The article admits that temperatures at the summit of Kilimanjaro never rise above freezing; but the salient quote is:
"...Kilimanjaro has seen its glaciers decline steadily for well over a century — since long before humans began pumping large amounts of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere,..."
...it then goes on to spout a load of half-truth and BS about "global warming" and "climate change".
In fact, the very next paragraph reads: "Most of the world's glaciers didn't begin their precipitous declines until the 1970s, when measurable global warming first appeared."
And of course that's completely wrong. I'll say it again: Total temperature increase for the 20th century was about 1°F and most of that occurred before 1940. "Measurable global warming" did not first appear in the 1970s; it has been occurring since the end of the Little Ice Age.
"Measurable global warming"? Compared to what year? And, by the way, let me again reiterate that their invocation of "most of the world's glaciers" is also wrong. There are just as many glaciers which are growing as ones which are shrinking, and no one knows why. Yet the article repeats the incorrect assertion that "nearly every other glacier around the globe is melting away".
And the authors of this study fret that "global warming naysayers" will use their work as a tool to convince people that global warming isn't happening.
Let me say this again.
No reasonable people are saying that global warming isn't happening. Most knowledgable people--most people who follow the science--understand that global warming is indeed taking place. As I said above, there is a proven one-degree F rise in global temperature over the course of the 20th century. In fact, I heartily believe that Earth is warmer now than it was in 1907; I consider it proven that Earth is warmer now than it was in 1807, too.
But I disagree that "global warming=man made=apocalypse". That is what makes me a "global warming naysayer". Anyone who disagrees with the anointed, anyone who thinks that anthropogenic global warming has not been proven or even satisfactorily demonstrated is a "global warming naysayer".
It is much easier to dismiss people who disagree with you as "stupid", with their "heads-in-the-sand" than defend your conclusions, especially when your conclusions are based on faulty premesis. ("Everybody in the field agrees with me" is not proof. Everybody agreed that the Earth was the center of the universe for a long time, too.)
If the case for "global warming=man made=apocalypse" was actually as strong as they all say it is, wouldn't those proofs be all over the place? Wouldn't there be things they could point to--other than computer models, fudged "hockey stick" graphs, and anecdotal evidence--which would show that there really is a problem?
But the ice core data demonstrates that CO2 cocentrations lag, not lead, temperature changes, which suggests that global warming causes higher carbon dioxide concentrations, rather than the other way around. How do the warmistas explain that? Or do they bother?
One of the most important lessons I took from my freshman college Abnormal Psychology course was this statement: "Correlation does not imply causality." It means that if you have two things which have similar trends, it does not mean that one thing caused the other.
For example, red cars have higher accident rates than white cars. What does that mean? Does that mean that red cars are inherently more dangerous?
Of course it doesn't. There are other factors, such as the fact that people tend to buy sports cars which are painted red, and sports cars tend to have higher accident rates than other types.
But don't bother trying to explain such things to the "global warming=man made=apocalypse" crowd. They'll call you names.