Transterrestrial Musings

Defend Free Speech!

Amazon Honor System Click Here to Pay

Site designed by

Powered by
Movable Type 4.0
Biting Commentary about Infinity, and Beyond!

« They Should | Main | The Economics Of "Free" »

Is The Leopard Still There?

The snows of Kilimanjaro are back.

Not to mention that the arctic icepack is growing.


0 TrackBacks

Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Is The Leopard Still There?.

TrackBack URL for this entry:


Anonymous wrote:

"Snow cover over North America and much of Siberia, Mongolia and China is greater than at any time since 1966."

And... "According to Robert Toggweiler of the Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory at Princeton University and Joellen Russell, assistant professor of biogeochemical dynamics at the University of Arizona -- two prominent climate modellers -- the computer models that show polar ice-melt cooling the oceans, stopping the circulation of warm equatorial water to northern latitudes and triggering another Ice Age (a la the movie The Day After Tomorrow) are all wrong."

Anonymous wrote:

"There's an upside to the extreme cold temperatures northern Canadians have endured in the last few weeks: scientists say it's been helping winter sea ice grow across the Arctic"

I'm curious why they have deemed this an "upside". Do they know something we don't?

mz wrote:

I think it was the Pentagon climate report that claimed the near future stopping of the Gulf stream etc., and some over-the-top press reports too. Researchers have been more reserved about stuff like that.

For example, look at what James Annan said:

An Inconvenient Truth was misleading in this case since it didn't mention any time frames for the Greenland melting, AFAIK.

As for the Kilimanjaro, that's interesting. I don't know whether that snow is predicted to stay there longer again... AFAIK recent evidence has shown that it's probably not just reduced snowfall but actual melting that has been reducing Kilimanjaro's glaciers.

Of course, there are thousands of other glaciers and the total volume is clearly decreasing.

Jeff Mauldin wrote:

I like how in the link you provided, a main point is (sort of) that since the British court said snow on Kilimanjaro isn't connected with global warming, its return doesn't disprove global warming.

So people afraid of global warming lionize Gore for "raising awareness," but claim that inaccuracies in his techniques for raising awareness don't discredit the awareness so raised.

I think that a rational discussion of whether global warming is happening, whether it's being caused by people if it is happening, how bad it's likely to be if it is happening, and whether the resources used to "combat" it would be more usefully applied elsewhere, produces an entirely different awareness than a propaganda movie like Gore's.

mz wrote:

Umm, well, there are for example the IPCC reports that everybody can read, freely available. Have been for, what, 16 years? 1991, 1995, 2001, 2007.

But for some reason the public in many places hasn't noted much. On the reports alone.
So enter Al Gore to raise awareness.
It's too bad that he goes somewhat wrong at times or omits some things in some places, but as a whole the movie is still mostly correct in my view. (Regardless if Gore is an evil socialist or not.)

mz wrote:

Btw interesting, Rand, do you read that CEI & Heartland (fossil funded think tanks) linking "Planet Gore" regularly?

Jay Manifold wrote:

It was afternoon. So this is how it is, this is how it always happens in the afternoon. Obscenity your afternoon. With my last 50 lira I purchased some true and honest Guinness; I took a pull from the bottle. It was good. It burned my mouth and felt good and warm going down my esophagus and into my stomach. From there it went to my kidneys and my bladder, and was good. I remembered then when I last saw Simberg who was still a damn fine writer. It was in Brussels and we looked out the windows at the mountain and drank Guinness in the afternoon. It was afternoon and had been afternoon for some time.

(Generated here.)

Edward Wright wrote:

fossil funded think tanks

Ah, the usual ad hominem "science." Anything reported by the UN must be true, while anything funded by nasty oil companies must be a lie?

Here's a reality check, MZ. Your side is also funded by nasty fossil fuel companies. If you watch television, MZ, you'll see the oil companies are running lots of commercials hyping global warming, solar power, and alternative energy.

So, does that mean we should dismiss everything your side says out of hand, because you're now In The Pocket of Big Oil?

Habitat Hermit wrote:

That was nice Jay and typing "obscenity" as input to the "an obscenity" box gave you more class and style than Hemingway, not bad! ^_^

The errors/mismatch just gave everything else more emphasis (Hemingway is doing about 120 rpm at the moment, give or take a few rpm's --haven't hooked up the generator yet).

Jay Manifold wrote:

I typed an actual obscenity. The script bowdlerized it. It was morning. ;^)

mz wrote:

Nah, the science I quote is not funded by oil companies. The pro-AGW ads don't discredit the science, nor does Al Gore doing this or that. There's very little of no-AGW *science* anywhere - because it's mostly simply wrong.

Leave a comment

Note: The comment system is functional, but timing out when returning a response page. If you have submitted a comment, DON'T RESUBMIT IT IF/WHEN IT HANGS UP AND GIVES YOU A "500" PAGE. Simply click your browser "Back" button to the post page, and then refresh to see your comment.

About this Entry

This page contains a single entry by Rand Simberg published on February 25, 2008 2:06 PM.

They Should was the previous entry in this blog.

The Economics Of "Free" is the next entry in this blog.

Find recent content on the main index or look in the archives to find all content.

Powered by Movable Type 4.1