Glacier National Park quietly removed ‘Gone by 2020’ signs in 2019—Update

One of our biggest stories of the year was: Glacier National Park quietly removed ‘Gone by 2020’ signs

Here is a video update by Roger Roots.

Throughout Glacier National Park, visitors were met with signs, brochures and messages proclaiming that all of the Park’s glaciers were expected to melt away by 2020.

But by 2019 NOT EVEN ONE of the glaciers had disappeared.

During the winter of 2018-2019–while the St. Mary Visitor Center was closed to the public–the government quietly altered the ‘Gone by 2020’ signs.

And they would have gotten away with it if not for Roger Roots of Lysander Spooner University.

5 1 vote
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
January 1, 2020 2:21 pm

Kudos to Roger Roots. More settled science bites the dust.

Reply to  Greg
January 1, 2020 8:22 pm

Had to notice that the banner sign in front of the landscape model still says “SAY GOODBYE TO THE GLACIERS”, even though the other text has been weasel-worded

One of the other signs says “Glaciers have been growing for the last 7,000 years” – – well, isn’t that interesting. My former USGS colleague, Paul Carrara, did some definitive work on Glacier NP back in the day showing that THERE WERE NO GLACIERS IN GLACIER NATIONAL PARK 7,000 years ago.

The grizzlies must have been driving SUVs

It sucks when an agency like the NPS goes political. Can’t trust anything they say anymore

Reply to  GeologyJim
January 2, 2020 6:39 am

Yes, NPS, IRS, FBI, and the list goes on in this discovery process of distorted public service for alt agendas.

Coach Springer
Reply to  GeologyJim
January 2, 2020 6:45 am

The guides on tour boats there are explaining that, although there were no glaciers 7.000 years ago, glaciers have never melted this fast before. They did, however, mention that the earlier glaciers that made the park were monstrously large compared to the present ones who were comparatively tiny even at their largest. From that I concluded for myself that the size of the earlier glaciers might have had something to do with their relative resilience.

Reply to  GeologyJim
January 2, 2020 12:08 pm

@ GeologyJim:
This report from USGS confirms your statement on glacier-free GNP 7000 yrs ago:

But here aovoe is stated: “By this fall of 2018 NOT A SINGLE GLACIER HAD DISAPPEARED.”
This is blatantly wrong:
– Many glaciers disappeared in GNP after LIA
– One was delisted from the active glacier list since 2005 (Two Ocean glacier; dropped below the 25 acre threshold).
So all in all, the only valid information here is glacier National park service has altered a couple of signs, since the prediction was wrong concerning the time frame.

Next to that Roger Roots’ Lysander Spooner “University” staff should take a class in glaciology. Thus they could learn how to survey glaciers and not come up with “remote sensing” roadside pictures as they did on Jackson glacier.

@ GeologyJim:
This report from USGS confirms your statement on glacier-free GNP 7000 yrs ago:

But this report states as well that Roger Roots is wrong with his ‘observations’
Roger Roots is spreading the FNews that the galciers in GNP are growoing again and this is not true, at least for most of the glaciers in GNP.

This is the graph of Sperry glacier

comment image

and the data for 2018 were +100 and 2019 –1400 mm water equivalent. Does NOT lokk like a growing glacier. Nor do the recent pictures from Grinell glacier support Roger Roots’ claims.

Paul Penrose
Reply to  MFKBoulder
January 3, 2020 9:31 am

I think the point the OP was making was that none of the glaciers that were there when the signs went up have disappeared. Human languages are imprecise, you must understand the context. What this really highlights is that we are currently unable to accurately predict climate even a few years into the future, making a mockery of the 50 or 100 year predictions (they may call them projections, but they are consistently used as predictions, which in, IMHO is intended, they just want a way to weasel out later when they are proven wrong).

Randy Campbell
January 1, 2020 2:22 pm

Our government has ALL the answers……laughable.

John F. Hultquist
January 1, 2020 2:28 pm

Seems like the Park is fine and the Park Service folks are full of schist.
They don’t know what is going to happen so they make stuff up.
Good grief!

Thanks Roger.

Reply to  John F. Hultquist
January 1, 2020 3:31 pm

Rocky Mountain glaciers had been receding for the entire twentieth century. I think the first time I visited one, the park rangers were clear about what was happening but, of course, they didn’t blame it on global warming in the 1960s.

Global warming is all about mischaracterizing natural phenomena.

Reply to  commieBob
January 1, 2020 6:59 pm

End of the little ice age. We’re much better off out of it.

