This site is a reference point for those with a cool head for climate science, arguably the most political science ever. When the government and most of the media concentrate on alarmism, this site is the antidote for those who don't believe the scare stories - YOU ARE NOT ALONE! (blog started on 7/11/07) We have over 1.9 million hits and blog is updated regularly most weeks.
Sunday 15 November 2009
KILIMANJARO SNOW MELT NOT DUE TO GW
Christopher Booker explains the real reason for the loss of ice and snow on the famous volcano. This myth is constantly trotted out by alarmists, who must be desparate to find examples, when they repeat such an easily disproved one.
So - yes, Booker is right, in that there's variation over millenia, but wrong, it seems, about the current retreat. Indeed, we're in a moist period in Kilimanjaro's history, so the reverse should be happening.
Booker seems to be confusing natural variation with "no climate effect."
I don't believe in living in fear. I do believe, however, in moderation and responsibility. I drive my bike everyday, do my shopping and take my kid to school in it. I think the word 'could' in your intro above is very important. Also, language like 'Explain the REAL reason' seems to be the type of rhetoric you accuse the 'alarmists' of using. 'Proposing' or 'claiming' would be more honest terms.
Except that the evidence doesn't show that:
ReplyDeletehttp://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/12/andrew_bolts_mountain_of_infor.php
So - yes, Booker is right, in that there's variation over millenia, but wrong, it seems, about the current retreat. Indeed, we're in a moist period in Kilimanjaro's history, so the reverse should be happening.
Booker seems to be confusing natural variation with "no climate effect."
I don't believe in living in fear. I do believe, however, in moderation and responsibility. I drive my bike everyday, do my shopping and take my kid to school in it. I think the word 'could' in your intro above is very important. Also, language like 'Explain the REAL reason' seems to be the type of rhetoric you accuse the 'alarmists' of using. 'Proposing' or 'claiming' would be more honest terms.
ReplyDelete