Get E-Mail Updates

The Vanishing Scenery of Glacier National Park

If anyone still doesn't believe in global warming, come to Glacier National Park. My wife Karin and I just spent two days of our vacation here. We haven't been here in 20 years, and first visited about 30 years ago. It's a majestic wonderland, and from what I've seen, it's probably the most spectacular mountain scenery in the lower 48 states.

Glaciers carved out this scenery millions of years ago, and glaciers still exist here today. When first seen by early explorers a little more than a century ago, 136 glaciers were identified, named, and documented in the Glacier National Park area. Today, there are 25 left. For the past 15 years, one glacier has been lost annually.

Karin and I reached Logan Pass, the summit of the famous Going to the Sun Road. We stopped at the Visitor's Center and listened to a talk by a National Park Ranger on the glaciers. Scientists studying the retreat and melting of the glaciers originally estimated that all the glaciers in Glacier National Park would be gone by 2030. Now they have revised that estimate to 2020, 11 years from now.

It's true, the ranger explained, that there have been some "normal" cycles of warming and cooling over many thousands of years affecting things like glaciers, icecaps, etc. But the rate of glaciers melting in this park is unnatural and unprecedented, faster than at any time known in history. It is clearly the result of the burning of fossil fuels, and human actions raising the earth's temperature.

But here's the thing. For Karin and me, this is personal experience. We remember visiting Glacier National Park when our son was a toddler-probably 2 or 3-and our daughter was an infant. (Today, they are 25 and 27.) We were with our brother and sister-in-law. At Logan Pass, we hiked out on the trail. J.K., our son, was on the shoulders of his uncle Dan. Karin and I remember what the glaciers looked like. We recalled where the snow and ice were. We knew vividly what Jackson Glacier looked like at the time, and others. And the difference in what we saw this past Monday was stunning.

It's one thing to talk about global warming as a theory. It's another thing to be some place where you can see and experience its effects first hand. I began working on the threat of global warming, and the response of Christians, when I started my service with the World Council of Churches in 1988. There were plenty of skeptics at the time. But today, most recognize how the human causes of climate change are an assault on the gift of God's good creation, and a betrayal of our biblical responsibility to serve as stewards and earth-keepers. Yet, in the two decades since then, the glaciers have been melting faster than ever.

Last month the House of Representatives passed legislation to address climate change. It calls for a 17 percent reduction of greenhouse gases by 2020 (when the last of the glaciers I saw Monday would be gone), and 83 percent by 2050. My friends who follow this closely, like Jim Ball of the Evangelical Environmental Network and John Carr at the U.S. Catholic Conference, worry that its provisions are not strong enough, and that funds to assist developing nations to make adaptations in their greenhouse emissions are completely inadequate. Even so, lobbyists are pushing to significantly weaken what the Senate will pass.

Members of Congress are going home for the August recess. Why not send them to visit Glacier National Park? Examine the evidence. Melting glaciers are like the canary in the coal mine. In the end, this isn't about scenery. It's about survival, especially for the poor and vulnerable, who have the least defenses and will be the most seriously affected by the patterns of drought, rising sea levels, and intensification of hurricanes that result from climate change.

Wes Granberg-Michaelson is General Secretary of the Reformed Church in America.

Sojourners relies on the support of readers like you to sustain our message and ministry.

by: ZZZeke

08-08-2009 @ 2:43am

Here are some reasoned scientific studies, and some arguments that show inconsistencies and lack of scientific method in much of the "settled" research:

http://xtronics.com/reference/globalwarming.htm

As for the Skeptic page cited above, it lists several experts in climatology that dispute the "settled" research.

by: Anothernonymous

08-08-2009 @ 12:49pm

"As for the Skeptic page cited above, it lists several experts in climatology that dispute the "settled" research."

No it doesn't.

As for the other site referenced by ZZZeke, its level of integrity can be inferred from the fact that much of its argument is based on the suggestion that the noted physicist Richard Feynman, who has been dead for 21 years, would disagree with the current consensus about global warming.

Who are you going to believe?

by: irodle

08-08-2009 @ 2:38pm

If he were alive today, I think Richard Feynman may have something to say about how the research on global warming has been done and how much of the results are automatically explained in a way that "proves" the hypothesis with no reference to what else may be at play. The article about "cargo cult" science was long, but very interesting and so true. That Feynman has been dead for 21 years does not negate the wisdom he taught in the article. It seems to me that a lot of the research and conclusions have been based on relatively short-term data that has been collected and then processed through mathematical models to predict an outcome. Meteorologists do this today and how many times do we curse the weatherman for faulty predictions?...and that is only days in the future. Mathematical modeling is complicated in even the simplest of problems and with much data. The issue of global warming is hugely complicated. Are all of the vast numbers of complicating factors being considered...do we know them all? If we think we do, are we fooling ourselves? (If you want to know how we have fooled ourselves in what is important in nutrition, check out Michael Pollan's "In Defense of Food". Same thing applies here.) And, btw, I would like to see data that isn't out to prove anything. Anyone can present data to prove his/her cause or can use data to prove a pre-conceived erroneous conclusion. Not saying global warming isn't an issue, but I am a skeptic...and a trained scientist and mathematician.