Reply to  commieBob
January 1, 2020 7:25 pm

There definitely was a decline over the last 150 years, but in my 4 decades in Colorado, my experience is that whatever trend there is, it is small compared to natural variability.

I have hiked on several glaciers over the years and nearby there are hand built rock walls/blinds that native Americans used for hunting game and there are game trails nearby also. If the glaciers had been much larger, these could not exist.

It seems like the National Park Service should add a comment about the roads being wiped out when the next glaciation occurs.

Johne Morton
Reply to  Scissor
January 1, 2020 7:39 pm

Also, Colorado’s glaciers aren’t left over from the Pleistocene. They formed during the Little Ice Age. You know, that thing no one is supposed to believe in…

Kevin Kilty
Reply to  Johne Morton
January 4, 2020 10:45 am

Are there real glaciers in Colorado. I think they are probably snowfields.

Carl Friis-Hansen
Reply to  Scissor
January 2, 2020 12:37 am

Interesting with hard evidence from the past and surprisingly the park service have not removed the rock walls/blinds like warmists removed an old tree from the beach when Nils Axel Mörner pointed out the tree as evidence of falling sea level:
Page 3

Doug S
Reply to  Carl Friis-Hansen
January 2, 2020 8:05 am

Thanks for the link Carl, a fascinating read.

Reply to  Carl Friis-Hansen
January 2, 2020 12:14 pm

That article is a keeper.

AGW is Not Science
Reply to  Scissor
January 2, 2020 9:30 am

Heh, they’ll add that comment once they come up with their pseudo-science explanation for how THAT is our fault, too – and still caused by those evil fossil fuels, of course.

Reply to  commieBob
January 2, 2020 2:27 am

“Global warming is all about mischaracterizing natural phenomena.”
Great line. Short, pithy, precise. I shall put it to good use.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Perry
January 2, 2020 6:41 am

“Great line.”

I agree.

AGW is Not Science
Reply to  commieBob
January 2, 2020 9:25 am

I like that last statement – let’s enhance it a bit as a nice general statement…

“Global warming,” “climate change,” or whatever they call it next is all about mischaracterizing natural phenomena as human induced catastrophe to achieve political ends, to the detriment of the governed.

Reply to  John F. Hultquist
January 1, 2020 5:08 pm

To be full of schist is not gneiss

Reply to  Dave
January 3, 2020 9:20 am


julie Payne
Reply to  JEFFERY
January 3, 2020 11:42 am

granite…we rock people are clever.

Coach Springer
Reply to  John F. Hultquist
January 2, 2020 6:48 am

The people you talk to in the parks are given what to say as part of their job. But yes, quite a few are true believers.

Zig Zag Wanderer
January 1, 2020 2:32 pm

And they would have gotten away with it if not for

those pesky kids!

Bryan A
Reply to  Zig Zag Wanderer
January 1, 2020 5:09 pm

And that dumb dog

Reply to  Bryan A
January 3, 2020 9:37 am

Rooby rooby roooo!

January 1, 2020 2:33 pm

And they would have gotten away with it, too, if it weren’t for those meddling kids.

Bryan A
Reply to  icisil
January 1, 2020 5:10 pm

Ruby ruby ruuu

John Bell
January 1, 2020 2:33 pm

Another one bites the dust!

Curious George
January 1, 2020 2:37 pm

What a wise National Park Service we have. They did not even wait for 2020.

January 1, 2020 2:42 pm


Was at the Grand Canyon in July, 2018, and the bird-lady dutifully (and with a stern, this-is-science face) assured us that condor populations were shrinking due to climate change.

Our taxpayer money being spent re-working multiple signs, multiple times that purport to predict the future, when they have difficulty reporting the past.

Jim Watson
Reply to  Nik
January 1, 2020 5:46 pm

The Bird-Lady might want to read the National Park Service website. It says that a “record number of SW (southwest) condor chicks” were born this year:

The website also states that there are now more than 500 wild condors in Arizona, Utah, California and Baja, up from only 22 condors in the whole world in 1982 and only 8 nesting pairs in 2002:

Reply to  Jim Watson
January 1, 2020 7:02 pm

The only plausible threat to these birds are industrial wind turbines. Gosh, they sure don’t care about the condors when that’s the subject. Instead, wind is good! Yeah, good for Democrat investment banks.

Gerald Machnee
Reply to  Luke
January 1, 2020 8:50 pm

Not quite correct.
They have mostly got rid of lead shot which they ingested from the food, but elctric lines are still a hazard. They try to train the ones they release from captivity.

