picking obtained some positive votes except, perhaps, from some trolls who may have thought your comment could be used to imply Al Gore was not wrong. But he was wrong.
Complaining (once again) about how people vote earns you downvotes from me.
Voting down a reasoned complain because of your prejudice informs about you and nothing else.
In this case, the negative vote was applied to a factually accurate statement, and – as your comment asserts – trolls don’t like evidenced fact.
Complaining about how other people vote is not and never is “a reasoned complain (sic)” you are upset because someone didn’t vote the way you think they should. Boo Hoo. cry me a river. Your complaint about my downvoting also earned you a downvote. Go ahead and complain about that one too, I’ll happily give your next complaining post a downvote as well. Your meltdown over how people vote informs about you and nothing else.
and BTW, the post you were complaining, which you called “nit picking” about getting a positive vote, was also “factually accurate” (as your choice of the phrase nit-picking attests), so not only are you a complaining ass about something trivial (how people vote), you are a hypocrite while doing so!
climate change, a most convenient lie.
Ever since I was about 10 years old I have wanted to climb Kilimanjaro. I’m 60 today, and I can’t help feeling the last 50 years are an opportunity missed.
It’s not too late. I climbed it a few years ago – I wasn’t 60 then, but I’m 70 now and could do it again.
Do it now if you still can. After 60 things tend to go downhill.
The late lamented Christopher Booker used to take Al Gore to task in his Sunday Telegraph column over his Kilimanjaro claims. He pointed out that the period of reduced snow cover was not associated with raised temperatures, but with a reduction in local humidity which was due to deforestation on the lower slopes.
In my opinion, that certainly looks to be a factor, but I doubt it is the whole story.
Gore is an ass.
Scientists like Professor Lonnie Thompson, Ohio State University, (ice core guy) said that Kilimanjaro’s ice fields would be gone by around the years 2015-2020. Fail.
There is still much debate in “settled science” about what is affecting change on Kilimanjaro.
I had the huge honour and joy back in the nineties of backpacking up that mountain, an absolute jewel in natures crown.
But, but but… snow is caused by global warming. I’m sure I read that somewhere. 😉
While it’s always fun to bash warmunists for their silly game, I don’t like the idea that we’re playing their game at all. Pick some place on earth that is in a marginal, unusual situation … be it a village that is built 1 foot above sea level, or a lone mountain in Africa that is so tall it gets snow on the peak … and that is used as the damning measure of the horrors of global warming.
It’s all bullshit.
The islanders living 1 ft above sea level need to move to higher ground, and never should have built their village just 1 ft above sea level (DUH!).
Similarly, there is no ski industry on Mt. Kilamanjaro, and all Africans live in either the tropics or the subtropics – so no, none of them are every going to notice is the mountain has snow on it or not.
We need to stay consistent in arguing that warming is good for the planet and virtually all living things on the planet, and that CO2 is good, the more the better.
They make a claim, we refute the claim. How is that “playing their game”?
When you ‘re on defense, you’re not on offense. You can never win a war only with defense. That is “playing their game”.
When they say a mountain is losing its snow, don’t bother arguing that, because that only plays defense. Instead, say, “so WHAT if the mountain is losing its snow .. that doesn’t affect any human on earth, and the obvious fact is that warming is far better for humans than cooling.”
THAT is playing offense .. our game.
Where Is Al Gore?
He has a very large network, but he’ll be lining his pockets wherever he happens to be
“…the very first people tagged in the initial Thunberg school strike tweet by We Don’t Have Time founder, Ingmar Rentzhog, were the following five twitter users: Greta Thunberg, This Is Zero Hour, Jamie Margoli, the teenage founder of This Is Zero Hour, Al Gore’s Climate Reality Project and the People’s Climate Strike twitter account (in the identical font and aesthetics as 350.org).
The first tweets from any given NGO twitter accounts are important as they often reveal exactly for what purpose/action the account was created for. In this particular instance, the very first tweet from the People’s Climate Strike account contained the hashtag #floodthesystem (July 24, 2015). This hashtag was devised to promote the action named Flood Wall Street, which took place on September 28, 2015, leading up to the second People’s Climate March on November 29, 2015
The strategy behind devising different social media accounts affiliated with hashtags, campaigns and NGO manufactured movements, is that one will catch fire. “
Through the 60s and 70s capitalism became somewhat ashamed of the profit motive and began to seek to appear to do some social good. BLM and trans show how far that has now gone. Milton Friedman warned of it, Gore has more than, er, capitalised on it.
Mother Nature, the ultimate Denier, strikes again!
The above article is fact-based, very well-reasoned, concise and to-the-point . . . and directly decimating to Al Gore’s climate alarmism and, in turn, to the Norwegian Nobel Committee’s selection of him as co-winner of the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize (shared with the IPCC . . . talk about two peas of the same pod).
The natural auto-reaction for good progressives is to presume this real snow data is denier propaganda.
That keeps them safe and free to proceed with their climate crusade they are so thoroughly, emotionally invested in.
Which “peak” of Kilimanjaro was manbearpig refering too?
A NASA website makes the same claim.
Thanks, Guest. The link contains this:
‘According to Professor Lonnie Thompson, Ohio State University, Kilimanjaro’s ice fields could be gone by the year 2020.’
That’s Al’s supposed friend and buddy Lonnie Thompson, quoted in Gore’s book as I recall.
C500, perhaps you have several typos for Loonie Thompson?
“Snowfall EVERY DAY Atop Kilimanjaro – Where Is Al Gore?”
If we trust The Gore Effect, the answer is: Atop Kilimanjaro
From the article: “Not only does snow still fall atop Kilimanjaro, the mountain has had snow cover every single day since Gore made his movie.”
Some reporter ought to ask ole Al about his failed prediction. Has Al ever made a climate prediction that came true? I can’t think of any.
Talking of Al Gore –
Move aside ManBearPig –
here comes the SnailFrogTurtle
And there was actually a blizzard warning for Hawaii during the recent Kona low…which I got to experience first hand.
No, not the blizzard stuff (escaped from Trudeautopia after all), but the rain…was something to see. Not to mention the 25+ foot waves at Jaws.
Too bad EH is not still around; we could ask him to write about it.
We all have a credit score. Wouldn’t it be great if public figures could be given a BS score as well. Saying “His BS score is over 600, so you can ignore him” would be far more effective than simply saying he’s talking nonsense.
Or, alternatively, maybe WUWT could publish, at the end of each year, a ranked list of the worst BSers. Suitably documented, of course.
Once I’d read Gore’s book when it came out, I concluded that it was nothing but propaganda.
It went into the recycling bin – clearly the best place for it, and a correct decision.
My dad flew TBMs in the Pacific against Japan. Has pictures of the mountain with and without snow cap. 1945