Since there is no scientific evidence that the so-called global warming trend is anything more than global cyclical behaviour and therefore not avoidable, nor disastrous, our congress may want to hold off on renaming the park.

It's very interesting how the now defunked global warming docudrama that Mr. Gore put together is still carrying so much momentum in the unscientific community at large.

It would be interesting to see if a bonefied scientific movie on the issue would be received by the same folks that swallowed Gore's political docudrama.

Towns were named for who founded them, streets were named for founders or large ranch owners of ranches that do not exist, creeks were named for something that happened on them or the person who named them, Kalispell Montana has a major commercial development called Hutton Ranch, the ranch is GONE... Glacier was named for the beauty and pristine of Glaciers, so whether they are gone or not it STAYS GLACIER NATIONAL PARK ~ Duh...

Northwest Montana Native
http://www.GlacierNationalPark.ws

My, my, my, so you want to see a "bonefied" scientific movie do you? Well, isn't that special? I bet a "bonefied" movie like that would sure show that pesky "unscientific community" a thing or two!

As for the new name needed to accurately reflect the impact of climate change, I kind of like "The National Park Formerly Known As Glacier" or maybe TNPFKAG for short. We could have a big renaming festival featuring a performance by "The Artist Formerly Known as Prince" ...or maybe not.

In honor of the park resisting the glaciers perhaps it should be renamed "Illegitimati non carborundum park."

bonefied

Giggle!

there is no scientific evidence

SNORT!

Thanks to Gov. Schweitzer, anybody see where the Highwood plant got the go ahead to melt the glaciers around Fort Benton? See: http://www.billingsgazette.net/articles/2007/05/12/news/state/35-coal.txt

What should we rename Dinosaur National Monument?

Michael, how about T-Boner Rex Got Rocks NM?

That would be a good one, Craig.

Fifty years ago, literature about Glacier emphasized that the Park was not named for existing glaciers, but the fact that what people saw had been so profoundly formed by Glaciers -- which, because of global warming since that time, had nearly eradicated the glaciers that obviously formed the topography of the park.

I interviewed Frank Evans, a well-known Park naturalist in the 1930's, for an article in Audubon magazine article that was published in 1976, and I noted that his collection of Park literature dating back to its inception made a point in emphasizing that Glacier was not named because of existing glaciers, but because the Park so vividly reflected the impact of glaciers from an era long gone -- and always explaining that the climate had obviously warmed up "considerably" since that era, and would even no doubt continue to do so.

I was surprised, then, to note that more recent Park literature suggests that the Park was named because of existing glaciers, because this was contrary to the actual historiography of the Park.

And I should also note. Bill Schnieder has been around long enough to know better ....

Climate Change aside...the Nationa Environmental Trust should focus on more important matters than renaming a beloved national park. Even with glaciers gone the name should stay the same as a memorial to the once great glaciers that called the park home. This is nothing more than a political stunt for this environmental group to gain publicity for themselves and the issue.

No scientific evidence?
dude you should ask yourself if you are insane. The National Academies of Science of China and Russia - if you don't trust the National Academies of Sciences of the US and the UK, and many others - have all said their is more than enough scientific evidence that man is responsible for global warming and action must be taken. You think they have all been duped by al gore and leonardo di caprio?

You cling to what you would like to believe like a three year old.

Going-to-the-Sun National Park.

CheneyCoLand!
Going-to-the-Dogs NP.
Think ahead a few centuries: Kalispell Shores.

There is no global warming there is no global warming there is no global warming there is no global warming four legs good two legs bad we've always fought Eurasia don't get me started bout evolution

Thanks for the link to the Billings Gazette, Craig.

Here's one that might change that future, too.

http://mobile.washingtonpost.com/detail.jsp?key=44679&rc=po&p=1&all=1

By Steven Mufson
Updated: 05/14/2007

A Depression-era program to bring electricity to rural areas is using taxpayer money to provide billions of dollars in low-interest loans to build coal plants even as Congress seeks ways to limit greenhouse gas emissions.

