Originally Posted by jazzguru
Read the following carefully:
An increase in CO2 did not cause Kilimanjaro's ice to melt.
People cut a bunch of trees down around Kilimanjaro which - according to the study referenced in the link I posted - is believed to be the cause of the ice melting.
I was not one of those people who cut down said trees, nor did I advocate for their removal.
I am not responsible for Kilimanjaro's ice melting.
Therefore, you can no longer use Kilimanjaro's ice melting as an excuse to take away my freedom to choose.
Please let me know if this is too difficult for you to understand.
AGGRESSIVE tree-felling on mount Kilimanjaro could be partly to blame for its vanishing ice cap.
The ice on Kilimanjaro's summit has shrunk to just 15 per cent of its extent in 1912, leading campaigners to hold it up as a symbol of climate change. But other factors are also at play. For instance, the air at the summit is getting drier, reducing the snowfall that replenishes the ice and reflects solar radiation.
Although the article does state that the aggressive tree felling is a possible contributing factor for the ice cap shrinking, it does not rule out global warming and changing weather patterns.
One example that seems to controvert Global Warming does not make the theory incorrect. This is not an exact science. To illustrate this point:
Himalayan Melting: How a Climate Panel Got It Wrong
By BRYAN WALSH
[A] new scandal broke over climate science. Faced with criticism of a widely quoted piece of analysis from its 2007 climate assessment that warned that Himalayan glaciers could melt by 2035, the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was forced to admit to relying on dubious scientific sources, apologized and retracted its earlier estimate. That estimate of the rate of Himalayan glacier loss because of warming, which appeared in the same assessment that earned the global body a share of the Nobel Peace Prize, was "poorly substantiated," the IPCC said.
To say the least. The controversy stems from a single paragraph in Chapter 10 of the report's second section, which claimed that glaciers in the Himalayas were receding faster than in any other part of the world, and that "if the present rate continues, the likelihood of them disappearing by the year 2035 or perhaps sooner is very high if the Earth keeps warming at its current rate." Glaciologists have been doubtful of that 2035 date since the report came out.
It turns out the 2035 estimate came not from a peer-reviewed scientific paper but from an interview conducted in 1999 by New Scientist magazine with the Indian glaciologist Syed Hasnain. The article, which included a "speculative" claim by Hasnain that the Himalayan glaciers could vanish by 2035, then became part of a 2005 report by the World Wildlife Fund and that report, apparently, became the source for the IPCC claim.
It's still not clear exactly how the error made it into the IPCC's assessment, though climate scientists point out that the document was thousands of pages long and that the Himalaya claim wasn't included in the summary of the report, which was boiled down for policymakers and received the most attention from reviewers. "Honest mistakes do happen," admits Benjamin Santer, a climate modeler at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. "The bulk of the science is clear and compelling and rests on multiple lines of evidence," he says, not just one case.
Indeed, while Himalayan ice will almost certainly still be here in 2035, it is definitely melting and that will have a serious impact on the billions of people in Asia who depend at least partially on Himalayan meltwater. Yao Tandong, head of China's Institute of Tibetan Plateau Research, has done on-the-ground research on the Chinese side of the Himalayas the world's biggest collection of ice outside the two poles and reported last year that by the end of the century, as much as 70% of the mountain range's glaciers could disappear. And far from providing evidence against climate change, nearly all alpine glaciers worldwide that have been tracked have shown significant melting over the past several decades often documented in photographs. "It's happening globally, in Europe, North America, China and the Himalayas," says Lonnie Thompson, a glacier expert at Ohio State University. "More than 90% of the world's glaciers are retreating. Glaciers have no political agenda."
However, while climate scientists have built a nearly airtight case that climate change is happening and that manmade greenhouse-gas emissions are the primary cause, the IPCC's error demonstrates that it is still difficult to make tight predictions about the future especially on a regional or local level.
Beyond that, the mere appearance of scientific impropriety might be enough to turn off those who are doubtful about global warming or just doubtful that the case is strong enough to warrant passing cap and trade.
The Himalayan along with the Kilimanjaro examples might be used by the anti Global Warming lobby to prove that the theory is rift with errors, but the above article does point out that the theory is correct.
[W]hile climate scientists have built a nearly airtight case that climate change is happening and that manmade greenhouse-gas emissions are the primary cause, the IPCC's error demonstrates that it is still difficult to make tight predictions about the future.
But for the sake of argument, let's say that the Global Warming--Climate Change Theory is wrong---what would be the damage in implementing some of the policies? Using less fossil fuels would clean up the environment, and the petroleum could be used to make plastics, fertilizers, etc. More efficient use of energy and conversion to alternate energy will also clean up the environment and save some rivers.