Reply to  Gerald Machnee
January 2, 2020 2:47 pm

Gerald m.Sorry but your a hack! Get your facts right. More polar bears & more condors than when I was a kid (1960) dob. Don’t hype something that doesn’t need it. The people that hear this garbage is off the hook. They would have died off without or intervention (condors). Show me the link to AGW. I’m so tiered of what greening of the world constitutes a threat. Just look @ NASA photos show. Who dies more, the people without heat or people with out food. Green is good. degree is a blessing to the world. At 250ppm that’s survival rate for plants.450/500ppm is better for life.

Paul Penrose
Reply to  Gerald Machnee
January 3, 2020 9:34 am

How do you think all those wind turbines are tied to the grid – yep, with electric lines. And if the greenies get their way, there will need to be millions of more miles of such lines.

Reply to  Luke
January 1, 2020 8:57 pm

I’m sure Republican investment banks refuse to touch that money.

January 1, 2020 2:52 pm

Translation: Glacier National Park: “We can’t help it if nature isn’t cooperating with our computer models.”

Reply to  ScienceABC123
January 1, 2020 6:55 pm

[Translation: Glacier National Park: “We can’t help it if nature isn’t cooperating with our computer models.”]

Computers modeled two scenarios, neither predicted
the glaciers would be gone by 2020.

January 1, 2020 3:03 pm

Cooling… warming… change… on the horizon is undeniable.

Reply to  n.n
January 1, 2020 3:32 pm

Glaciers across the west are rapidly melting. Not wise, though, to put an exact date on when a particular one will disappear. Get it wrong, the folks at WUWT will be sure to pounce on the mistake.

Reply to  Snape
January 1, 2020 3:52 pm

Get it wrong, the folks at WUWT will gleefully be sure to pounce on the mistake.

They get no points for predicting that a well established trend will continue. However, their errors demonstrate that they do not understand the science nearly as well as they pretend they do.

While we’re at it, why was there a Medieval Warm Period and why did it give way to the Little Ice Age and then why did we emerge from the Little Ice Age? It all sounds like natural phenomena to me.

Reply to  commieBob
January 1, 2020 5:19 pm

It is clear that temperature has changed in the past, nothing to do with CO2. So what? Trees fall in the woods, nothing to do with chainsaws.

A better question, how did a temperature change of just 1.0 C, between the MWP and LIA, cause such a huge change in climate/ice?

Reply to  Snape
January 1, 2020 6:45 pm

The evidence is that the MWP was warmer than current temperatures by 1 or 2C. link The LIA was certainly colder by the same amount.

How about, rather than just pointing to some BS and asserting that you’ve provided an answer, you tell us why crops could be grown in locations during the MWP where they have never occurred again even until today.

Chris Hanley
Reply to  Snape
January 1, 2020 7:47 pm

CO2 is to temperature as a chainsaw is to a tree — is that meant to be a cognitive metaphor?

Reply to  Snape
January 1, 2020 8:37 pm

My claim, that the difference between the MWP and LIA was only 1.0 C, comes from various sources, including a recent post by Kip Hanson:

“The Medieval Warm period did not result in a “Climate Catastrophe” and the [iffy] little additional 0.2°C seen today is very unlikely to spark a modern Climate Catastrophe either.”


As well as this excellent article by Anthony Watts:

Reply to  Snape
January 1, 2020 9:29 pm

“CO2 is to temperature as a chainsaw is to a tree…..”

Your words, not mine.
Temperature has changed in the past, irrespective of CO2. But if you think this proves CO2 cannot cause temperature change, you are committing a very bad logical fallacy. That’s what my analogy was attempting to show.

Reply to  Snape
January 2, 2020 1:06 am

Research into science and not pseudoscience would show you that below 288K and 280ppmv of CO2 the claimed warming activity happens. Vibrational excitation of CO2 would require a 16μm photon to excite it above 288K. However, the CO2 molecule does not ‘see’ this photon and does not interact with it or vibrate. All the 15μm LWIR (8% of the total) radiation emitted by the Earth at 288K is absorbed at 280ppmv. As the concentration of CO2 is increased above this level, the saturation path length is reduced – double the concentration, half the path length. Therefore, increasing CO2 above 280ppmv has no effect on the warming effect on the atmosphere. This is particle and quantum physics at its simplest. Something the pseudoscience community doesn’t seem to comprehend.