That government support is a major force behind the rush to coal plants, which spew carbon dioxide that scientists blame for global warming.

The beneficiaries of the government's largesse -- the nation's rural electric cooperatives -- plan to spend $35 billion to build conventional coal plants over the next 10 years, enough to offset all state and federal efforts to reduce U.S. greenhouse gas emissions over that time.

The Office of Management and Budget wants to end loans for new power plants and limit loans for transmission projects in the most remote rural areas. But the powerful National Rural Electric Cooperative Association deployed 3,000 members on Capitol Hill last week to push Congress to keep the program intact, arguing that the loans for new coal plants are needed to keep electricity cheap and reliable in rural areas.... FRom the Wash Post


Great Falls has everything it could need to have an economic and every other kind of revival in the next decade --the river, the mountains, some of the best territory in the state, and central to some of the better farm and ranchlands. But somebody decided that it would be better to run with the old Highwood generatin' plant, spewin' coal smoke in the air of the nation's fourth best air quality with yesterday's technology, and blowin that mercury on all those farm and ranchlands that could have cashed in on the reputation for clean air and land.... Hope we can sell that power out of state, so we can buy some home oxygen kits for the little uns...hope we can keep malmstrom open, too, forever, cause with the big new plant belching smoke against the view of the highwoods, and ruining the Lewis and Clark sites, not too many folks are going to put GreatFalls on their list for destinations.
Obviously, I think that the coal plant idea is as economically shortsighted as anything I've seen proposed in Montana.

Hal

How about it gets renamed ExxonMobil National Park?

Here's a question I'm curious about - not sure if this is the forum to ask it or not, but after reading the comment by Michael Sol about the name coming from glacial activity rather than existing glaciers got me thinking - how did the glacial activity happen in the first place to create the park and other wondrous places that we all have come to enjoy? My understanding (limited as it is) is that the climate warmed up and the glaciers began to melt and move (i.e. global warming).

Now, I'm someone who is pretty convinced of global warming at this point, but not convinced that it is all human caused or that we could stop it even if we invested billions of dollars worldwide. How do we not know that this just isn't Mother Nature's way of starting the next big ecological stage?

I just don't understand...which part don't you believe? That carbon dioxide raises atmospheric temperatures? Or that the first and second worlds are kicking out notably high amounts of carbon dioxide? Neither of these are particularly controversial, and they're pretty much the bedrock of the phenomenon we call global warming.

When did anything in Inconvenient Truth become "defunked?" Was Al Gore at one time funky? Because then he has most certainly been defunked. If only he were as tight with George Clinton as he is with Bill.

I don't imagine these folks really want to change the name of the park -- they just want to call attention to a sad situation. And I say more power to them. How about Don't Try and Tell Me It Ain't Global Cyclical Behavior National Park?

Brian,

Are you responding to my comment? If so, I do believe Global Warming is a reality - what I'm asking is HOW we KNOW we can do anything about it? And HOW do we KNOW that it is such a bad thing for the environment? Does anyone have some good websites to go and read good scientific data on the issue?

Howzabout:
Too Damn Many Outastaters National Park

They came, they saw, they stayed and ruined the place.

Hal, you are welcome.

Ryan check out: http://www.sciencebits.com/CO2orSolar

Sorry Ryan -- just responding generally, with something of a nod to the first poster.

There's really no shortage of data out there, from consumer magazines to scientific journals, take your pick. The irony is that the hardest stuff for the Flat-Earthers to cast doubt upon is also the hardest stuff to read -- and the stuff John and Jane Montanan are least likely to come across without seeking it out.

I'd suggest starting off with something like EbscoHost or another academic database. Search "climate change" or "sea levels" or even plain old "global warming." Go from there. You don't have to be a PhD reader, but you can note and bookmark the most relevant data, even just the charts and the graphs. Then expand your circle to some of the secondary literature -- I've found science- and nature-oriented consumer magazines give a good balance of hard data and explanation. Then keep going, all the way down to the admittedly biased websites and the cartoonish charts in USA Today -- when a warning bell goes off in your head or a counterargument makes you wonder, you've got the primary studies right at your side to go back to.

