"The Science is Scuttled" – NASA climate page, suckered by IPCC, deletes their own 'moved up' glacier melting date reference

And the purge begins.

Here’s the NASA Climate Change “evidence” page where they list a series of visual earth topics that support AGW as factual. In the sidebar they have heavy reference on IPCC AR4.

click for NASA website

Scrolling down through the page you come across the section that talks about glacier melt. Here is the screencap of that section BEFORE (courtesy of Google Cache) and AFTER as it appears now:

BEFORE- from Google Cache - click to enlarge

Yellow highlight mine. Note not only did they cite the now famous false glacier melting alarm from IPCC AR4, they moved it up five years to 2030!

Feel free to check it yourself with Google cache here. I also saved the entire cached web page as a PDF file here: climate.nasa

Here is the NASA climate page after the recent change:

AFTER - click to enlarge

A big hat tip to WUWT reader “Jaymam” for spotting this. I wonder how many other pages are now going to start seeing IPCC references disappearing?

UPDATE: While the discovery by “Jaymam” was independent, it appears that the UK Register first posted on this on Jan 20th, from a tip from their reader, Charles W., who was the first to notice NASA rewriting history with the glaciers:

Spotted 19th January.  Posted 20th January:
As the article mentions, at the same time, a bunch of celebs were on top of Kilimanjaro crying for the ice.
h/t to Andrew Orlowski of the Register.

Sponsored IT training links:

Need quick success? Then try out our 642-436 prep material which includes latest PMI-001 dumps and 70-432 practice exam so you will pass exam on first try


newest oldest most voted
Notify of

HIde the disappearance?


I like the phrase “Hide the Melt”

Dave F

The Science is Scuttled! That is actually pretty damn witty. Do you have a headline writer? Well, props to whoever came up with that, it is a gem!


Note not only did they cite the now famous false glacier melting alarm from IPCC AR4, they moved it up five years to 2030!
That’ll be the value added data.

Dave F

Another thing. As fast as this happened, I can scarcely restrain the 1984 reference, but I will. It is nice to see that they have the staff to micromanage these citation problems. Now if only they could use such prompt and economic attention on maintaining a record of the actual temperature competently. And by this I mean fixing the problem not the measurement.

Phillip Bratby

It’s unravelling faster than a ball of wool in the paws of a kitten.

Phillip Bratby

More unravelling: “UN wrongly linked global warming to natural disasters” revealed at http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article7000063.ece

I bet the media will be all over this tomorrow. They’ll be slobbering all over themselves the way they do when celebs die or break up. I bet they’re furiously typing away now, with their Blackberries in their spare hands, contacting sources to get all the details about the glacier science fraud. I can see tomorrow morning’s LA Times headline now:
Brangelina Split!
Yeah, the falsified science data that Gore, the UN, Obama, Green Peace and WWF have been bellyaching about isn’t too important now that’s it’s not quite true. So what if children have been frightened by puffy faced Gore? Who cares that the UN rubs their collective hands together like creepy Saturday morning cartoon villains, thinking up how they can conspire to dupe the global masses to cough up more money. Aha! Carbon taxing. Bwaaaa hhaaa haaa… we’ll tax everything they do while we jet around the world and keep laughing like this Bwww haaaa haaa. Why? Because the media is complicit, the masses are stupid and we can pay unethical scientists wads of cash to lie.
Sure, this climate scandal is only a few decades in the making, a con of massive proportion, a crime of politics and activism in science… science children have been propagandized in classrooms to believe, science that we’ve been told to not question: The debate is closed!
That’s it, nothing more.
But Brad and Angelina breaking up – well, that affects us all.

This process of continuous alteration was applied not only to newspapers, but to books, periodicals, pamphlets, posters, leaflets, films, sound tracks, cartoons, photographs-to every kind of literature or documentation which might conceivably hold any political or ideological significance. Day by day and almost minute by minute the past was brought up to date. En this way every prediction made by the Party could be shown by documentary evidence to have been correct; nor was any item of news, or any expression of opinion, which conflicted with the needs of the moment, ever allowed to remain on record. All history was a palimpsest, scraped clean and reinscribed exactly as often as was necessary. In no case would it have been possible, once the deed was done, to prove that any falsification had taken place.


