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.
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:
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:
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:
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
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
HIde the disappearance?
I like the phrase “Hide the Melt”
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.
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.
It’s unravelling faster than a ball of wool in the paws of a kitten.
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.
“And we would have gotten away with it too if it weren’t for those interfering WUWT kids….”
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.
Cheers
Here I was led to believe that the great global warming consensus was based on peer reviewed science.
Thanks Al Gore for inventing the interweby thing.
PS. Scuttler is one of my nicknames 😉
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?
Their funding needs to be pulled.
Actually The Register scooped you 3-4 days ago.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/01/20/glacier_latest/
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.
Larry
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!
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
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.
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
http://nofrakkingconsensus.blogspot.com/2010/01/more-dodgy-citations-in-nobel-winning.html
[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.]
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.
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.