The last time I checked, the National Park Service was the department responsible for naming (or renaming) our national parks. I'm quite sure that the NPS is not Co-oping with the National Environmental Trust, so I don't think any of us need to worry about anyone changing the name of our beloved Glacier National Park.

I do believe that the human race is having a significant affect on Global Warming and that we must take more responsibility for how we use, or misuse our natural resources. However, I don't believe in, or support, the actions of an organization that would create a crap stunt, like changing the name of a national park, just to further their agenda. Translation: I would not give the NET any of my hard earned money, and you shouldn't either.

Thanks guys - this is one of those issues of our day where you hear so many different perspectives. I will check out a few things and really wish there was a forum or venue for this kind of discussion in person.

Would anyone be interested in a dinner dialogue over this issue or others? I'd love to do something like that where we can help each other think through these tough issues. If anyone is interested in such a thing, email me directly and we'll think through how to do it.

I will personally make a wager (and even give you 2 to 1 odds!) with anyone who insists that all the glaciers in Glacier National Park will be completely gone by the year 2030. We can sign an agreement or put $$ in a bank to gather interest for the winner. Please put your money where your mouth (or politics) is!! ....Bill Steffen, meteorologist ().

Perhaps the NET should help rename parts of the third world. See: http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/05/10/sustainability-for-rich-and-poor/

>>>>>>>>
As microphones were passed around for questions and comments, a tall tailored man at a table of African officials rose. Onkokame Kitso Mokaila, the minister of environment, wildlife and tourism of Botswana, agreed energetically that trust did not exist.
And he said why. “Because we are aspiring to get to where you are,” he said. “Because we have many competing needs in our own countries. I feel that the first world, developed countries, want to first use us as guinea pigs. I’m sorry I put it that way. I’m not from the diplomatic school. You have a greater expectation of us while ignoring our competing needs to provide health, water, infrastructure, electricity for our own people.”
“Yes, we don’t trust each other,” he concluded.
Dr. Brundtland conceded that a large climate debt was owed. “We have to pursue aspects that will help poor countries avoid the kinds of problems you are describing,” she said. “However, many developing countries are moving up to the middle-income type, with strong economic growth, and of course we cannot afford in planetary terms to sit back and watch emissions increasing year by year and do noting about it because these countries are poor.”
Graciano Francisco Domingos, the deputy environment minister of Angola, did not weigh in, but turned to his neighbor and described the profound challenges on the ground in his country, where the steady flow of people from rural regions to cities was swamping any other issues.
The capital, Luanda, held just 500,000 people in 1975, he said. Now it had five million. For him, an environmental problem still meant dealing with vast flows of sewage and waste, not a global buildup of greenhouse gases.
Cheesecake with raspberry sauce was served, and everyone headed back to the meeting rooms to resume the search for sustainability.
<<<<<<<<<

It may sound strange to suggest this source, but the New Yorker magazine (not "New York" magazine) has some really good, in-depth, accessible articles on climate change.

New Yorker reporter Elizabeth Kolbert has put together some really good pieces over the past two years. Google her to see interviews with her. Her work introduces you to the science AND the scientists, and looks at all sides of the debate.

Looking at all sides of the debate, however, doesn't mean that she concludes that we can't make any decisions about climate change.

So, I suspect some folks will denounce her as biased (or, since she's a journalist, they'll say that she shouldn't even presume to write about climate change unless she goes back to school for a PhD in geochemistry or some such -- to which I say, then so should Michael Crichton!), since she doesn't reach their preferred conclusion.

See also this review article in Science Magazine:

BEYOND THE IVORY TOWER:
The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change
Naomi Oreskes

Oreskes looked at peer reviewed papers on climate change and found ZERO peer reviewed papers that effectively contradicted the consensus on anthropogenic influence on climate change.