by: Anothernonymous

08-11-2009 @ 4:03pm

Here's some follow-up. I forwarded the xtronics link about Richard Feynman to a well-known physicist and best-selling author who is probably the intellectual successor to Feynman in terms of promoting educated skepticism about trendy scientific orthodoxies. His response (drum roll please):

by: ZZZeke

08-08-2009 @ 2:43am

Here are some reasoned scientific studies, and some arguments that show inconsistencies and lack of scientific method in much of the "settled" research:

http://xtronics.com/reference/globalwarming.htm

As for the Skeptic page cited above, it lists several experts in climatology that dispute the "settled" research.

by: Anothernonymous

08-08-2009 @ 12:49pm

"As for the Skeptic page cited above, it lists several experts in climatology that dispute the "settled" research."

No it doesn't.

As for the other site referenced by ZZZeke, its level of integrity can be inferred from the fact that much of its argument is based on the suggestion that the noted physicist Richard Feynman, who has been dead for 21 years, would disagree with the current consensus about global warming.

Who are you going to believe?

by: irodle

08-08-2009 @ 2:38pm

If he were alive today, I think Richard Feynman may have something to say about how the research on global warming has been done and how much of the results are automatically explained in a way that "proves" the hypothesis with no reference to what else may be at play. The article about "cargo cult" science was long, but very interesting and so true. That Feynman has been dead for 21 years does not negate the wisdom he taught in the article. It seems to me that a lot of the research and conclusions have been based on relatively short-term data that has been collected and then processed through mathematical models to predict an outcome. Meteorologists do this today and how many times do we curse the weatherman for faulty predictions?...and that is only days in the future. Mathematical modeling is complicated in even the simplest of problems and with much data. The issue of global warming is hugely complicated. Are all of the vast numbers of complicating factors being considered...do we know them all? If we think we do, are we fooling ourselves? (If you want to know how we have fooled ourselves in what is important in nutrition, check out Michael Pollan's "In Defense of Food". Same thing applies here.) And, btw, I would like to see data that isn't out to prove anything. Anyone can present data to prove his/her cause or can use data to prove a pre-conceived erroneous conclusion. Not saying global warming isn't an issue, but I am a skeptic...and a trained scientist and mathematician.

by: Anothernonymous

08-11-2009 @ 4:03pm

Here's some follow-up. I forwarded the xtronics link about Richard Feynman to a well-known physicist and best-selling author who is probably the intellectual successor to Feynman in terms of promoting educated skepticism about trendy scientific orthodoxies. His response (drum roll please):

by: JohnTBall

09-17-2009 @ 4:20am

Ice in the past have shown everything from old Japanese temples, samurai, dragons, and today's athletes, ice best snow blower girls, political figures, and fifty feet tall dinosaur.

by: JohnTBall

09-17-2009 @ 2:20am

Ice in the past have shown everything from old Japanese temples, samurai, dragons, and today's athletes, ice best snow blower girls, political figures, and fifty feet tall dinosaur.

by: justintime

08-06-2009 @ 3:25pm

My brother and I hiked up to Grinnell Glacier in Glacier National Park in the early sixties.
What a tragedy that all of the glaciers in the Park will have vanished 11 years from now.
Last summer a friend and I hiked up to the Nooksack Glacier in the North Cascades National Park.
See the Nooksack Glacier panorama at:
nooksackcirque.com
Rangers told us the Nooksack Glacier is only 40% of its 1964 mass and that all of the glaciers in the North Cascades will have vanished by 2030.
Last month we hiked to the Nisqually Glacier on Mount Rainier.
The Nisqually Glacier has retreated 2 miles since 1880 when ice cream cones were sold at the lower bridge.
The Himalayan glaciers are also vanishing, which will have a catastrophic effect on agriculture in China and India.
Take note, global warming deniers!

by: ohiovania

08-06-2009 @ 3:33pm

Very nice piece about climate change. I understand the premise of your piece was not that "Glaciers carved out this scenery millions of years ago," but I believe that such statements are vestiges of an opinion or particular theory that has never been proven and can't be proven with true science. Science being "The systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment." Although we can observe these structures now, The study of things through observation wasn't even thought of until about 400 years ago. They are only believed to be carved, however long ago, in the past.

I apologize for my extra sensitivity about this topic and I mean you no disesteem. I enjoyed your piece and support the environmentally conscious movement.

by: justintime

08-06-2009 @ 3:36pm

I believe that such statements are vestiges of an opinion or particular theory that has never been proven and can't be proven with true science.

What are you trying to say , Ohiovania?

by: Daylight

08-06-2009 @ 6:09pm

"If anyone still doesn't believe in global warming, come to Glacier National Park."

I believe in God and His son Jesus Christ. Almost everything outside of that is suspect.

Has the glacier ice melted? You bet. The evidence is glaring. Did man cause it? I am asked to believe so. That evidence is not so obvious.

