Logout|My Dashboard

Melting glaciers in Glacier Park: The view from 1963 - Daily Inter Lake: News

Login to DailyInterLake.com

Subscribers Click Here

Non Subscribers Click Here

Melting glaciers in Glacier Park: The view from 1963

Font Size:
Default font size
Larger font size

Posted: Sunday, April 25, 2010 2:00 am

The recent news release concerning the melting glaciers in Glacier National Park seems somewhat deceptive. I am a National Park Service retiree. I started my career in Glacier National Park in 1963 and attended my first park staff meeting in September of 1963.

At that meeting the United States Geological Survey staff presented the results of their annual glacier monitoring program and reported that the park glaciers were continuing to shrink. They assured the park staff that the glaciers would eventually disappear, but would not make any time predictions.

Subscription Required

An online service is needed to view this article in its entirety. You need an online service to view this article in its entirety.

Have an online subscription?

Login Now

Need an online subscription?



Choose an online service.

    Current print subscribers

      You must login to view the full content on this page.

      Thank you for reading 5 free articles on our site. You can come back at the end of your 30-day period for another 5 free articles, or you can purchase a subscription and continue to enjoy valuable local news and information. If you need help, please contact our office at 406-755-7000 . You need an online service to view this article in its entirety.

      Have an online subscription?

      Login Now

      Need an online subscription?



      Choose an online service.

        Current print subscribers

          More about

          Welcome to the discussion.


          • montanaraised posted at 9:54 am on Sun, May 2, 2010.

            montanaraised Posts: 105

            i dont think i would be crediting wikipedia with anything given there sex/porn dealings when it comes to children.

            who new...guess you didnt know who you were dealing with...i do!! Ha ha WHO KNEW???

          • absenteemontanan posted at 7:01 pm on Thu, Apr 29, 2010.

            absenteemontanan Posts: 42

            Kieth!! Thank you!! It's about time someone spoke up. God forbid any of the greeny weenies currently at the park speak the truth.

          • who new posted at 7:28 am on Thu, Apr 29, 2010.

            who new Posts: 367

            Thanks for setting me straight, Ed.

            As I understand it, nefarious propagandists whose intentions are to spread the notion of human-caused global warming, have infiltrated Wikipedia and National Geographic. And, organizations such as the American Medical Association, the World Health Organization, and countless universities and professional scientific organizations, are really left-wing environmental groups bent on brainwashing us poor unsuspecting souls.

            Being the skeptic I am, I will continue to study both sides of the issue and will look forward to your report on the proceedings of your Climate Change Conference. As to your offer of attending, I will respectfully decline, as I have other more pressing engagements to attend.

            I enjoyed our brief discourse, but I’ve grown tired of the subject, and I will leave the last word to you.

          • Ed Berry posted at 6:51 pm on Wed, Apr 28, 2010.

            Ed Berry Posts: 5

            Well, Who New, you missed one very important revelation of Climate Gate. Not only have the Climate Gaters been caught attempting to control scientific journals but also in putting their man inside Wikipedia. While there, he deleted some 5000 entries by the good scientists and inserted the propaganda of the Gaters.

            So, your assumption that Wikipedia is a reliable source of information on climate change is proven false by Climate Gate.

            Even if your quote were true, it would be meaningless. Science is not done by "bodies." Science is done by individual scientists. Thousands of individual scientists have spoken with their signatures to many Open Letters stating very clearly how and why global warming is a hoax and a scam.

            Nor is science done by consensus. One good argument showing the invalidity of a hypothesis is sufficient to overrule the majority. In this case, the number of scientists who state show how the global warming hypothesis is false is more than sufficient to kill the hypothesis. So if the warmers believe they have a case, the onus is on them to prove their case to the doubting scientists. This they have not done.

            Your presumption of the reason for not attending is also false. Unlike the KKK, scientists are capable of discussing science without politics. Such science discussions would bore down into how climate models work and why they cannot predict climate, why the warmer hypothesis of atmospheric heat transfer blows apart upon close inspection, why the scientific method proves the warmer hypothesis is false, why data correlations and non-correlations prove the warmer hypothesis is false, etc. Any scientists worth his salt would jump at the opportunity to attend the Conference and argue his ideas.

            Tell me if you decide to attend and I will show you around and introduce you to the best atmospheric scientists in the world.

          • who new posted at 2:33 pm on Wed, Apr 28, 2010.

            who new Posts: 367

            Good work, Ed, you’ve really piqued my interest in a subject I hadn’t spent that much time researching before. Your comment about “true scientists” made me find out if there is a consensus among scientists, and I found this statement in a Wikipedia article titled “Scientific opinion on climate change” regarding that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities –

            “No scientific body of national or international standing has maintained a dissenting opinion since the American Association of Petroleum Geologists adopted its current position in 2007”.


            In other words, presumably the reason real scientists won’t attend your conference is they recognize it would only give credibility to a fringe propaganda group who isn’t interested in the years of research rational scientists have done. It’s kind of like holding a human rights seminar at a KKK meeting, what’s the point?