Reply to  Snape
January 2, 2020 1:38 am

Oceans control the climate. CO2 can not warm the oceans and therefore cannot control the climate. Only direct sunlight can warm the oceans (and the internal Earth’s heat).

Reply to  Snape
January 1, 2020 4:01 pm have that backasswards

Hype a bunch of glacier melting….to push an agenda and put fear in people…in other words…flat out lie

Reply to  Snape
January 1, 2020 4:01 pm

I visited Glacier National Park in the Fall of 2017 and saw the same really dumb signs. Took a bunch of pictures just to have the proof, too.
When I asked the Rangers behind the counter who would do something that stupid they rolled their eyes and whispered that it wasn’t them… it was the folks that Obama had put in charge that forced the climate alarmism language. They were hoping the new Administration would allow them to ditch the obviously stupid and embarrassing signs. Apparently that has happened. Draining the swamp from over 2,000 miles away takes some time.

Chris Hanley
Reply to  Snape
January 1, 2020 4:38 pm

“… These modest glaciers [within current Glacier National Park boundaries] varied in size, tracking climatic changes, but did not grow to their Holocene maximum size until the end of the Little Ice Age (LIA) around A.D. 1850 …”.
“… Thus, in the context of the entire Holocene, the size of glaciers at the end of the LIA was an anomaly of sorts. In fact, the large extent of ice coverage removed most of the evidence of earlier glacier positions by overriding terminal and lateral moraines …”.

Reply to  Snape
January 1, 2020 5:21 pm

You’re conflating logical domains, filling in the missing links through inference, and forcing a consensus through cancel culture. Science is, with cause, a near-frame philosophy and practice.

Reply to  Snape
January 1, 2020 5:57 pm

Not pounce. If the glaciers are not changing beyond a normal range, then the prophecy of [catastrophic] [anthropogenic] global cooling… warming… change may not be realized. Celebrate. Happy New Year!

Reply to  Snape
January 1, 2020 7:00 pm

Don’t agree with how this comment is worded.
The activists put an exact date on TWENTY-FIVE different glaciers, and were wrong about every single one.
Also, it’s not really a mistake that’s being pounced on. It’s intentional leftist agitprop, which they’re accepting a taxpayer-funded paycheck to produce. They have absolutely no right to do any of this and criticizing their factual errors is, in context, a ridiculously mild form of pushback.

Reply to  JC
January 2, 2020 1:02 pm

This might make the wording more clear:

“The glaciers in GNP have been rapidly melting. Not wise, though, to put an exact date on when the few that are left will finally disappear. Get it wrong, the folks at WUWT will be sure to pounce on the mistake.”

The scientists screwed up and the park service had to change the signs.

Or, in the words of someone searching for a conspiracy, the signs were “quietly altered”.

Reply to  Snape
January 2, 2020 4:26 pm


You act like you want to be a big picture type guy.

The BIG PICTURE is that the Park Service arm of the US Government was (and still is) peddling propagandist exaggeration. Those poor individuals (& groups) with limited logical/cogitative abilities that see the government as a correct authority are going to be fooled. Those poor individuals that make their decisions based on emotion rather than logic are going to support the government that is dependent on them.

The park signs are propaganda, pure and simple. You criticisms appear to indicate that you support such propaganda.

When propagandist claims fail, and someone calls the claims a simple ‘mistake’ (as you did above), it makes that someone appear to be a big old weaselly liar that can’t be trusted in the future.

Reply to  DonM
January 2, 2020 11:11 pm

As usual, “confirmation bias” is the big picture. Had the prediction been correct, it wouldn’t have been reported on WUWT and we wouldn’t be having this discussion.

Reply to  Snape
January 3, 2020 12:08 pm

No confirmation bias.

I don’t see people looking at this and saying “look at that, the world is not warming”.

I see this as “look at the idiots that are fooled, or jumping on the band-wagon to feel better about themselves. And more importantly, look at the dirt-bags that are trying to fool poor idiots.” It is/was propaganda.

Hey, if you feel like it’s O.K. to lie or exaggerate to make your point, then there is something wrong with your point of view. The people that put up the signs had reasons to do so, they just weren’t good reasons.

(Hey, hey, hey, Snape … look over there at that skinny Polar Bear.)

John Endicott
Reply to  Snape
January 3, 2020 7:39 pm

Snape you are showing your own confirmation bias there buddy. You have no proof that WUWT wouldn’t report on a prediction that actually came true for once. Your problem is, there hasn’t been any CAGW predictions that have come true. Not a one. so you can’t even point to one that WUWT failed to report on.