My biggest skepticism is wondering what caused the ancient glaciers to melt, like the one that once covered northern Indiana where I live? It certainly wasn't man and his carbon emitting industry. Seems to me this has been going on for a very long time with intervals of cooling to slow down the glaciers melting and sometimes even advancing them a bit.

The Bible says that there is nothing new under the sun, this I also "believe".

by: opapyhasypi

08-06-2009 @ 7:26pm

by: philiaagape

08-06-2009 @ 7:35pm

This article should primarily be read as a commentary on the changing experience one may have at Glacier National Park. However, it should not be read as an explanation of those changes.

These two statements go unproven, and the author hinges his argument for global climate change too much on them:

"But the rate of glaciers melting in this park is unnatural and unprecedented, faster than at any time known in history. It is clearly the result of the burning of fossil fuels, and human actions raising the earth's temperature."

If anything, you can say that it is "faster than at any time known in history" but you cannot go on to say it couldn't possibly have happened before, or that it must be human activity causing it now.

by: justintime

08-06-2009 @ 3:25pm

My brother and I hiked up to Grinnell Glacier in Glacier National Park in the early sixties.
What a tragedy that all of the glaciers in the Park will have vanished 11 years from now.
Last summer a friend and I hiked up to the Nooksack Glacier in the North Cascades National Park.
See the Nooksack Glacier panorama at:
nooksackcirque.com
Rangers told us the Nooksack Glacier is only 40% of its 1964 mass and that all of the glaciers in the North Cascades will have vanished by 2030.
Last month we hiked to the Nisqually Glacier on Mount Rainier.
The Nisqually Glacier has retreated 2 miles since 1880 when ice cream cones were sold at the lower bridge.
The Himalayan glaciers are also vanishing, which will have a catastrophic effect on agriculture in China and India.
Take note, global warming deniers!

by: ohiovania

08-06-2009 @ 3:33pm

Very nice piece about climate change. I understand the premise of your piece was not that "Glaciers carved out this scenery millions of years ago," but I believe that such statements are vestiges of an opinion or particular theory that has never been proven and can't be proven with true science. Science being "The systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment." Although we can observe these structures now, The study of things through observation wasn't even thought of until about 400 years ago. They are only believed to be carved, however long ago, in the past.

I apologize for my extra sensitivity about this topic and I mean you no disesteem. I enjoyed your piece and support the environmentally conscious movement.

by: justintime

08-06-2009 @ 3:36pm

I believe that such statements are vestiges of an opinion or particular theory that has never been proven and can't be proven with true science.

What are you trying to say , Ohiovania?

by: SisterMarie

08-06-2009 @ 9:34pm

Predictably, the reaction to this tragic story from conservatives is burying their collective heads in the sand. If we follow their lead, there will be more than enough sand for our heads and other parts.

by: Daylight

08-06-2009 @ 6:09pm

"If anyone still doesn't believe in global warming, come to Glacier National Park."

I believe in God and His son Jesus Christ. Almost everything outside of that is suspect.

Has the glacier ice melted? You bet. The evidence is glaring. Did man cause it? I am asked to believe so. That evidence is not so obvious.

My biggest skepticism is wondering what caused the ancient glaciers to melt, like the one that once covered northern Indiana where I live? It certainly wasn't man and his carbon emitting industry. Seems to me this has been going on for a very long time with intervals of cooling to slow down the glaciers melting and sometimes even advancing them a bit.

The Bible says that there is nothing new under the sun, this I also "believe".

by: ZZZeke

08-07-2009 @ 12:40am

I don't believe that stereotyping people is helpful. People have valid reasons for accepting human activity as a cause of climate change, and valid reasons for not doing so. The science is far from settled, despite what Al Gore says. There are no smoking guns on either side. People are entitled to their opinions on the matter without being lumped in with others with whom they share only one position.

by: ZZZeke

08-07-2009 @ 12:47am

Fifty years ago the weather in central California was very similar to what it is in Portland, Oregon today. It's obvious that the climate is warming. It is not obvious what the cause of that warming is. We speak of average temperatures changing tenths of degrees over decades or centuries. Even two hundred years ago we could not measure such changes accurately, yet we confidently say it's X degrees warmer now on the average than 1000 years ago. I refuse to cheerlead for either side of the argument. I await convincing scientific evidence as to causation.

by: canucklehead

08-07-2009 @ 3:23am

that there is no history prior to the Buckeyes winning their last BCS

by: philiaagape

08-06-2009 @ 7:35pm

This article should primarily be read as a commentary on the changing experience one may have at Glacier National Park. However, it should not be read as an explanation of those changes.

These two statements go unproven, and the author hinges his argument for global climate change too much on them:

"But the rate of glaciers melting in this park is unnatural and unprecedented, faster than at any time known in history. It is clearly the result of the burning of fossil fuels, and human actions raising the earth's temperature."

If anything, you can say that it is "faster than at any time known in history" but you cannot go on to say it couldn't possibly have happened before, or that it must be human activity causing it now.

by: BuckeyeDon

08-07-2009 @ 12:57pm

Actually, ZZZeke, the science IS pretty much settled, and one doesn't have to take Al Gore's word for it, either. Just go to the scientific journals where climate scientists report the results of their research. You'll find near consensus on the fact that global warming is occurring and that humans are partly responsible.

