Canadian glaciers may shrink by 70 percent by the end of the century, a development which could have devastating environmental effects, according to a new report published Monday in Nature Geoscience.
Just the cost of changing the name of Glacier National Park should be a compelling enough reason to try to prevent this. Seeing as financial costs are the only thing that matter in this world....
Harper and his corporate energy moguls are salivating over the prospect of the exposure of and access to even more land to subject to tar sands extraction. That rape of land, poisoning rivers and ground water, and destruction of all manner of wildlife (and their habitat and ancient migratory paths) and First Nations' people will certainly be Canada and North America's (including U S) virtual undoing.
As Noam Chomsky said recently (and I paraphrase), "Never in the history of mankind have humans borne the unavoidable responsibility to ensure the survival of life (including human species) and our planet by taking drastic measures to eliminate the obvious and scientifically proven destructive practices."
Capitalism works! Not only will the 'retreating' glaciers allow easier access to any oil/natural gas beneath, the melted glaciers provide another benefit in the profit-seeking world:
Millions of gallons of fresh water; ready to be sold to Californians (well, the "farmers" and the rich anyway). So you see, melting glaciers are a positive feedback loop: burn fossil fuel > glaciers melt > sell water + burn more fossil fuel found under glaciers > more glaciers melt....of course, it's a short-term loop (and terming it a "positive" is....well, obscene).
The study purports to employ a widely used model with the innovation of fully accounting for the physics of ice flows. Moreover, the study focuses on Western Canada.
I'm not a scientist, however, I think your issue is with Common Dreams and not the scientists. The report makes it clear that Western Canada faces 70% glacier loss by 2100, based on a model that seemingly only observed Western Canada. The model does not seem to account for other factors that can (will) accelorate climate change, i.e. methane release from the Arctic.
I suspect, if the work of the scientists were expanded to include other regions and/or other variables, there would be a revision in terms of the amount of glacier loss and its timeline.
If it the topic were not so tragic, I might laugh at your tongue-in-cheek comment.