January 1, 2020 3:17 pm

I skied this morning and this is the 2nd year in a row of abundant early season snow. Last year was perhaps the best overall year of the past couple of decades. Knock on ice, this will be a good season also.

I recall a couple of very poor years in the early 80’s and when we get another poor year I know what it will be blamed on. Variability rules.

January 1, 2020 3:18 pm

Is interesting that the sign in the video shows there were 150 glaciers in 1850 but only 25 in 2010 (@1:35) so I assume that none of those 25 have disappeared since 2010.

January 1, 2020 3:19 pm

Glaciers disappearing (like loosing polar ice) is a GOOD sign for a great future.
Life needs and requires warmer temperatures (and more atmospheric moisture and CO2) to thrive.
If the glaciers return to any appreciable extent, then we are ALL in BIG problems.
Bring back the warming, up the atmospheric CO2 levels for a better life!

Rudolf Huber
January 1, 2020 3:23 pm

The list of failed predictions on Climate is unfathomably long. And they have not one prediction that really turned the way they said it wold to balance the equation. Any normal, rationally thinking person should be asking how anyone ever believes anything they say ever again. But when have extremists ever listened to facts and logic?

Steve Reddish
January 1, 2020 3:23 pm

I noticed a few things in that “Goodby to the Glaciers” sign visible in the video.
1) It claims the Park was named after the Pleistocene glaciers that sculpted the landscape in the Park. After living in Mt. from 1981-1997, I had the distinct impression that the Park was named after the glaciers actually present in the park. Yosemite National Park features a landscape sculpted by glaciers, but does not have “Glacier” in the name.
2) The crop of glaciers currently found in the Park are claimed to have begun forming about 7,000 years ago. I can’t imagine that any alpine glaciers formed before the Minoan Warm Period would have survived that “heat wave”. My first thought is that alpine glaciers form during the rapid cooling period that follows each warm period, via heavy snowfalls produced by still-warm seas. Glaciers would persist through the cold period then dwindle away at the beginning of the next warm period. The current glaciers in the park would have formed at the initial LIA cooling.


Jeff Alberts
Reply to  Steve Reddish
January 1, 2020 4:25 pm

“I had the distinct impression that the Park was named after the glaciers actually present in the park”

That was my understanding as well.

Nicholas McGinley
Reply to  Steve Reddish
January 1, 2020 6:16 pm

Imagine how useless and inhospitable Yosemite would be if those valleys were still full of ice?

Steve Reddish
Reply to  Nicholas McGinley
January 2, 2020 2:12 pm

Hetch Hetchy would be a poor water supply.


Dennis G. Sandberg
Reply to  Steve Reddish
January 1, 2020 7:54 pm

Steve Reddish….Think you got it right.

January 1, 2020 3:42 pm

And they would have gotten away with it if not for Roger Roots …

That’s a meme for sure. Those pesky kids

January 1, 2020 3:44 pm

Roger Roots is right to point this out.

However, will once-in-a-lifetime visitors to Glacier National Park notice this?

I think not.

Unawareness is always on the side of the deceiver. Total shame.

Jeff Alberts
January 1, 2020 4:23 pm

Still amazes me the number of so-called intelligent people who never expect anything in the natural world to change.

January 1, 2020 4:53 pm

The Himlayan Glaciers will be gone by 2035.

The glaciers in the Andes would have been gone by 2020 but were saved by a world bank project that painted the mountains white to reflect sunlight.

Background info about the Andes

Reply to  Chaamjamal
January 1, 2020 5:24 pm

Did you read point 5 in that first post? Probably not, you would have said they’ll be gone by 2350.

5. Himalayan ice is rapidly vanishing: Bangkok Post, December 13, 2009: An article in the Bangkok Post claims that “Himalayan ice is rapidly vanishing and will be gone by 2035 so the great rivers of Asia that are born there will shrivel and cease” to provide water to a quarter of humanity (The giant climate fraud in Copenhagen, Bangkok Post, December 13, 2009). The preposterous and scientifically impossible idea that the Himalayan ice will be gone by 2035 comes from the IPCC which initially cited a research paper that claimed that Himalayan glaciers will be gone by 2350. As this statement may not have contained the fear factor that the warmists wanted, the date has been whittled back to 2035 without explanation and Himalayan glaciers have been gradually expanded to include all Himalayan ice. As for rivers running dry, the IPCC specifically targets the Ganges river claiming it will go bone dry by 2035 because of vanishing ice. Kindly note that the Ganges derives less than 5% of its water from glacial melt.

