One wonders how Knudson managed to get funding from the Alicia Patterson Foundation, which provides ''support for journalists engaged in rigorous, probing, spirited, independent and skeptical work that will benefit the public''.
For a start, he cannot be regarded as a skeptic, as he takes anthropogenic global warming for granted.
The material on which he bases his paper leaves a lot to be desired, viz. quotes from people who explored those mountains over 100 years ago, no reliable historical climate data since, some hearsay "evidence" from locals, and some assertions of others.
Given the Glaciergate scandal, even the IPCC may be reluctant to regard his paper as useful.

Raycom...there is no doubt that glaciers are retreating. "GlacierGate" was just that in the thousands of anecdotal sources, one particularly speculative opinion was quoted from a NewScientist article. This does not mean that all anecdotal evidence on glacier retreat is in any way compromised, just that guesses based on such observation have no place next to more rigorous analysis. The opinion in question (We could lose Himalayan glaciers in 25 - 35 years) is not wrong per-se, just speculation.
It is possible to be sceptical (indeed it is an absolute necessity for science) but still take on board the prevailing best theory. When evidence for a theory piles up in such detail that any competing theory must be essentially identical (as it must explain the same results) then it is quite right that such a theory is "accepted". Not "believed", nor unquestionably accepted, but provisionally accepted as a framework for new data to be compared with.
Personally I find the "opinion" of a local who has seen an entire glacier disappear pretty convincing! (Imagine Sydney Harbour being drained and then visitors treating your "opinion" that water used to be there with doubt! Local glaciers are pretty important features!)
There is no climatological evidence for anything but Global Warming. Some anecdotal stuff may be just "supporting", but the heavy stuff is overwhelmingly convincing.
There is no theory that allows CO2 concentrations to be doubled without consequence. Assertions that CO2 has no real impact have produced no predictions, and certainly no real science has been done on this assertion's basis.
Where is the money: Environmental awareness, or business as usual? Fears of a Powerful worldwide Green conspiracy are just absurd.

Ozandy They have been saying that Arctic ice is retreating. But it comes and goes with climate cycles. For instance, on 2 November 1922, the Washington Post reported that the Arctic Ocean is warming up, icebergs are becoming scarcer, while at many points well known glaciers have entirely disappeared.
Similarly glaciers are subject to climate cycles. Attributing the retreating of glaciers to anthropogenic CO2 emissions is assertion, if not speculation. The influence of solar cycles is an area that warrants far more research.

meh, it's universally agreed now that the consensus of thought on retreating snow on Kilamanjaro is due to deforrestation, not man made climate change.

ozandy "Personally I find the "opinion" of a local who has seen an entire glacier disappear pretty convincing!"

Only the one opinion?

So if another person said they didn't see that, is it not as "convincing"?

Is that all it takes to convince you folks, one opinion? Albeit one you were already predisposed to.

I can see why the IPCC has such an easy time of it.

sheesh!

No room for skepticsm there!

Billions of $ spent on trying to prove man is the cause changing the climate, more than it does on its own - and all the breathless followers really need, is one opinion! (no facts thanks, just opinions)

Odo says <Only the one opinion? So if another person said they didn't see that, is it not as "convincing"?
Is that all it takes to convince you folks, one opinion? Albeit one you were already predisposed to.,>

In the context of Ozandy's comment on the author's first hand experience he does not have to take into account another contrary opinion as I don't believe one was offered. He is simply stating a reasonable response to the observation; you obviously chose to ignore the rest of the paragraph "(Imagine Sydney Harbour being drained and then visitors treating your "opinion" that water used to be there with doubt! " which demonstrates your predisposition.

The article author was not stating an opinion, he was describing a personal observation on a trek. You also suggest that glacial melting on Kilamanjaro is not related to GW.

As the author says "“The ice fields on Kilimanjaro are substantially higher” than the Rwenzori and therefore less prone to melting, Taylor told me by phone from London. “The glaciers that still exist in the Rwenzori reside somewhere between 4,800 meters and 5,050 meters” - 15,750 to 16,570 feet - making them “more vulnerable to fluctuations in temperature.”

By contrast, the shrinking snowcap on Kilimanjaro is likely due to decreasing humidity, not rising temperatures, he said, adding, “The Rwenzori mountains are the icon of global warming - not Kilimanjaro.”

You choose to cherry pick and ignore what the article is really saying!

If you are going to contribute to this debate (as the name OLO implies it is about opinions not really debate) it would be more useful if you properly read the article first. Then you could plausibly offer your opinion or some scientific explanations as to why you disagree with the articles significant points.