et pet

Officials at Glacier National Park making changes...

Recommended Posts

16 minutes ago, et pet said:

Incidentally, just what do you perceive as the "intent of our OP"?

Sowing FUD about ACC

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, iNow said:

Sowing FUD about ACC

   Forgive my ignorance, iNow, I understand 'sowing' , I think - as in "sowing seeds", maybe?  But I have no idea about what the FUD and ACC mean. 

    Any chance that you might assist me in overcoming my ignorance, please? 

   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fear. Uncertainty. Doubt. 

Anthropogenic Climate Change

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think you have some preconceived notions regarding the intent of the OP, INow.
Your remarks are not fair.
I know you don't believe we should censor a large part of climate science because it might 'dilute' the message of ACC.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, iNow said:

Sowing FUD about ACC

40 minutes ago, iNow said:

Fear. Uncertainty. Doubt. 

Anthropogenic Climate Change

    So now, let me get this straight...you think that my intent for Posting the OP was so I could be :  "sowing fear uncertainty and doubt about Anthropogenic Climate Change"?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, et pet said:

    So now, let me get this straight...you think that my intent for Posting the OP was so I could be :  "sowing fear uncertainty and doubt about Anthropogenic Climate Change"?

Yes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^what he said

22 minutes ago, MigL said:

I know you don't believe we should censor a large part of climate science because it might 'dilute' the message of ACC.

Correct, and as best I can tell, nobody here other than you is discussing censorship. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And you're the one making accusations.
( well Zap also )
So tell us what YOU are discussing.

Lets give people the benefit of the doubt when they present their ideas;
without jumping to conclusions or putting words in their mouth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, zapatos said:

Yes.

 

32 minutes ago, iNow said:

^what he said

Correct, and as best I can tell, nobody here other than you is discussing censorship. 

Wow!  Not even close!

I knew there were a few people here that seemed severely "biased(?)" and quick to misinterpret(at times even intentionally, it seems!), but...

   ...did you read the OP Link in it's entirety ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, MigL said:

Lets give people the benefit of the doubt when they present their ideas;

What, pray tell, do you recommend one do when said offered benefit is repeatedly and consistently squandered?

I doubt you’re suggesting we emulate Charlie Brown continuing to blindly kick at Lucy’s football. So, what then?

In a vacuum, one would be silly to pushback against your point. In general terms and as an isolated point, you’re absolutely correct.  

In context and in respect to the history of this poster, however, pushback against this platitude is the only choice demonstrating any integrity. 

It’s about arguing in good faith, MigL. I have no quarrel with you, but I benefit from enough knowledge of our OP to doubt their sincerity and to lack faith in the goodness of their motives. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, iNow said:

In context and in respect to the history of this poster, however, pushback against this platitude is the only choice demonstrating any integrity. 

It’s about arguing in good faith, MigL. I have no quarrel with you, but I benefit from enough knowledge of our OP to doubt their sincerity and to lack faith in the goodness of their motives. 

Let's all agree that the available science points to human induced climate change. That's a positive beneficial outcome to some apparent questionable suggestions with regards to glaciers and climate change and the message in the award winning doco "Chasing Ice". 

https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

1736_world-of-agreement-2018.jpg

Edited by beecee

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, MigL said:

If I may...

Peppering Et Pet with numerous negative points is totally inappropriate.
He is correct !

There have been numerous changes in the climate of this little blue planet over the preceding aeons.
Climate change HAS occurred, and will continue to occur; and glaciers will come and go ( as they did in my area of the world 12000 yrs ago ).
And he has provided support for his assertions that the causal factors are due to the changes of the Earth's orbit, and the combined effects of three cycles with some secondary factors like albedo, currents, and even volcanic/asteroid activity.

What we should be discussing instead is ANTHROPOGENIC climate change, and how to alleviate that problem.
We have no control over the Earth's orbit, but man-made climate change is a different topic

Yes, the anthropogenic part is our responsibility. Seems to me the very susceptibility of our world's climate system to change is why adding lots of CO2 (our most abundant waste product by far) can cause a significant climate shift - it would take a climate system that resists change for it to not matter.

et pet - whether or not some glaciers survive or the world still subject to future glacial periods does not change the seriousness of the climate changes we are inducing. Like the susceptibility to change, the extent of uncertainty about how it will play it is not a basis for complacency. Rather it is cause to be very concerned for unforeseen or unlikely consequences

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, Ken Fabian said:

et pet - whether or not some glaciers survive or the world still subject to future glacial periods does not change the seriousness of the climate changes we are inducing. Like the susceptibility to change, the extent of uncertainty about how it will play it is not a basis for complacency. Rather it is cause to be very concerned for unforeseen or unlikely consequences

That is the science backed message I hope we all take away from this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So he has a 'history'...
Do you not believe people can be educated and change their opinions/ways ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, MigL said:

So he has a 'history'...
Do you not believe people can be educated and change their opinions/ways ?

but in the OP it says that the claims of glaciers melting were hysterical.  It does look like he is sceptical of anthropogenic causes... otherwise - why is he going on about it and ridiculing them for removing signs?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Myself, I would not have used 'hysterical', but 'premature' is obviously more fitting with respect to the signs.
And this is confirmed by observation/facts.
That is science, is it not ?