The reason why there are loud voices trying to say AGW (anthropomorphic global warming) isn't happening is because vested interests in the status quo who think they have a lot to lose over this are paying some people a lot of money to question the science.

by: SisterMarie

08-06-2009 @ 9:34pm

Predictably, the reaction to this tragic story from conservatives is burying their collective heads in the sand. If we follow their lead, there will be more than enough sand for our heads and other parts.

by: JohnTBall

09-17-2009 @ 4:20am

Ice in the past have shown everything from old Japanese temples, samurai, dragons, and today's athletes, ice best snow blower girls, political figures, and fifty feet tall dinosaur.

by: Anothernonymous

08-07-2009 @ 7:53pm

One of the reasons I've stopped posting here regularly is that I simply got tired of saying the same things over and over again on thread after thread. Since this is vitally important, though, I'll repost a reference I gave back in June. There's been a lot of research since this article appeared 12 years ago, and it has only confirmed the conclusions:

Robert K. Kaufmann and David I. Stern, "Evidence for human influence on climate from hemispheric temperature relations," Nature 388, 39-44 (3 July 1997). Here's the abstract:

"Analysis of observational temperature records for the Northern and Southern hemispheres indicates a statistical relationship in which Northern Hemisphere temperature depends on temperature in the Southern Hemisphere. This pattern, which has strengthened over time, can be explained by the climatic effects of anthropogenic trace gases and tropospheric sulphate aerosols. A similar statistical pattern is produced by model simulations of the historical atmosphere."

by: ZZZeke

08-07-2009 @ 12:40am

I don't believe that stereotyping people is helpful. People have valid reasons for accepting human activity as a cause of climate change, and valid reasons for not doing so. The science is far from settled, despite what Al Gore says. There are no smoking guns on either side. People are entitled to their opinions on the matter without being lumped in with others with whom they share only one position.

by: Anothernonymous

08-07-2009 @ 7:56pm

BTW, the point of the above is that many more people live in the Northern hemisphere than in the Southern hemisphere. Therefore, a consistently demonstrated dependent relationship between the two shows strong evidence of human causation.

by: ZZZeke

08-07-2009 @ 12:47am

Fifty years ago the weather in central California was very similar to what it is in Portland, Oregon today. It's obvious that the climate is warming. It is not obvious what the cause of that warming is. We speak of average temperatures changing tenths of degrees over decades or centuries. Even two hundred years ago we could not measure such changes accurately, yet we confidently say it's X degrees warmer now on the average than 1000 years ago. I refuse to cheerlead for either side of the argument. I await convincing scientific evidence as to causation.

by: justintime

08-07-2009 @ 8:53pm

Good point.
I hadn't thought of that before.

It does get a little boring, especially when the same people come back with the same arguments.

by: canucklehead

08-07-2009 @ 3:23am

that there is no history prior to the Buckeyes winning their last BCS

by: ZZZeke

08-07-2009 @ 11:44pm

From this [http://www.petitionproject.org/gw_article/Review_Article_HTML.php] compilation of peer reviewed studies:

"Hydrocarbon use and atmospheric CO2 do not correlate with the observed temperatures. Solar activity correlates quite well. Correlation does not prove causality, but non-correlation proves non-causality. Human hydrocarbon use is not measurably warming the earth. Moreover, there is a robust theoretical and empirical model for solar warming and cooling of the Earth (8,19,49,50). The experimental data do not prove that solar activity is the only phenomenon responsible for substantial Earth temperature fluctuations, but they do show that human hydrocarbon use is not among those phenomena."

by: Anothernonymous

08-07-2009 @ 11:58pm

If anyone is wondering whom to believe here, read this:

http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/08-11-12

Then read the article I cited.

by: BuckeyeDon

08-07-2009 @ 12:57pm

Actually, ZZZeke, the science IS pretty much settled, and one doesn't have to take Al Gore's word for it, either. Just go to the scientific journals where climate scientists report the results of their research. You'll find near consensus on the fact that global warming is occurring and that humans are partly responsible.

The reason why there are loud voices trying to say AGW (anthropomorphic global warming) isn't happening is because vested interests in the status quo who think they have a lot to lose over this are paying some people a lot of money to question the science.

by: Anothernonymous

08-07-2009 @ 7:53pm

One of the reasons I've stopped posting here regularly is that I simply got tired of saying the same things over and over again on thread after thread. Since this is vitally important, though, I'll repost a reference I gave back in June. There's been a lot of research since this article appeared 12 years ago, and it has only confirmed the conclusions:

Robert K. Kaufmann and David I. Stern, "Evidence for human influence on climate from hemispheric temperature relations," Nature 388, 39-44 (3 July 1997). Here's the abstract:

"Analysis of observational temperature records for the Northern and Southern hemispheres indicates a statistical relationship in which Northern Hemisphere temperature depends on temperature in the Southern Hemisphere. This pattern, which has strengthened over time, can be explained by the climatic effects of anthropogenic trace gases and tropospheric sulphate aerosols. A similar statistical pattern is produced by model simulations of the historical atmosphere."

by: Anothernonymous

08-07-2009 @ 7:56pm

BTW, the point of the above is that many more people live in the Northern hemisphere than in the Southern hemisphere. Therefore, a consistently demonstrated dependent relationship between the two shows strong evidence of human causation.

by: justintime

08-07-2009 @ 8:53pm

Good point.
I hadn't thought of that before.