That whole story is would have been a major embarrassment to the IPCC and Rajendra Pachauri, except they fail to be embarrassed by anything.

I might look for some of the WUWT stories later, but you can do that yourself.

Reply to  Ric Werme
January 1, 2020 5:31 pm

Yes sir.
Thank you.

Reply to  Ric Werme
January 1, 2020 7:26 pm

Okay, this BBC article is surprisingly candid, possibly because it comes from India.


Himalayan glaciers melting deadline ‘a mistake’
By Pallava Bagla in Delhi

The UN panel on climate change warning that Himalayan glaciers could melt to a fifth of current levels by 2035 is wildly inaccurate, an academic says.

J Graham Cogley, a professor at Ontario Trent University, says he believes the UN authors got the date from an earlier report wrong by more than 300 years.

He is astonished they “misread 2350 as 2035”. The authors deny the claims.

Leading glaciologists say the report has caused confusion and “a catalogue of errors in Himalayan glaciology”.

In its 2007 report, the Nobel Prize-winning Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) said: “Glaciers in the Himalayas are receding faster than in any other part of the world and, if the present rate continues, the likelihood of them disappearing by the year 2035 and perhaps sooner is very high if the Earth keeps warming at the current rate.

But Professor Cogley has found a 1996 document by a leading hydrologist, VM Kotlyakov, that mentions 2350 as the year by which there will be massive and precipitate melting of glaciers.

“The extrapolar glaciation of the Earth will be decaying at rapid, catastrophic rates – its total area will shrink from 500,000 to 100,000 square kilometres by the year 2350,” Mr Kotlyakov’s report said.

Mr Cogley says it is astonishing that none of the 10 authors of the 2007 IPCC report could spot the error and “misread 2350 as 2035”.

“I do suggest that the glaciological community might consider advising the IPCC about ways to avoid such egregious errors as the 2035 versus 2350 confusion in the future,” says Mr Cogley.

Reply to  Ric Werme
January 1, 2020 7:51 pm

Not quite as direct, as this focuses more on Pachauri and the money trail linked to the 2035 date:

Reply to  Ric Werme
January 1, 2020 9:40 pm

The same old same old…this time they threw the no peer reviewed ‘science’ under the bus to retract the 2035 claim
“not peer-reviewed scientific literature – but a media interview with a scientist conducted in 1999. Several senior scientists have now said the claim was unrealistic…”

Reply to  Chaamjamal
January 1, 2020 5:40 pm

Climate Science 101

1. Find something to fear.
2. Be afraid. Be very afraid.

January 1, 2020 5:10 pm

LOL. Busted!!!! Nice work

Joel O'Bryan
January 1, 2020 5:17 pm

My guess is the local GNP Park Superintendent (the local big cheese) received top down direction from Washington DC bureaucrats on what language to use to modify the signage. It would also be informative to know when the “gone by 2020” language was added.
Probably during the Bill Clinton admin in mid-late 1990’s would also be my guess when the “gone by 2020” language was added with the Climate Pope (Veep) Gore directing such nonsense.

Reply to  Joel O'Bryan
January 1, 2020 6:11 pm


John Endicott
Reply to  Joel O'Bryan
January 2, 2020 5:18 am

The signs were installed sometime during the Barack Obama years to push his climate change narrative.

January 1, 2020 5:27 pm

It was a typo. They meant to say the glacier SIGNS would be gone by 2020. Can’t get competent office help these days.

colin smith
Reply to  Gary
January 2, 2020 9:17 am


January 1, 2020 5:39 pm

Am I missing something? I don’t see an update. The video is from last May, I’m pretty sure I’ve seen it, probably here at WUWT.

John Endicott
Reply to  Ric Werme
January 2, 2020 6:59 am

if you check the video on youtube, you’ll see that it says “Published on Dec 31, 2019”

Perhaps there was a similar video back last May that you are thinking of. Don’t know if there’s anything new in the Dec 31st video that wasn’t told months ago in any possible previous video.

Patrick MJD
January 1, 2020 5:49 pm

Great video. Alarmists forget there are millions of devices now in public hands that are fitted with cameras and also have connections to the internet. No hiding the truth anymore!