I would say that posting signs that disagree with observations/facts is not science, and is actually sowing FUD.
( thanks for the new acronym INow )

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, MigL said:

Do you not believe people can be educated and change their opinions/ways ?

Yes, but what makes you think that in this case?

14 minutes ago, MigL said:

Myself, I would not have used 'hysterical', but 'premature' is obviously more fitting with respect to the signs.
And this is confirmed by observation/facts.
That is science, is it not ?

Seems more philosophical...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, MigL said:

I would say that posting signs that disagree with observations/facts is not science

Which is probably why they removed them. How far do you think they were out by?

I hope the majority are wrong and the ACC deniers are right obviously. That would be great. But even if that were the case I would scorn the 'ridicule' attempted by the article that said that we (the majority) are being hysterical over our concerns of accelerated glacial melt. 

The article talks (or subtly suggests) as though removing the signs is the end of the matter that clears up that there is no ACC and that it was all a myth. I do not share that conclusion with the writers of the article.  

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, MigL said:

Do you not believe people can be educated and change their opinions/ways ?

We're pretty far off topic at this point, but it depends entirely on the person. Maybe a new thread is in order if this warrants further exploration.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
11 hours ago, iNow said:

What, pray tell, do you recommend one do when said offered benefit is repeatedly and consistently squandered?

I doubt you’re suggesting we emulate Charlie Brown continuing to blindly kick at Lucy’s football. So, what then?

In a vacuum, one would be silly to pushback against your point. In general terms and as an isolated point, you’re absolutely correct.  

In context and in respect to the history of this poster, however, pushback against this platitude is the only choice demonstrating any integrity. 

It’s about arguing in good faith, MigL. I have no quarrel with you, but I benefit from enough knowledge of our OP to doubt their sincerity and to lack faith in the goodness of their motives. 

 

   iNow, including this one, I have made less than 130 post here, 14 in this thread alone. A good amount of my posts have been in defense of repeated and consistent negative posts directed toward me.                                                            You claim to have offered me the benefit of the doubt "repeatedly" and that I "repeatedly and consistently squandered" those overtures. Were you offering me the benefit of the doubt, in this thread, when your first post was  -         

           " iNow - Posted yesterday at 08:13 AM

 That’s like saying an ice cube will continue to be an ice cube, always in a state of flux, continuing to be a cube even in response to temperature changes. 

Perhaps you’ve never encountered an actual ice cube in your travels, but anyone who has encountered ice cubes can quickly agree that such a claim is rather ignorant."

   Is that your idea of giving me the benefit of the doubt? Attributing a claim to me, by putting words in my mouth, that I never made and then stating that "such a claim is rather ignorant"?

 

   On to my history, iNow. A history of less than 115 posts(prior to this thread), again, with a good amount those posts being me defending myself from repeated and consistent negative posts directed toward me. Is that the history that you are referring to, iNow? And what about this "platitude"?                                                                                                                                                                                                   What true statement have I repeated so often that it is meaningless?    https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/platitude   

 

  Arguing in good faith, iNow? Once again, let us refer to your first post in this thread. Is attributing a claim to me, by putting words in my mouth, that I never made and then stating that "such a claim is rather ignorant", your idea of arguing in good faith?

  You claim to "benefit from enough knowledge of our OP to doubt their sincerity and to lack faith in the goodness of their motives." This is a really odd statement to try to parse!                                                                                                                                                                             Only one person started this thread, me. I am the Original Poster only me. Yet for some reason, you "doubt their sincerity and lack faith in the goodness of their motives."?  You seem to state that that reason is because you "benefit from enough knowledge of our OP".   

     How did you accrue that knowledge, iNow?

 

    I posted the OP - http://www.alt-market.com/articles/3796-glacier-national-park-quietly-removes-its-gone-by-2020-signs , because I thought that some might find it interesting, like I did.

    I found it interesting that the Officials at Glacier National Park were even going to the trouble of changing or removing anything. A majority of visitors to the Park would probably never even notice the things that the Officials were changing or removing. Why not leave the Literature and Interactive exhibits as they were? Personally, I am quite sure that the funds that were used could have been put to much better use. 

   I also found it odd that the Author of "Glacier National Park Quietly Removes Its ‘Gone by 2020’ Signs", Roger I. Roots, took issue because "local Montana news sources such as The Missoulian, Billings Gazette and Bozeman Daily Chronicle have remained utterly silent regarding this story." 

    Why must any news outlet, local or whatever, be notified of any changes to the Parks Literature, Interactive exhibits or the results of any Universities studies of the Park?