          • Ed Berry posted at 10:27 am on Wed, Apr 28, 2010.

            Ed Berry Posts: 5

            Read the "About GCP" page of the Global Carbon Project, referenced by Who New, and read the list of people involved. The GCP is not a group with expertise or even focus in judging the effect of human CO2 on climate.

            The GCP merely assumes the UN IPCC is correct about climate change and then it spends its reward money to produce more propaganda to support the IPCC.

            Environmental groups such as the GCP depend for their living on the continuation of the global warming fraud. They can't let it collapse because then they would have to find real jobs. So they must keep promoting the fraud in order to survive.

            Proof? None of their staff will attend the International Conference on Climate Change to discuss their ideas with real scientists. If the global warmers were true scientists, they would be there. The truth is they are afraid of the truth.

            For science you can trust, talk to the world's best atmospheric scientists who will attend the International Conference on Climate Change on May 16-18. To claim these scientists have "dubious credentials" is a rather extreme statement coming from someone who will not attend the Conference and challenge their science.

          • who new posted at 9:00 am on Wed, Apr 28, 2010.

            who new Posts: 367

            For those who are really interested in finding out more information about these issues rather than the pseudo-science Ed advocates, check out:


            There is an almost overwhelming amount of information here, but of particular interest to skeptics may be the references and data sources contained here, as opposed to dubious credentials of Ed’s sources.

          • mooseberryinn posted at 3:22 pm on Tue, Apr 27, 2010.

            mooseberryinn Posts: 2697

            I think it all is caused by all the heavy breathing us humans are doing. So...cut that out you guys/gals. No more heavy breathing ya hear?

          • Ed Berry posted at 2:45 pm on Tue, Apr 27, 2010.

            Ed Berry Posts: 5

            Good to read a sane article on GNP.

            Andy Mac, I checked your National Geographic refs. Hint: it was not written by an atmospheric scientist. On its key questions:

            Where does our CO2 go? Wrong answer. Our co2 is negligible and so is its effect.

            Hasn't been this high before? Wrong answer. We are at the lower range in history. It was over 10 times higher when the dinosaurs roamed the earth, and was over 400 ppm in 1820 and 1940. Ice cores do not store CO2 peaks so the answer given is invalid.

            How much is too much? Adding our emission to the atmosphere is like dumping a bucket of water in Flathead lake and claiming it will cause the lake to flood Polson.

            How does CO2 cause warming? wrong explanation. Al Gore got it wrong.

            For accurate information, download and read the reports at

            And to meet and converse with 800 or so real atmospheric scientists who will tell you the same thing I do, attend the International Conference on Climate Change (ICCC) in Chicago May 16-18:

            Finally, don't believe anyone who tells you our CO2 needs to be controlled if that person will not defend his position at the ICCC.

          • tileman1814 posted at 10:44 am on Tue, Apr 27, 2010.

            tileman1814 Posts: 100

            AndyMac,spoken like a true progressive liberal.It's people like you and your brother HOOT Al Gore that have driven this farce to the point it has come to.I like
            the National Geographic but Keep in mind that some of their biggest supporters and some of their biggest donations come from the far left greenies.
            Remenber guys like Van Jones?

          • mooseberryinn posted at 5:53 am on Tue, Apr 27, 2010.

            mooseberryinn Posts: 2697

            So, "cap and tax" will stop all this CO2, and global warming. yes?

          • who new posted at 12:34 am on Tue, Apr 27, 2010.

            who new Posts: 367


            Your link is one of the better explanations I've seen describing the effects of CO2, but what's the point of the snide remarks?

          • AndyMac posted at 2:54 pm on Mon, Apr 26, 2010.

            AndyMac Posts: 2

            I sure you wish that all you latter-day self-proclaimed climatologists and similar "experts" would use scientific process, rather than referring to the warmed-over half-truths and outright fabrications by Fox News, Flush Limbaugh and the like. For readers of National Geographic, you saw this. However, I advise the self-satisfied deniers to have a look at this website: http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/big-idea/05/carbon-bath . . . Some of you, when faced with the truth of the matter, may need to hunt up your favorite recipes for crow, but I would suggest that you simply locate a real scientist to interpret the information for you. It's up to you if you wish to remain, simply, "ignore-ant."

          • mooseberryinn posted at 8:53 am on Mon, Apr 26, 2010.

            mooseberryinn Posts: 2697

            Allright you people quit confusing the situation with common sense. El Presidente obama has spoken... there is global warming, no more arguments, and we have to raise taxes to stop it.

          • james posted at 5:16 pm on Sun, Apr 25, 2010.

            james Posts: 516

            mother natures way get ride of the old, if she didn't we would be in ice past our keesters and no white person would be able to live in the northern 2/3 of the U.S. for thousands of years!!!