“And we would have gotten away with it too if it weren’t for those interfering WUWT kids….”

Michael In Sydney

But this is how science is done. Small but inconsequential errors are found by other scientists (not blogs or other heathen forums) and the offending statement/evidence is then quietly withdrawn without any fuss and bother. No need to make a song and dance its been fixed, move along.
Good to see the process working smoothly and not diluting the main message.


Here I was led to believe that the great global warming consensus was based on peer reviewed science.

Patrick Davis

Thanks Al Gore for inventing the interweby thing.
PS. Scuttler is one of my nicknames 😉

Michael In Sydney

From the Nasa site
“Global surface air temperatures rose three-quarters of a degree Celsius (almost one and a half degrees Fahrenheit) in the last century, but at twice that amount in the past 50 years.”
Is this grammatically correct? If temps rose by an absolute amount of 0.75C in the last 100 years how can it rise by at twice that amount in the past 50 years i.e. 1.5C
I know they are trying to say the rate of change has increased in the last 50 years but doesn’t this give the impression of greater absolute temperature increase than it should?
Any comments?

Graeme from Melbourne

Their funding needs to be pulled.


Actually The Register scooped you 3-4 days ago.

hotrod ( Larry L )

That would be an interesting FOI request — how about a request for a record of all update/corrections to their climate change related web pages.
Want to bet they are keeping no record of page updates/corrections.


NASA, IPCC and here in Australia the CSIRO are all “scuttled” Hoisted on their own petards are these poor excuses for scientific organisations. With the Rudd government poised to reintroduce an emissions trading scheme on the basis of “settled science” Australia is in danger of becoming the laughing stock of the globe. Those in the know are waiting with bated breath for Jonathan Leake’s next expose on Hideyourajendra Pachauri. Some are even taking bets on what will happen first, Pachauri’s resignation or Al Gore handing back his Nobel prize. What a joke this has become!

Mike Bryant

NASA is a snakepit bent on poisoning our children and our legacy… It’s time to clean house.
A headline I would like to see…
NASA Corrects Temperature Record, Global Warming is Dead

Les Francis

Michael In Sydney (23:27:08) :
From the Nasa site
“Global surface air temperatures rose three-quarters of a degree Celsius (almost one and a half degrees Fahrenheit) in the last century, but at twice that amount in the past 50 years.”
Any comments?

If you care to check back an article or two Michael you will find hundreds of comments on this NASA report.
The credibility has been blown on any “organised” scientific reports by The IPCC, CRU, and NASA GISS.

Peter of Sydney

So now it’s 2030. There should be a law against such fear mongering without any evidence to even partly substantiate the claim. Come to think about it, there might be. Worth investigating.


There are other allegations too — such as coral reefs, mangrove swamps and the average global footprint — but I have no way of checking their veracity — but it would be useful to know if the IPCC was doing more than just glaciers on the basis of the WWF
[I posted this on the previous thread — so delete if you don’t want it on both — I thought that if the allegations are true they are important enough that the link needed to be seen.]

Dave F

Patrick Davis (23:23:32) :
Yep, switched to all italics for quotes because I am getting lazy in my old age.
I think that I shall quote… Jon Stewart.
“Debunked via the very internet you invented!” Or something like that.


The temperature of the mid-troposphere (centered at around 4 to 6 km above us) has remained neatly constant for these 30+ years, if we believe in the UAH/NASA data. And the Himalayan glaciers exist just at these heights, as I learned in the geography class more than 40 years ago. Hence no reason for the glaciers to be melting away rapidly, except for, probably, due to the albedo-lowering black soot released from burning woods and/or low-quality coals in the area concerned.

Peter of Sydney

I’ve read somewhere that the IPCC will release their next major report in 2013. I can already imagine what they will be saying to scare us again. Before they even get a chance to publish it, we should make sure the IPCC is totally discredited and replaced with a real alternative.

