Gore has wanted to get even with the US since his chads gut hung, but nature just won’t cooperate.
h/t to TinyCO2
Disrupting the Borg is expensive and time consuming!
Google Search
-
Recent Posts
- Al Gore’s Arctic Forecast
- Mann Says He Was Correct
- “under the Intermediate Scenario”
- “under the Intermediate Scenario”
- “carbon emissions may have now peaked”
- Record Arctic Sea Ice Growth
- “4th Hottest Summer”
- Killing Joshua Trees To Save Them
- NASA Sea Level
- “getting smaller”
- “Permanent Shift” In Antarctic Sea Ice
- Rapidly Accelerating Sea Level Rise
- Technology Advances
- “The Hour Of Decision”
- “fair & equitable”
- Michael Mann Continues His War
- Time Travelling Satellites
- Time Traveling Satellites
- Adult Content On X
- The Climate Of 1923
- Arctic Report Card
- Green Colorado
- Hottest Summer Ever
- “Sea ice could be gone by 2012, scientists warn”
- Record CO2 Growth
Recent Comments
- D. Boss on Mann Says He Was Correct
- Michael L Dee on Al Gore’s Arctic Forecast
- Bob G on Mann Says He Was Correct
- conrad ziefle on Mann Says He Was Correct
- Mike Peinsipp on Mann Says He Was Correct
- Mike Peinsipp on Mann Says He Was Correct
- Disillusioned on Al Gore’s Arctic Forecast
- Disillusioned on Mann Says He Was Correct
- Gamecock on Mann Says He Was Correct
- toorightmate on Mann Says He Was Correct
I wonder if Gore will admit he was wrong about this?
I just don’t trust people who won’t admit mistakes.
Obsess much?
Earlier today you described this story as “TOTAL BS”
Steve,
there must be some other Tony/ I never said this story was BS.
As I recall I was considering the possibility that a travel reporter might not have all the pertinent information to make conclusions about anything related to climate change
I copied and pasted your exact capital letters
Steve,
that is very funny.
In my comment I was agreeing with Sunsettomy that what I wrote was B.S. Because of COURSE we should believe travel tourism reporters over any sort of science.
my you have a short memory.
Obviously the travel reporter was correct, and your religion was blasphemed.
I like how they adjust the prediction: “New studies indicate….several more decades”. Oops! Old crystal ball no good! New, better crystal ball, good!
Kilamanjaro’s ice cap was observed to be dwindling since the 1880s.
Kilimanjaro’s vanishing ice due to tree-felling
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.gloplacha.2010.08.001
“the famed snowcap is stubbornly….”
Do models factor in “stubborness”?
We have said all along that the science is settled, sometimes we have to adjust our predictions forward several decades because they don’t happen. You deniers like to twist these necessary recomputations from model adjustments as ‘moving the goal posts.’ It is unfair to consider it as such, because our previously settled science of AGW meaning less snow has now been slightly updated to AGW means more snow, so thus we have all along said that the snow would not disappear from Kilimanjaro because AGW causes more snow, as well as that the snow will disappear from Kilimanjaro as AGW causes less snow. Either scenario is not inconsistant with AGW. Thank you.