It does get a little boring, especially when the same people come back with the same arguments.

by: ZZZeke

08-07-2009 @ 11:44pm

From this [http://www.petitionproject.org/gw_article/Review_Article_HTML.php] compilation of peer reviewed studies:

"Hydrocarbon use and atmospheric CO2 do not correlate with the observed temperatures. Solar activity correlates quite well. Correlation does not prove causality, but non-correlation proves non-causality. Human hydrocarbon use is not measurably warming the earth. Moreover, there is a robust theoretical and empirical model for solar warming and cooling of the Earth (8,19,49,50). The experimental data do not prove that solar activity is the only phenomenon responsible for substantial Earth temperature fluctuations, but they do show that human hydrocarbon use is not among those phenomena."

by: Anothernonymous

08-07-2009 @ 11:58pm

If anyone is wondering whom to believe here, read this:

http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/08-11-12

Then read the article I cited.

by: JohnTBall

09-17-2009 @ 2:20am

Ice in the past have shown everything from old Japanese temples, samurai, dragons, and today's athletes, ice best snow blower girls, political figures, and fifty feet tall dinosaur.

Comments sorted by highest rated. After voting you must refresh your page to see the sort order change.

by: justintime

08-06-2009 @ 3:25pm

My brother and I hiked up to Grinnell Glacier in Glacier National Park in the early sixties.
What a tragedy that all of the glaciers in the Park will have vanished 11 years from now.
Last summer a friend and I hiked up to the Nooksack Glacier in the North Cascades National Park.
See the Nooksack Glacier panorama at:
nooksackcirque.com
Rangers told us the Nooksack Glacier is only 40% of its 1964 mass and that all of the glaciers in the North Cascades will have vanished by 2030.
Last month we hiked to the Nisqually Glacier on Mount Rainier.
The Nisqually Glacier has retreated 2 miles since 1880 when ice cream cones were sold at the lower bridge.
The Himalayan glaciers are also vanishing, which will have a catastrophic effect on agriculture in China and India.
Take note, global warming deniers!

by: justintime

08-06-2009 @ 3:25pm

My brother and I hiked up to Grinnell Glacier in Glacier National Park in the early sixties.
What a tragedy that all of the glaciers in the Park will have vanished 11 years from now.
Last summer a friend and I hiked up to the Nooksack Glacier in the North Cascades National Park.
See the Nooksack Glacier panorama at:
nooksackcirque.com
Rangers told us the Nooksack Glacier is only 40% of its 1964 mass and that all of the glaciers in the North Cascades will have vanished by 2030.
Last month we hiked to the Nisqually Glacier on Mount Rainier.
The Nisqually Glacier has retreated 2 miles since 1880 when ice cream cones were sold at the lower bridge.
The Himalayan glaciers are also vanishing, which will have a catastrophic effect on agriculture in China and India.
Take note, global warming deniers!

by: ohiovania

08-06-2009 @ 3:33pm

Very nice piece about climate change. I understand the premise of your piece was not that "Glaciers carved out this scenery millions of years ago," but I believe that such statements are vestiges of an opinion or particular theory that has never been proven and can't be proven with true science. Science being "The systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment." Although we can observe these structures now, The study of things through observation wasn't even thought of until about 400 years ago. They are only believed to be carved, however long ago, in the past.

I apologize for my extra sensitivity about this topic and I mean you no disesteem. I enjoyed your piece and support the environmentally conscious movement.

by: ohiovania

08-06-2009 @ 3:33pm

Very nice piece about climate change. I understand the premise of your piece was not that "Glaciers carved out this scenery millions of years ago," but I believe that such statements are vestiges of an opinion or particular theory that has never been proven and can't be proven with true science. Science being "The systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment." Although we can observe these structures now, The study of things through observation wasn't even thought of until about 400 years ago. They are only believed to be carved, however long ago, in the past.

I apologize for my extra sensitivity about this topic and I mean you no disesteem. I enjoyed your piece and support the environmentally conscious movement.

by: justintime

08-06-2009 @ 3:36pm

I believe that such statements are vestiges of an opinion or particular theory that has never been proven and can't be proven with true science.

What are you trying to say , Ohiovania?

by: justintime

08-06-2009 @ 3:36pm

I believe that such statements are vestiges of an opinion or particular theory that has never been proven and can't be proven with true science.

What are you trying to say , Ohiovania?

by: Daylight

08-06-2009 @ 6:09pm

"If anyone still doesn't believe in global warming, come to Glacier National Park."

I believe in God and His son Jesus Christ. Almost everything outside of that is suspect.