Nicholas McGinley
January 1, 2020 5:50 pm

Let us be clear about this: There is nothing valuable about frozen wastelands.
Glaciers are highly destructive, and lock up precipitation in an unuauable form, which then plows down every tree, plant, bush, animal, and insect, and wipes out entire habitats right down to bedrock.
The people who say glaciers are a source of water are missing a very important point: MELTING glaciers are a source of water…water that was locked away for tens to hundreds and in some cases possibly over a thousand years.
Growing glaciers steal water, and steal habitat.
Oh, sure, maybe some people might love to look at them and ooh and aah at the spectacle, but they are not providing any benefit to anyone, per se…unless they are melting and land is being given back along with water.
It is hard to think of any catastrophe that is so completely destructive as accumulating and advancing rivers or sheets of ice.
Volcanoes do a lot of damage, but the damage generally heals quickly, and some places are highly productive and lush because of volcanoes.
We are in an ice age, and the periodic advances of the ice on mountains and in the polar regions is the proof that it is very real and ongoing.
Anyone who thinks people can control the climate or the weather is insane.
Perhaps someday we will have the ability to do so, but at this point we are going backwards regarding the state of scientific “knowledge” on these topics.
The least we can do is get the part right where we identify what is bad and what is good…for people, human endeavors, and life in general.
At least then we are being rational.
And at least then, if we ever do acquire the ability to dial up some particular weather and/or climate, we will not be making the world a worse place.

Nicholas McGinley
Reply to  Nicholas McGinley
January 1, 2020 6:12 pm

“unuauable” = “unusable”.

Reply to  Nicholas McGinley
January 2, 2020 11:56 am

Well, they do scoop out some nice lake basins.
Signed, fish from the Great Lakes region

Nicholas McGinley
Reply to  fish
January 2, 2020 2:01 pm

Do you have any notes from whatever lived there before catastrophe?

Craig Moore
January 1, 2020 6:00 pm

There has been a pivot from the glaciers to the stone fly alarmism. Been going to Glacier Park for 63 years.

Steve Oregon
January 1, 2020 6:02 pm

I think I first heard the phrase “purposefully mendacious” here when Anthony used it to query someone’s motive.
It sure fits the bulk of the government climate crusaders.
That’s exactly what they do at every level. Their agenda (noble cause corruption) drives them to connive and manipulate.

Steve Oregon
January 1, 2020 6:05 pm

Imagine how many people saw the signs, believed it and repeated the official claims as gospel.
Mission accomplished?

Coach Springer
Reply to  Steve Oregon
January 2, 2020 6:55 am

The indoctrinated many. But the presentations seem aware that there are a number of informed, thinking individuals present as well and engineered to avoid statement of fact that can be directly contradicted..

January 1, 2020 6:07 pm

Same deal with the sign changers at Hallett Cove Conservation Park south of Adelaide and no more mention of the 130M SLR off South Australia between 15000 and 6-7000 years ago when the aboriginals could originally walk on land across both gulfs and well south of Kangaroo Island to where the coast line was originally at the edge of the continental shelf. We pay great homage to the first inhabitants nowadays but suffer complete amnesia to their catastrophic warming presumably caused by their cooking fires and traditional burnoffs to flush out game. We don’t even get a sorry day for that.

The current burnoffs can be prevented by buying more Teslas and erecting more solar panels and wind turbines that shut down when temps reach 40 degrees Celsius apparently. That’s all settled science because our universities have really big computers to work it all out for us.

Reply to  observa
January 1, 2020 9:05 pm

I used to go to Hallett Cove when I was a boy, sixty-odd years ago. I recently saw a photo, including the sea. It looked no different from the way I remember it.

January 1, 2020 6:34 pm

That’s funny, I was supposed to visit Glacier last week of September. However a historic snow storm ended that hope and Glacier at least ‘Going to the Sun’ road was closed for the season. So far this winter I think the Bob Marshals as a whole are at 98 to 121% of normal snow pack. I bet 2020 is looking good.

Robert of Texas
January 1, 2020 9:26 pm

The reasons for the glacial melt are only attributed to climate change, which by inference means bad-people-burning fossil fuels are to blame.

In reality, there are many reasons for a glacier to melt other than “climate change”, and “climate change” itself is a natural process that *could* be influenced by CO2, but likely is mostly influenced by land use change over local areas.

Another effect behind melting glaciers could be dust and soot. If you drop dark dust on the tops of glaciers and then snow on top of that, it eventually lies on top where the glacier is melting and melts the glacier faster. This is a known effect but seldom does anyone attribute melting to it.