Jimmy Haigh

Konrad (23:20:31) :
“And we would have gotten away with it too if it weren’t for those interfering WUWT kids….”
And we would have gotten away with it too if it weren’t for those pesky skeptics…


Perhaps the next round of Australian experts will be a little less alarmist…
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Fifth Assessment Report
The IPCC has started work on the preparation of the Fifth Assessment Report that will detail the state of climate change knowledge, and has issued an official call for authors. More information on the AR5
The Department of Climate Change (DCC) operates as the National Focal Point for IPCC activities and is inviting Australian experts to nominate for Coordinating Lead Author, Lead Author and Review Editor roles. Interested parties are requested to read the background information and email climatescience(at)climatechange.gov.au for an Australian Government nomination form. This form will require interested parties to detail their qualifications, areas of expertise, recent publications and contact information.
The Australian Government will select nominees to put forward to the IPCC based on selection criteria that will be provided to interested parties. The IPCC Bureau will then select these positions.
The Assessment Report will be developed from 2010 to 2014 and the task of authors is a demanding one. Authors will need to have the available time to attend a likely 5 international author meetings and prepare their designated section of work.
Subject to ministerial approval, successful nominees will be provided with grants to support travel and living expenses when attending IPCC meetings. Funding will not cover costs associated with nominees’ regular professional engagements such as salaries.
Department of Climate Change nominations close on 19 February 2010, to allow for IPCC nominations to be submitted by 12 March 2010. Completed nomination forms should be emailed to climatescience (at) climatechange.gov.au.

Luc Chartrand

Heard it snowed on the Kilimandjaro this year.
“Labour Minister Rona Ambrose is right now climbing Mount Kilimanjaro. She promised herself she would reach the peak the last time she was in Eastern Africa, which was in 2006 for the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. Back then, there was no snow on the peak; now, she’s been told, the snow is back.”

Ken Harvey

Were it not for the UEA whistleblower, by this time we would have had an announcement from the IPCC that the Haiti earthquake was due to anthropogenic global warming.
Our debt to the whistleblower is such as can never be repaid.


When you accuse a person in the court and you’re proven wrong then you go to jail for many reasons which you all know.
How come NASA .. IPCC accuses all humanity for ruining this planet and when proven wrong they come up with a new accusation using their fake predictions.
There’s many reasons why they should go to jail.

Do we have cached web pages of ALL the bits of informtion that go into the IPCC report and a copy of the report itself?
I don’t know if its possible to set up a program to digitally check for changes?
If not, perhaps readers here could volunteer to do a check on a chapter/subject they have knowledge of every month. I would offer to do that for sea level changes.
In my opinion this section is more scandalous and flawed than the hockey stick itself. It is based on a tiny number of tide gauges heavily interpolated to extend the record. Basically much of the data and suppositions are invented and the report tacitly admits this at the very end of the chapter.


Margaret, thank you for that link… veeeeerrrry interesting!


Politics makes strange debunk buddies.
Please, move along now… that’s right.

Leon Brozyna

Tsk, tsk, tsk …
Now that’s truly an inconvenient truth.
When a body of lies gets too big, the implosion is not a pretty sight – and it can’t be stopped.