Has the glacier ice melted? You bet. The evidence is glaring. Did man cause it? I am asked to believe so. That evidence is not so obvious.

My biggest skepticism is wondering what caused the ancient glaciers to melt, like the one that once covered northern Indiana where I live? It certainly wasn't man and his carbon emitting industry. Seems to me this has been going on for a very long time with intervals of cooling to slow down the glaciers melting and sometimes even advancing them a bit.

The Bible says that there is nothing new under the sun, this I also "believe".

by: Daylight

08-06-2009 @ 6:09pm

"If anyone still doesn't believe in global warming, come to Glacier National Park."

I believe in God and His son Jesus Christ. Almost everything outside of that is suspect.

Has the glacier ice melted? You bet. The evidence is glaring. Did man cause it? I am asked to believe so. That evidence is not so obvious.

My biggest skepticism is wondering what caused the ancient glaciers to melt, like the one that once covered northern Indiana where I live? It certainly wasn't man and his carbon emitting industry. Seems to me this has been going on for a very long time with intervals of cooling to slow down the glaciers melting and sometimes even advancing them a bit.

The Bible says that there is nothing new under the sun, this I also "believe".

by: opapyhasypi

08-06-2009 @ 7:26pm

by: philiaagape

08-06-2009 @ 7:35pm

This article should primarily be read as a commentary on the changing experience one may have at Glacier National Park. However, it should not be read as an explanation of those changes.

These two statements go unproven, and the author hinges his argument for global climate change too much on them:

"But the rate of glaciers melting in this park is unnatural and unprecedented, faster than at any time known in history. It is clearly the result of the burning of fossil fuels, and human actions raising the earth's temperature."

If anything, you can say that it is "faster than at any time known in history" but you cannot go on to say it couldn't possibly have happened before, or that it must be human activity causing it now.

by: philiaagape

08-06-2009 @ 7:35pm

This article should primarily be read as a commentary on the changing experience one may have at Glacier National Park. However, it should not be read as an explanation of those changes.

These two statements go unproven, and the author hinges his argument for global climate change too much on them:

"But the rate of glaciers melting in this park is unnatural and unprecedented, faster than at any time known in history. It is clearly the result of the burning of fossil fuels, and human actions raising the earth's temperature."

If anything, you can say that it is "faster than at any time known in history" but you cannot go on to say it couldn't possibly have happened before, or that it must be human activity causing it now.

by: SisterMarie

08-06-2009 @ 9:34pm

Predictably, the reaction to this tragic story from conservatives is burying their collective heads in the sand. If we follow their lead, there will be more than enough sand for our heads and other parts.

by: SisterMarie

08-06-2009 @ 9:34pm

Predictably, the reaction to this tragic story from conservatives is burying their collective heads in the sand. If we follow their lead, there will be more than enough sand for our heads and other parts.

by: ZZZeke

08-07-2009 @ 12:40am

I don't believe that stereotyping people is helpful. People have valid reasons for accepting human activity as a cause of climate change, and valid reasons for not doing so. The science is far from settled, despite what Al Gore says. There are no smoking guns on either side. People are entitled to their opinions on the matter without being lumped in with others with whom they share only one position.

by: ZZZeke

08-07-2009 @ 12:40am

I don't believe that stereotyping people is helpful. People have valid reasons for accepting human activity as a cause of climate change, and valid reasons for not doing so. The science is far from settled, despite what Al Gore says. There are no smoking guns on either side. People are entitled to their opinions on the matter without being lumped in with others with whom they share only one position.

by: ZZZeke

08-07-2009 @ 12:47am

Fifty years ago the weather in central California was very similar to what it is in Portland, Oregon today. It's obvious that the climate is warming. It is not obvious what the cause of that warming is. We speak of average temperatures changing tenths of degrees over decades or centuries. Even two hundred years ago we could not measure such changes accurately, yet we confidently say it's X degrees warmer now on the average than 1000 years ago. I refuse to cheerlead for either side of the argument. I await convincing scientific evidence as to causation.

by: ZZZeke

08-07-2009 @ 12:47am

Fifty years ago the weather in central California was very similar to what it is in Portland, Oregon today. It's obvious that the climate is warming. It is not obvious what the cause of that warming is. We speak of average temperatures changing tenths of degrees over decades or centuries. Even two hundred years ago we could not measure such changes accurately, yet we confidently say it's X degrees warmer now on the average than 1000 years ago. I refuse to cheerlead for either side of the argument. I await convincing scientific evidence as to causation.

by: canucklehead

08-07-2009 @ 3:23am

that there is no history prior to the Buckeyes winning their last BCS

by: canucklehead

08-07-2009 @ 3:23am

that there is no history prior to the Buckeyes winning their last BCS

by: BuckeyeDon

08-07-2009 @ 12:57pm

Actually, ZZZeke, the science IS pretty much settled, and one doesn't have to take Al Gore's word for it, either. Just go to the scientific journals where climate scientists report the results of their research. You'll find near consensus on the fact that global warming is occurring and that humans are partly responsible.