She should have looked with her eyes open. See: http://www.sciencebits.com/ice-ages

Okay, okay, okay. I can't take it anymore. Africans and chinese and Indian people, and Guineans, etc, will have to destroy what's left of the earth's atmosphere in order to get all those good things we have now. In order to get a thriving Burkina-Faso starbucks selling iced lattes to lexus driving Ougadougouans, everybody will have to stoke the coal furnaces high as all get out, and make it real real hot. Got it.
Do you see how absurd that is? I saw a cartoon the other day, where a fat well-dressed businessman smoking a big cigar is sitting across the table from a gaunt sari-wearing Indian, saying "we've got to cut greenhouse gases!!!" and then the businessman throws away his mostly smoked stogie, "we're doing our part!"

But that's bull hockey, too. To whom much is given, much is expected. We have the propserity and the braintrust and the
beyonbd-subsistence leisure time here to develop real solutions, now, appliance efficiency, CAFE, alternative energy sources, we can turn down the damn airconditioning for the name of God, we can get a federal government-- a small efficient functioning federal govt, comprised of men and women who will not use their elected or appointed terms to dismantle it for the benefit of their friends and their own whacked out Heaven's Gate follow the comet! beliefs, and this small gov't can make regulations about efficiency standards so that the playing field is level enough for American or other innovators to set up Businesses to address this damn problem. But as it is now, oh man, it's gone git hooooot, and the Indians, oh man, they're gone burn coal an dmake it even hotter, and everything is going to hell, and we can't stop Exxon, y'know, I'm gone watch television all day, 'merican idol or sumpin, its so sad, no glaciers...I hate de fed'ril gubmint, turn up the AC.

If we're so worried about it (and the deniers of global warming do not really count now, and they won't count on any practical level as soon as we get a new president) --we come up with the solutions. The Chinese won't commit national suicide by smoke and mercury if we come up with something better than coal-fired by god power and make it available to them ( I'm not saying they might not get the technology first) Nobody is as stupid as we are. And nobody has more potential or a better track record, for being smart. We can either be Rome, or we can be something that the world has not seen yet, and be proud of it.

Hal

Hal, I think what the African gentleman was getting at was that having clean water, food to eat, fighting disease, and handling sewage are higher levels of concern. Kind of Bjorn Lomborg's point.

After having read all of the comments above, I felt compelled to add my own thoughts and comments, some in response to what others have written.

In response to the question as to whether the current trend in global warming is just "Mother Nature" doing her thing, or rather a consequence of human activities, one concept needs to be addressed, and that is time scale. Over the past million years the Earth has gone through many periods of global cooling and glaciation followed by global warming, melting of glaciers and conditions akin to what we have today. These oscillations in global temperature were "natural" in so much as natural meaning "without human influence". The changes in global temperature and conditions necessary to result in either the formation of glaciers, or their melting, occurred over time spans of thousands of years. That is, on a geologic time scale. Changes in geologic conditions typically take a very long time, so that time scale is many orders of magnitude longer than the life span of a typical human. That we are seeing measurable and drastic changes in global climate over the course of a human life is indicative not of a natural course of events dictated by Mother Nature doing her thing, but rather an otherwise natural process having been sped up and thrown out of whack by human influences.

The evidence of this is real and abundant. However, scientists need to do a better job in disseminating the results of their studies to a general audience. So much good information is stuck in obscure scientific journals, unavailable and/or unreadable to most. Some people above have cited some sources that are beginning to get the information out. An improved dialogue between science and public will help keep otherwise reasonable individuals from being misinformed, or even worse, becoming ambivalent, towards important environmental issues.

As for renaming the great Glacier National Park? I agree that it was not named for glaciers still present, and that in general the headline to change the name is simply a device to increase dialogue and mobilize the public on a bigger issue using a beautiful national possession as the flag-bearer.