          • libra42 posted at 5:09 pm on Sun, Apr 25, 2010.

            libra42 Posts: 461

            I worked in Glacier Park for 30 years in interpretation and the prevalent theory was that the glaciers melted away completely about 10,000 years ago. The glaciers that occupied the park subsequent to that were formed during "the little ice age" when major changes in climate came about (cooling). Crops failed across Europe, grapes could no longer be grown in northern areas, causing famine and dislocation. This is the period we are just leaving. Just 234 years ago , during the Revolutionary war, soldiers froze to death in May and the Delaware river was iced over (remember the painting of "Washington crossing the Delaware" and noticing the chunks of ice floating in the river?" That river doesn't freeze now and hasn't for many years. Would we be better off if it did? Pointing to the melting glaciers as proof positive that WE are
            responsible is, well, irresponsible.

          • Pequot posted at 10:25 am on Sun, Apr 25, 2010.

            Pequot Posts: 525

            Thank you Keith Fellbaum ! I'm sure ideologue Chicken Little's like Superintendent Cartwright and his trusty sidekick Jack Potter are clenching and grinding their teeth.
            Any element of truth that emerges and detracts from the fraudulent hogwash being sold by Al Gore Inc. affects the sacrosanct budgeting process of government agencies like Glacier National Park. The only gold left in Glacier is the 'gold' to be gained from signing on to one of the biggest lies ever told and a master stroke by masters of the Big Lie technique. Man made events certainly assist in climate change, but the measurement is insignificant when compared to the natural cycle over thousands of years. Hurry, hurry, and step right up folks ! For only $25.00 per car load ( unless you sneak in via Camas Creek Entrance) you get to see Vanishing Glaciers. Hurry, hurry, while they last !

          • mountainswin posted at 9:51 am on Sun, Apr 25, 2010.

            mountainswin Posts: 42

            who new--- what koolaid have you been drinking.. Where is the "evidence" I mean hard factual numbers on what the temperature of the earth is. What is the earths "temperature" and what is the unusual rate of change amount of that temperature?
            It was global cooling then global warming now its just climate change. Which is it?
            Don't make society and economic major overhauls with no facts. I would say most scientists cant calculate the thermal mass of a swimming pool much less the whole earth.

          • tileman1814 posted at 9:49 am on Sun, Apr 25, 2010.

            tileman1814 Posts: 100

            Yosemite National Park was formed by glaicers, that was long gone before man came on to the scene.Most of Montana was carved out by glaicers thousandsd of years ago.There has been no global warming of any kind in over 15 years.The whole man made global warming farce has been driven by screwballs like al gore,who by the way has become very rich off the people who have bought into it.The glaicers that remain will more than likely melt.Thats just the natural order of the earth.

          • who new posted at 9:13 am on Sun, Apr 25, 2010.

            who new Posts: 367

            The overwhelming majority of scientists agree man has had an impact on earth’s climate. This is evidenced by the unusual rate of change in the earth’s temperature, which has not happened in the past except for cataclysmic events such as massive volcanoes or asteroids slamming into the earth.
            Denial of the problem is unfortunate, as it will make it harder for us to take steps to correct it. The biggest challenge I see is where to relocate all those displaced people from the rising ocean levels.

          • cuzican posted at 9:07 am on Sun, Apr 25, 2010.

            cuzican Posts: 231

            It is refreshing to know that there are other people out there not falling for the brainwash crap about "global warming" that our Evil Empire (government) is spewing.
            There are enough Sheep in this country that man made global warming is just a useful scare tactic.
            I'm all for being more "green". I have a small vehicle I drive when I don't need my truck and try to do things around the house to save energy, but for me its more about saving the money in my pocket, not so much to save the planet.

          • mooseberryinn posted at 8:32 am on Sun, Apr 25, 2010.

            mooseberryinn Posts: 2697

            "industrial age man" has been on this earth a microscopic amount of time. While our record for pollution is not admirable, it is doubtful we have caused the glaciers to melt. Can we do better? be "greener"? Of course. do we need such 'cap and tax" scams to do so? Absolutely not. That is a product of this regime to make some people rich.

          • eman posted at 8:14 am on Sun, Apr 25, 2010.

            eman Posts: 13

            It is refreshing to see someone speak out who worked for the park. On my first visit to GNP in the early 80's it was stated to me that Glacier was named for the valleys and formations and how the very thick ice carved them. I'm not sure if the park intentionally failed to continue this message but I was told back then the remaining glaciers were renmants and wouldn't be there a whole lot longer, geologically speaking. What concerns me is the constant co-opting of everything by the man made global warming crowd as a reason to make sweeping and very costly changes. The warming a long time back and while man may have a little impact it is not the cause of most of what these folks are heaping on. Thanks for the article.

          • Achtung posted at 5:45 am on Sun, Apr 25, 2010.

            Achtung Posts: 15

            I find it interesting that over 40 years ago USGS acknowledge one day the glaciers would be gone. That will be a very sad day for all of us in the valley. This is just another bit of information that makes me wonder if the theory of man made global warming is credible or if its the government has been using global warming as a tool to manipulate Americans.


          AP Montana