The reason why there are loud voices trying to say AGW (anthropomorphic global warming) isn't happening is because vested interests in the status quo who think they have a lot to lose over this are paying some people a lot of money to question the science.

by: BuckeyeDon

08-07-2009 @ 12:57pm

Actually, ZZZeke, the science IS pretty much settled, and one doesn't have to take Al Gore's word for it, either. Just go to the scientific journals where climate scientists report the results of their research. You'll find near consensus on the fact that global warming is occurring and that humans are partly responsible.

The reason why there are loud voices trying to say AGW (anthropomorphic global warming) isn't happening is because vested interests in the status quo who think they have a lot to lose over this are paying some people a lot of money to question the science.

by: Anothernonymous

08-07-2009 @ 7:53pm

One of the reasons I've stopped posting here regularly is that I simply got tired of saying the same things over and over again on thread after thread. Since this is vitally important, though, I'll repost a reference I gave back in June. There's been a lot of research since this article appeared 12 years ago, and it has only confirmed the conclusions:

Robert K. Kaufmann and David I. Stern, "Evidence for human influence on climate from hemispheric temperature relations," Nature 388, 39-44 (3 July 1997). Here's the abstract:

"Analysis of observational temperature records for the Northern and Southern hemispheres indicates a statistical relationship in which Northern Hemisphere temperature depends on temperature in the Southern Hemisphere. This pattern, which has strengthened over time, can be explained by the climatic effects of anthropogenic trace gases and tropospheric sulphate aerosols. A similar statistical pattern is produced by model simulations of the historical atmosphere."

by: Anothernonymous

08-07-2009 @ 7:53pm

One of the reasons I've stopped posting here regularly is that I simply got tired of saying the same things over and over again on thread after thread. Since this is vitally important, though, I'll repost a reference I gave back in June. There's been a lot of research since this article appeared 12 years ago, and it has only confirmed the conclusions:

Robert K. Kaufmann and David I. Stern, "Evidence for human influence on climate from hemispheric temperature relations," Nature 388, 39-44 (3 July 1997). Here's the abstract:

"Analysis of observational temperature records for the Northern and Southern hemispheres indicates a statistical relationship in which Northern Hemisphere temperature depends on temperature in the Southern Hemisphere. This pattern, which has strengthened over time, can be explained by the climatic effects of anthropogenic trace gases and tropospheric sulphate aerosols. A similar statistical pattern is produced by model simulations of the historical atmosphere."

by: Anothernonymous

08-07-2009 @ 7:56pm

BTW, the point of the above is that many more people live in the Northern hemisphere than in the Southern hemisphere. Therefore, a consistently demonstrated dependent relationship between the two shows strong evidence of human causation.

by: Anothernonymous

08-07-2009 @ 7:56pm

BTW, the point of the above is that many more people live in the Northern hemisphere than in the Southern hemisphere. Therefore, a consistently demonstrated dependent relationship between the two shows strong evidence of human causation.

by: justintime

08-07-2009 @ 8:53pm

Good point.
I hadn't thought of that before.

It does get a little boring, especially when the same people come back with the same arguments.

by: justintime

08-07-2009 @ 8:53pm

Good point.
I hadn't thought of that before.

It does get a little boring, especially when the same people come back with the same arguments.

by: ZZZeke

08-07-2009 @ 11:44pm

From this [http://www.petitionproject.org/gw_article/Review_Article_HTML.php] compilation of peer reviewed studies:

"Hydrocarbon use and atmospheric CO2 do not correlate with the observed temperatures. Solar activity correlates quite well. Correlation does not prove causality, but non-correlation proves non-causality. Human hydrocarbon use is not measurably warming the earth. Moreover, there is a robust theoretical and empirical model for solar warming and cooling of the Earth (8,19,49,50). The experimental data do not prove that solar activity is the only phenomenon responsible for substantial Earth temperature fluctuations, but they do show that human hydrocarbon use is not among those phenomena."

by: ZZZeke

08-07-2009 @ 11:44pm

From this [http://www.petitionproject.org/gw_article/Review_Article_HTML.php] compilation of peer reviewed studies:

"Hydrocarbon use and atmospheric CO2 do not correlate with the observed temperatures. Solar activity correlates quite well. Correlation does not prove causality, but non-correlation proves non-causality. Human hydrocarbon use is not measurably warming the earth. Moreover, there is a robust theoretical and empirical model for solar warming and cooling of the Earth (8,19,49,50). The experimental data do not prove that solar activity is the only phenomenon responsible for substantial Earth temperature fluctuations, but they do show that human hydrocarbon use is not among those phenomena."

by: Anothernonymous

08-07-2009 @ 11:58pm

If anyone is wondering whom to believe here, read this:

http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/08-11-12

Then read the article I cited.

by: Anothernonymous

08-07-2009 @ 11:58pm

If anyone is wondering whom to believe here, read this:

http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/08-11-12

Then read the article I cited.

by: ZZZeke

08-08-2009 @ 2:43am

Here are some reasoned scientific studies, and some arguments that show inconsistencies and lack of scientific method in much of the "settled" research:

http://xtronics.com/reference/globalwarming.htm

As for the Skeptic page cited above, it lists several experts in climatology that dispute the "settled" research.

by: ZZZeke

08-08-2009 @ 2:43am

Here are some reasoned scientific studies, and some arguments that show inconsistencies and lack of scientific method in much of the "settled" research:

http://xtronics.com/reference/globalwarming.htm

As for the Skeptic page cited above, it lists several experts in climatology that dispute the "settled" research.

by: Anothernonymous

08-08-2009 @ 12:49pm

"As for the Skeptic page cited above, it lists several experts in climatology that dispute the "settled" research."