 

   The icing on the cake, though, for me at least, was the Authors (Note) at the end of the article, and to a much lesser extent, the "EDITOR'S NOTE:". 

 

   There was no intent on my part to "sow" any "FUD"(not HUD) about any "ACC".

   Whether or not any of the absolutely honest truth in this Post will be accepted by you, iNow, or any others?                           Well, I have no control over that, you and all others will believe whatever you choose.No need for me to fret about it.  

    My FINAL thoughts on this matter are that there seems to be quite a bit of dishonesty, negativity and acrimony being repeatedly and consistently directed towards me for no good reason.

     Those do not seem like the kind of tactics, actions, methods or whatever that should be allowed in any real science discussion on any real science site.

Edited by et pet
FUD not HUD!! Good lookin' out, iNow!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, et pet said:

There was no intent on my part to "sow" any "HUD" about any "ACC".

FUD, not HUD. This isn't about the department of housing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, et pet said:
 iNow, including this one, I have made less than 130 post here, 14 in this thread alone. A good amount of my posts have been in defense of repeated and consistent negative posts directed toward me.                               
!

Moderator Note

I agree. You go off-topic to complain much too often. Kindly stick to the topic of discussion (which also means not responding to this modnote. It is for information only, not an invitation to debate.)

 
50 minutes ago, et pet said:

                            You claim to have offered me the benefit of the doubt "repeatedly" and that I "repeatedly and consistently squandered" those overtures. Were you offering me the benefit of the doubt, in this thread, when your first post was  -         

           " iNow - Posted yesterday at 08:13 AM

 That’s like saying an ice cube will continue to be an ice cube, always in a state of flux, continuing to be a cube even in response to temperature changes. 

Perhaps you’ve never encountered an actual ice cube in your travels, but anyone who has encountered ice cubes can quickly agree that such a claim is rather ignorant."

   Is that your idea of giving me the benefit of the doubt? Attributing a claim to me, by putting words in my mouth, that I never made and then stating that "such a claim is rather ignorant"?

 

!

Moderator Note

Perhaps you could learn what an analogy is, as you seem to have had this difficulty before. iNow never claimed to be quoting you, or attributing that specific claim to you. (The "that's like" is a huge hint here). They are saying your argument is similar

 

 

50 minutes ago, et pet said:

There was no intent on my part to "sow" any "FUD"(not HUD) about any "ACC".

   Whether or not any of the absolutely honest truth in this Post will be accepted by you, iNow, or any others?                           Well, I have no control over that, you and all others will believe whatever you choose.No need for me to fret about it.  

    My FINAL thoughts on this matter are that there seems to be quite a bit of dishonesty, negativity and acrimony being repeatedly and consistently directed towards me for no good reason.

     Those do not seem like the kind of tactics, actions, methods or whatever that should be allowed in any real science discussion on any real science site.

!

Moderator Note

You invited the discussion in this matter: 'Incidentally, just what do you perceive as the "intent of our OP"?'

You can't really complain when you don't like the answer. (well, you can, obviously, but I mean there's no credible cause for action by the staff when you complain that such a response should not be allowed. As such discussion was invited and actually backed up, there's no credibility to the claim that this was done "for no good reason")

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, DrP said:

I hope the majority are wrong and the ACC deniers are right obviously.

Bingo!! And even if there was any genuine doubt re climate change, with what is at stake, it's far better to err on the side of caution.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Climate change is something that is scientifically evidenced and happens over long periods, although that appears to be shortening. Not sure of the validity of any "message" in the OP, and being from "down under" was not too familiar with the USA state of Montana and its glaciers, so I did some research.......

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_glaciers_in_Glacier_National_Park_(U.S.)

"There are at least 35 named glaciers in Glacier National Park (U.S.). At the end of the Little Ice Age about 1850, the area containing the national park had 150 glaciers. There are 25 active glaciers remaining in the park today".

"It is estimated that if current warming trends continue, there will be no glaciers left in the park by 2030"

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/global-warming/big-thaw/

"So far, the results have been positively chilling. When President Taft created Glacier National Park in 1910, it was home to an estimated 150 glaciers. Since then the number has decreased to fewer than 30, and most of those remaining have shrunk in area by two-thirds. Fagre predicts that within 30 years most if not all of the park's namesake glaciers will disappear."

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

It seems fairly obvious what scientifically and logically orientated evidence can be gauged from the above, at least to me. What do others think?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, beecee said:

It seems fairly obvious what scientifically and logically orientated evidence can be gauged from the above, at least to me. What do others think?

 

Agreed.

The evidence also leads me to believe that using of the term "hysterical" to describe scientists' best estimate, or describing the Park Service as "hiding" the signs when data now suggests a change of timelines, is purposely ignoring the data and casting doubt on science in general.

To provide an overview of the situation paraphrased as "meh, glaciers come and go, nothing to see here", is either being willfully ignorant or is indicative of an agenda such as FUD regarding ACC.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now