Charlie A

This very long comment can be summarized simply as “I have had multiple exchanges with NASA trying to get them to correct multiple errors in their webpages. Several of their “corrections” were themselves in error. NASA gives the impression that they don’t think they have a problem in regards to the accuracy of the information they disseminate. I have a pending appeal regarding their review system, and regarding the reliability of CRU data.
Long version follows:
I have had an ongoing correspondence since August with NASA about both the Key Indicators and Evidence pages you can select from the left sidebar of climate.nasa.gov.
Some of the many corrections have been:
1. the main page climate.nasa.gov now has a little box towards upper left that says Arctic Sea Ice -34% long term summer average. This used to say “-38% per decade”. -38% per decade is clearly wrong. -34% is about right for the month of September from 1979 to 2009, but “summer” is more like -25%. I have an appeal currently being reviewed by NASA on this item.
2. Key Indictors page, sea level. They used to have a historical graph with a trendline drawn that didn’t correspond to the caption. The graph on satellite record was incorrect. Both graphs have been changed and the references were change. After I made an informal request for correction, the update date was change to 7.51.09 and stayed set to July 51st for a couple of months.
3. Arctic Sea Ice Graphs — these have gone through several changes. For a while they had a graph with numbers appropriate for millions of sq km, but had a label of sq miles. One version of correction had a graph of ice area, but had it labeled as extent. They have had other versions that confused the daily minimum and the September average. They originally had a very scary graph of Greenland that showed how many days of melt there were in each area, but provided no context to show how things were changing, if at all.
4. Global Average Temperature Graph — they used to have their own internally drawn version of the CRU graphic. It had data through 2008, but with an legend that said latest data May 2008. Even worse, they had gone in and drawn a perfectly flat line for the last couple of years rather than plotting the actual smoothed data supplied by CRU. My Request For Correction inquired as to both the smoothing algorithm and the end point treatment. NASA finally responded in early December, saying that it was a 21 point Binomial filter. It is not. If you follow the reference to the Met Office you can see a different graph of the same data, but with the 21 point binomial filter, which is about a 10 year smooth. The CRU graph appears to use a 20 year smoothing algorithm (The CRU reference refers to a 10 year gaussian smooth — 13 point IIRC –, but in personal correspondence Phil Jones told me in Fall 2009 that the graph appears to be their standard 20 year gaussian smooth. Clarification of this is part of my still pending appeal per Quality of Info regulations. My appeal also asks for independent review of this data since it is a highly influential scientific product that NASAs own Quality of Info regs say must have additional, more stringent review. NASA has not responded to my December 7th appeal regarding this, and although I sent an e-mail to NASA on Jan 17th reminding them of the 30 working day deadline, NASA has failed to respond in any manner to my e-mail of a week ago.
Until the Himalaya glacier thing gained prominence a couple of weeks ago, I had not looked at the “evidence” page — climate.nasa.gov/evidence . I was somewhat surprised to see the 2030 date and sent in a feedback via the web feedback form. I also posted this to several blogs requesting that others submit their feedback. I had also copied my comments about the NASA 2030 date to the NASA HQ person handling my appeal of their response to my August 15 request-for-correction. This was in a January 15th email. On January 19th I received back an e-mail from the webpage owner saying “Thank you for pointing out this error. Several other readers caught it as well, and it has now been corrected.
Best regards,” (I have corresponded with the webpage owner directly on many of these errors before going to the formal request for correction route. His standard response is generally “I’ve sent it to the scientists for review”
I responded to his January 19th e-mail with a thank you and a request for clarification of another statement, towards the top of the page, that reads “Global surface air temperatures rose three-quarters of a degree Celsius (almost one and a half degrees Fahrenheit) in the last century, but at twice that amount in the past 50 years.”
His 1/22 response was “I’ve forwarded your question to a scientist at the lab who reviewed this section prior to posting and am awaiting his response. ”
Meanwhile, another portion of my December 7th 2009 appeal was that NASA rejected my assertion that they have an inadequate content generation and proofing system for the climate pages. I requested that they do a systematic review of their system with the goal of minimizing future errors. I am still awaiting a response.
I have not looked at the other pages on the left sidebar of climate.nasa.gov , such as “causes”, and “effects”, and “Uncertainties”, and “Solutions”. I invite other readers to take a look. Based on my experience with the other pages, there are problem several errors that need correcting. Most pages have a feedback link for the Site Manager at the bottom of the page.

Charlie A

Steve McIntyre’s efforts to use FOIA requests to the CRU were indirectly my inspiration for the above actions.
There are a series of regulations called Quality of Information Guidelines. This is separate and distinct from the FOI laws. They all are based upon Public Law 515. The OMB then issued guidelines direction various federal agencies to issue their own regulations.
NASA’s guidelines can be found at http://www.sti.nasa.gov/qualinfo.html. NOAA has its own set of guidelines, as does its parent organization, the Dept of Commerce. Above all of this the OMB has guidelines regarding peer review of influential and highly influential scientific information that is disseminated by by federal agencies.
It appears the Quality of Info procedure is rarely used. NASA has failed to comply with their own regulations in simple adminstrative ways such as failing to notify me of my right to appeal. Indeed, they also failed to comply in that they never came back with any formal response at all.
I do see the Q of I guidelines as potentially being a very useful tool in a quest to improve the quality of information and decisions in the climate science realm.