In any case, glaciers are not permanent features but temporary ones – like snow in the winter time. If some tiny bug that only lived a few days were born in early Spring, they might be alarmed at all the melting snow because they have no perspective or concept of seasons. In this case, it’s man and a longer time span.

It will be so horrible when Glacier National Park ends up looking like Yosemite, except to all the kids that go there with no preconceptions.

Reply to  Steven Mosher
January 2, 2020 7:46 pm

Is that better or worse than you pretending to be a scientist?
So can we get what university your science degree comes from?
Do you see the hypocrisy your comment puts you in.

You know the old saying those in glass houses should not throw stones.

Martin A
January 1, 2020 11:57 pm

“Computer models indicate the glaciers will all be gone by the year 2020”

As has often been said, an unvalidated model is, at best, the illustration of someone’s hypothesis.

Steve Case
January 2, 2020 12:51 am

And then there’s this sign that was still displayed in the Smithsonian in 2009
comment image
Let’s see if I can find a link to that:
“Global Cooling” Exhibit Still on Display at the Smithsonian
Does anyone know if it’s still there or when it was taken down?

Gordon Love
January 2, 2020 3:17 am

100 years ago, Glacier National Park had 150 glaciers.

Now it has 37 glaciers, of which 12 are almost gone.

And the key issue somehow is that the Park wrongly forecast how long some of those few remaining glaciers have lasted for?

Reply to  Gordon Love
January 2, 2020 7:53 am

The real question YOU should be asking is, why are warmists pushing a highly misleading claim about Glacier National Park glaciers in the first place?

Did you even read the blog post at all?

John Endicott
Reply to  Gordon Love
January 2, 2020 10:53 am

100 years ago, Glacier National Park had 150 glaciers.

so what? it wasn’t until about 20,000 years ago, that the New York City area melted out of 2-mile thick ice.

Now it has 37 glaciers

It’s a good thing that the glaciers have steadily been retreating from where they were at their peak in the little ice age. A world frozen over isn’t one that is conducive to a prosperous life. The cold times have been the worst of times for human life, the warm times have been the best of times for human life. Given the choice, warmer is better.

of which 12 are almost gone.

“almost” doesn’t cut it when the prediction was “gone by 2020” and the current year is 2020! D’oh!

Reply to  Gordon Love
January 3, 2020 9:44 am

100 years ago, Glacier National Park had 150 glaciers.
Now it has 37 glaciers, of which 12 are almost gone.

And why would anyone give a flying-frack about a few melting oversized ice-cubes on uninhabited mountains? Most people have real matters to deal with.

Pete Rose
January 2, 2020 4:53 am

When you’re told, “Scientists say X”, always ask “Which scientists?”

The National Park Service obviously didn’t ask.

John Endicott
Reply to  Pete Rose
January 2, 2020 10:40 am

“which scientists?” isn’t as important questions as “what actual evidence do they have to back up what they say?” Most of the time when someone tells you “Scientists say X” then have no answer for the latter of those two question.

January 2, 2020 7:27 am

The signs were “gone by 2020”.

January 2, 2020 9:47 am

They should have hired that climate media consultant to handle the prediction….or maybe they did and the consultants get paid a second time to do the update.

Jim Schroeder
January 2, 2020 6:58 pm

Two years ago I took photos of all the signs I could find in Glacier Park that claimed the glaciers would be gone by 2020. The signs are all gone, the glaciets are all still there. A review of historic science papers and USGS data shows conclusively that that the fastest glacier melt rates since the LIA occurred before the 1940’s. And it’s not even close: more ice melted before 1950 than all the years since. Glacier melt rates since 1966 have not accelerated and average less than 0.9% per year.
More details in one of my posts from 2017:

January 2, 2020 9:22 pm

Another in a long line of failed predictions. But this is only window dressing like all the other doom and gloom scenarios. The real motive for pushing the climate change hoax is to scare people and governments into a carbon tax. Look at the financial state of the world governments. They are almost all way over their heads in debt. The value of the world’s currencies are falling because of this debt. When I asked my financial planner about the dollar compared to all the world’s currencies he referenced a Johnny Cash song… it is “the cleanest dirty shirt”. What better way to erase the world government debts than to levy a carbon tax every man, woman, and child on the face of the planet.

January 3, 2020 5:03 pm

I got my undergraduate degree from Lysender Spooner University and a masters degree from the Cussons Laboratory. Right now I’m studying for a PhD at the Ponds Institute.

January 3, 2020 5:41 pm

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha – snort – hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!

%d bloggers like this:
Verified by MonsterInsights