No it doesn't.

As for the other site referenced by ZZZeke, its level of integrity can be inferred from the fact that much of its argument is based on the suggestion that the noted physicist Richard Feynman, who has been dead for 21 years, would disagree with the current consensus about global warming.

Who are you going to believe?

by: Anothernonymous

08-08-2009 @ 12:49pm

"As for the Skeptic page cited above, it lists several experts in climatology that dispute the "settled" research."

No it doesn't.

As for the other site referenced by ZZZeke, its level of integrity can be inferred from the fact that much of its argument is based on the suggestion that the noted physicist Richard Feynman, who has been dead for 21 years, would disagree with the current consensus about global warming.

Who are you going to believe?

by: irodle

08-08-2009 @ 2:38pm

If he were alive today, I think Richard Feynman may have something to say about how the research on global warming has been done and how much of the results are automatically explained in a way that "proves" the hypothesis with no reference to what else may be at play. The article about "cargo cult" science was long, but very interesting and so true. That Feynman has been dead for 21 years does not negate the wisdom he taught in the article. It seems to me that a lot of the research and conclusions have been based on relatively short-term data that has been collected and then processed through mathematical models to predict an outcome. Meteorologists do this today and how many times do we curse the weatherman for faulty predictions?...and that is only days in the future. Mathematical modeling is complicated in even the simplest of problems and with much data. The issue of global warming is hugely complicated. Are all of the vast numbers of complicating factors being considered...do we know them all? If we think we do, are we fooling ourselves? (If you want to know how we have fooled ourselves in what is important in nutrition, check out Michael Pollan's "In Defense of Food". Same thing applies here.) And, btw, I would like to see data that isn't out to prove anything. Anyone can present data to prove his/her cause or can use data to prove a pre-conceived erroneous conclusion. Not saying global warming isn't an issue, but I am a skeptic...and a trained scientist and mathematician.

by: irodle

08-08-2009 @ 2:38pm

If he were alive today, I think Richard Feynman may have something to say about how the research on global warming has been done and how much of the results are automatically explained in a way that "proves" the hypothesis with no reference to what else may be at play. The article about "cargo cult" science was long, but very interesting and so true. That Feynman has been dead for 21 years does not negate the wisdom he taught in the article. It seems to me that a lot of the research and conclusions have been based on relatively short-term data that has been collected and then processed through mathematical models to predict an outcome. Meteorologists do this today and how many times do we curse the weatherman for faulty predictions?...and that is only days in the future. Mathematical modeling is complicated in even the simplest of problems and with much data. The issue of global warming is hugely complicated. Are all of the vast numbers of complicating factors being considered...do we know them all? If we think we do, are we fooling ourselves? (If you want to know how we have fooled ourselves in what is important in nutrition, check out Michael Pollan's "In Defense of Food". Same thing applies here.) And, btw, I would like to see data that isn't out to prove anything. Anyone can present data to prove his/her cause or can use data to prove a pre-conceived erroneous conclusion. Not saying global warming isn't an issue, but I am a skeptic...and a trained scientist and mathematician.

by: Anothernonymous

08-11-2009 @ 4:03pm

Here's some follow-up. I forwarded the xtronics link about Richard Feynman to a well-known physicist and best-selling author who is probably the intellectual successor to Feynman in terms of promoting educated skepticism about trendy scientific orthodoxies. His response (drum roll please):

by: Anothernonymous

08-11-2009 @ 4:03pm

Here's some follow-up. I forwarded the xtronics link about Richard Feynman to a well-known physicist and best-selling author who is probably the intellectual successor to Feynman in terms of promoting educated skepticism about trendy scientific orthodoxies. His response (drum roll please):

by: JohnTBall

09-17-2009 @ 2:20am

Ice in the past have shown everything from old Japanese temples, samurai, dragons, and today's athletes, ice best snow blower girls, political figures, and fifty feet tall dinosaur.

by: JohnTBall

09-17-2009 @ 2:20am

Ice in the past have shown everything from old Japanese temples, samurai, dragons, and today's athletes, ice best snow blower girls, political figures, and fifty feet tall dinosaur.

by: JohnTBall

09-17-2009 @ 4:20am

Ice in the past have shown everything from old Japanese temples, samurai, dragons, and today's athletes, ice best snow blower girls, political figures, and fifty feet tall dinosaur.

by: JohnTBall

09-17-2009 @ 4:20am

Ice in the past have shown everything from old Japanese temples, samurai, dragons, and today's athletes, ice best snow blower girls, political figures, and fifty feet tall dinosaur.