Patrick Davis

“Peter of Sydney (23:55:32) :
I’ve read somewhere that the IPCC will release their next major report in 2013. I can already imagine what they will be saying to scare us again. Before they even get a chance to publish it, we should make sure the IPCC is totally discredited and replaced with a real alternative.”
Didn’t the inventor of the interwebby thing (And discoverer of the ManBearPig, 50% Man, 50% Bear, 50% Pig) say that the Arctic would be ice free in 5 years, sometime in 2007 or 2008? Will be interesting to see how much ice will be there in 2013.


There is mounting evidence that climate change is triggering a shrinking and thinning of many glaciers world-wide which may eventually put at risk water supplies for hundreds of millions — if not billions — of people. Data gaps exist in some vulnerable parts of the globe undermining the ability to provide precise early warning for countries and populations at risk. If the trend continues and governments fail to agree on deep and decisive emission reductions at the crucial UN climate convention meeting in Copenhagen in 2009, it is possible that glaciers may completely disappear from many mountain ranges in the 21st century

Yet another over the top and unsupportable claim – this time from the UN Environment Programme. http://www.grid.unep.ch/glaciers/
But even worse, if you read the actual report, this sound-bite is almost totally unsupported. The reports states quite clearly – time and again – that glacier shrinking started at the end of the Little Ice Age and that the majority of shrinkage occurred before the AGW era. There is discussion about rate of change of glacier length changing recently, but also discussion about how some glaciers have had lengthening periods within the AGW period – e.g. New Zealand Glaciers.
Thanks to http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2010/01/23/2634/#comments for pointing this out.


In fact this was pointed out to Gavin at Real Climate and all he could say was that it was a mistake which was rectified.
See comment #35 at http://www.realclimate.org/?comments_popup=2773 and his response:

[Response: That’s a joke right? They fix an error, and now you want them to track down and apologise to everyone who may have read it? If something is wrong, it gets fixed. You should be happy. – gavin]

I thought NASA were the people that sent men to the moon. If they can make errors like this then I wonder whether their high standards have taken a plunge because they have turned to AGW false alarmism. My guess is that NASA are soon going to drop Gavin and return to real research such as:
Himalayan glaciers melting due as much or more to soot as Co2 global warming.


Margaret (23:44:48)
it would be useful to know if the IPCC was doing more than just glaciers on the basis of the WWF
Well, the WWF has “peers” and they “review” things, apparently just like “Nature” does, both producing similar products. So what’s the problem?/sarc

Richard Tyndall

By the way, I just noticed that next to the changed glacial comment on the NASA website they have a satellite image of Kilimanjaro with the annotation “The disappearing snowcap of Mount Kilimanjaro, from space.”
The implication is clearly that this is due to AGW. But I thought this had long ago been disproved and shown to be due to deforestation on the slopes of the volcano?
Am I incorrect in this or is NASA again being misleading?


Further to my link jerry (00:49:01) : I have dug up this text in the report body.