Craig, I do understand that. And that, exactly, is why the burden is upon us --who have clean water, sewage disposal, etc, --to come up with solutions to this problem--and I don't give a whit about global warming by the way. It's hotter than its ever been in the lifetime of anybody living, the human species is pouring out more carbon and other effluents into the atmosphere than has ever been there before, in my stupid layman's brain, I feel those two things are probably related, but I don't know. Nor do I have one iota of confidence that, if they are related, our species has the ability to address that problem. I think we don't--our brains don't work on the longterm; they are clever, oh so clever, and they lack wisdom. But it is clear, on every term-short medium and long, that we need to find solutions to our energy needs that do not involve the very kind of pollutants that are flooding the air, ruining the fisheries, destroying the Appalachian and Cumberland mountains, the northern plains, and on and on, and may or may not be causing global warming.


I wish the Africans Godspeed in solving the basic problems. By the time they have some of them solved, perhaps we can have something to offer them, in the realm of energy technologies and hyper efficient
transportation and appliances-- or maybe, in the long run, the struggle for those basics in Africa will reveal something that can help us all. No nation has a lock on advancement in this search.



I confess that I am weary though, of Americans having so very very much, and contributing so much to the problem, and offering so very very little toward its solutions. I love our country and want to be proud of it. This particular joke-renaming the park-which I've spent a lot of time wandering and love--kind of makes me sick.

Hal

You guys might want to read this excellent article from Range Magazine on how 3rd world countries feel about our "feel good" restrictions affect them too. They do not see us as so wonderful as a lot of environmentalists see themselves.

http://rangemagazine.com/features/summer-06/su-sr-06-enemies-of-conservation.pdf

Hal, I find myself in great agreement with your thoughts. Let's do things for the right reasons where we have the leverage to actually accomplish some good.

By the way, would you like to see a turkey picture from Plevna? If so, have Bill forward you my email address.

" ...but rather an otherwise natural process having been sped up and thrown out of whack by human influences."

Exactly what is "natural" for a global warming or cooling cycle?

Recent evidence suggests that all of the planets in the solar system for which we have been able to make appropriate measurements have undergone a nearly identical warming trend.

So, what is "natural" here and now? How much does the current trend differ from the "natural" trend?

This is the STUPEDIST Idea I've heard in a long time! Even if the Glaciers melt, the mountains and valleys were still formed by GLACIERS!

Thomas, the next thing you know they will want to rename Glacier County to something like Two Medicine.

Hind sight is as they say 20/20. Nice to have the ongoing discussion but at the end of the current era, (cheap Oil) it is all going to be a moot point anyways. Yeah I suspect global warming is influenced by human activities but the impact on our suburban lifestyle and the fact that we will have used 150 million years of concentrated solar energy in less than 200 years is the issue at hand. As we lose cheap oil and all that it supports the population of the earth will need to adjust back to the pre oil level of around 1 billion from the current 6 billion. When we have used the oil and gas and coal that are "gettable" under the economic conditions the human impact on the globe will dimish but i think the transition is going to be ugly. As I tell my friends keep up the fight but do understand the planet will be OK regardless of our attempts to tweak it. We on the other hand....
may i suggest a couple courses in Geology and a nice depressing read in "The Long Emergency".

Sure, hindsight is 20/20, and there are probably a whole lot of other cliches to apply here. Sure eventually all oil and gas reserves, as well as other natural resources will become scarce by methods currently employed to find and obtain them, then we'll likely rape the Earth in attempts to squeeze out the last remnants of fossil fuels, leaving it even worse than we can imagine now. Despite all of that the planet has one advantage over us, and that is time. The planet will likely be around much longer than humans, as we know them. Moot point or not, deciding how our time here is spent (individually and as a species) is a choice we make now. The fight has not already been lost. If you want a moot point, our sun will burn out in a couple billion years and everything will die, perhaps we should just party and screw it all?

In honor of what was once Grinnell Glacier perhaps the park could be renamed Grinnell and Bear It.