Glacier changes are recognised as high-confident climate indicator and as a valuable element in early detection strategies within the international climate monitoring programmes (GCOS 2004, GTOS 2008). Fluctuations of a glacier, which are not influenced by thick debris covers, calving or surge instabilities, are a reaction to climatic forcing. Thereby, the glacier length change (i.e., the advance or retreat) is the indirect, delayed, filtered but also enhanced signal to a change in climate, whereas the glacier mass balance (i.e., the change in thickness/volume) is the direct and un-delayed response to the annual atmospheric conditions (Haeberli and Hoelzle 1995). The mass balance variability of glaciers is well correlated over distances of several hundred kilometres and with air temperature (Lliboutry 1974, Schöner et al. 2000, Greene 2005). However, the glacier mass balance change provides an integrative climatic signal and the quantitative attribution of the forcing to individual meteorological parameters is not straight forward. The energy and mass balance at the glacier surface is influenced by changes in atmospheric conditions (e.g., solar radiation, air temperature, precipitation, wind, cloudiness). Air temperature thereby plays a predominant role as it is related to the radiation balance, turbulent heat exchange and solid/liquid precipitation ratio (Kuhn 1981, Ohmura 2001). The climatic sensitivity of a glacier not only depends on regional climate variability but also on local topographic effects and the distribution of the glacier area with elevation, which can result in two adjacent glaciers featuring different specific mass balance responses (Kuhn et al., 1985). As a consequence, the glacier sensitivity to a climatic change is much related to the climate regime in which the ice is located. The mass balance of temperate glaciers in the mid-latitudes is mainly dependent on winter precipitation, summer temperature and summer snow falls (temporally reducing the melt due to the increased albedo; Kuhn et al. 1999). In contrast, the glaciers in the low-latitudes, where ablation occurs throughout the year and multiple accumulation seasons exist, are strongly influenced by variations in atmospheric moisture content which affects incoming solar radiation, precipitation and albedo, atmospheric longwave emission, and sublimation (Wagnon et al. 2001, Kaser and Osmaston 2002). In the Himalaya, influenced by the monsoon, most of the accumulation and ablation occurs during the summer (Ageta and Fujita 1996, Fujita and Ageta 2000). Cold glaciers in high altitude and the polar regions can receive accumulation in any season (Chinn 1985). As described in the text, strongly diverse mass balance characteristics also exist between glaciers under dry-continental conditions and in maritime regions. As a consequence, analytical or numerical modelling is needed to quantify the above mentioned topographic effects as well as to attribute the glacier mass changes to individual meteorological or climate parameters (e.g., Kuhn 1981, Oerlemans 2001). Modelling is further needed in combination with measured and reconstructed glacier front variations, to compare the present mass changes with the (pre-) industrial variability (e.g. Haeberli and Holzhauser 2003).

The critical statement is at the end

As a consequence, analytical or numerical modelling is needed to quantify the above mentioned topographic effects as well as to attribute the glacier mass changes to individual meteorological or climate parameters (e.g., Kuhn 1981, Oerlemans 2001). Modelling is further needed in combination with measured and reconstructed glacier front variations, to compare the present mass changes with the (pre-) industrial variability (e.g. Haeberli and Holzhauser 2003).

Which is polite-speak for “we don’t know whether glacier shrinkage is very different now compared to earlier” and “We need to do a shedload more work before we can say anything definitive”
The last part is in the class of “they would say that wouldn’t they” – after all this is funded work.

Peter of Sydney

I am getting sick of these false and clearly exaggerated claims. It’s about time we made a few of our own. Withing 10 years we will see the river Thames freeze over in winter. If it happens do I get Al Gores Nobel Prize?

Old Goat

“The Science is Scuttled” Well, actually, I claim that one as I included it in my post on the piece by Christopher Booker in yesterday’s Daily Telegraph. Unless, of course, it’s pure coincidence…


@ Phillip Bratby (23:16:01) :

More unravelling: “UN wrongly linked global warming to natural disasters”

But they did it the other way around. This looks like they said global warming is caused by natural disasters?

Peter Plail

Come on chaps – you shouldn’t be criticising all the climate scientists, because weather is a difficult subject.
A letter to the Sunday Telegraph from Professor Paul Hardaker, CEO of the Royal Meteorological Society, commenting on Christopher Booker’s criticisms of met office forecasting performance says “These forecasts have been of extremely high quality, given the challenging nature of the weather”.
He concludes with “… The Sunday Telegraph continues to knock its [the Met Office’s] performance, without understanding the difficult nature of what it has achieved in recent weeks.”
Sounds like we are going to get a lot of PR in the future about how hard it is being a weather forecaster (sorry -should that be climate scientist or am I getting climate and weather mixed up?).


I guess the galciers are just going to sheepishly grow back now that j00 guise have uncovered teh IPCC telling teh liez! Damn nature, always trying to push a warmist bias down the throats of weeze sceptics!!!


To find the Google cache for almost any site that has recently changed, type into Google:
site:URL-name “phrase to be searched for”
and select the cached version in the search results.
Note there is a blank after the URL-name.
site:climate.nasa.gov/evidence/ “may disappear altogether”


There you are – this just proves the point how skeptics create unnecessary work for hardworking scientists by demanding that they be accountable for the accuracy of “the science”!
And just so you know, “It doesn’t disprove the facts about global warming”. /sarc


Wow, Charlie A strong stuff. Good for you – an innovative way to keep public entities honest in their claims.