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.
Expat in France (01:10:07)
Yes it was your excellent joke. I quoted it on the previous thread and credited the Christopher Booker article comments.
Nigel S (22:32:24) :
‘The science is scuttled.’
Excellent joke from the comments on Christopher Booker’s article (see above).
I see ol’Winston has been shoving things down the memory hole again…
Expat in France (01:10:07)
‘The science is scuttled.’
Perhaps Fred was in charge of the IPCC report proof reading.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/culturenews/5975397/Benny-Hills-beret-and-specs-to-be-sold.html
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory will be scrambling
to update this and deprogram our kids…Right?
TonyB (00:24:01) : I don’t know if its possible to set up a program to digitally check for changes?
Why I love Linux / Unix, reason 5,482,297 :
The built in tools let you do so many thing with just a few keystrokes even if you never thought you would need to do it. So, to compare two things for a change, you do a “diff” for difference or “cmp” for binary comparison. To make this happen every day at a particular time you can use the “at” command to pick a time of day “at” which you wish the action to be taken.
“diff filea fileb” gives as output the lines that have changed as filea turns into fileb.
“cmp filea fileb” just says “they changed” if it happens.
Now if the ‘data’ is somewhere else, you might want to download and filter it to just the part you care about (so, for example, not hollering “changed” ever time an advert rotates). But once you have a set of data you like, detecting change from the last copy is a very short command…
I love what Linux / Unix lets me do… and I hate how they make me do it… but I’ve yet to find anything else 1/2 as useful. (And after a year or two you get used to it 😉
BTW, the same “tools” exist under the skins of the Mac OS, so all you Mac folks can pop open a terminal window and do the same stuff…
Interestingly, the NASA page still links the retreating Mt Klimanjaro snow cap with AGW. Didn’t the top Mt Klimanjaro scientist say recently the snow melt had something to do with the regional climate and not due to AGW? I haven’t got the time to search for it at the moment, but I wonder if anyone else remembers it.
Perhaps someone linked to this yesterday:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1245082/Cold-winters-stay-forecaster-warns-global-warming-altering-atmospheric-pressures.html
D. King
Can these people get anymore assinine?
C’mon Santer, you gotta be embarassed about such a production.
We’re gonna be replaying this a few years from now to embarass you all.
>>“And we would have gotten away with it too if it weren’t
>>for those interfering WUWT kids….”
And for the internet.
Does that mean that Al Gore invented the seeds of his own downfall?? How apposite!!
.
The language of the Nasa page is pure 1984 style propaganda. The way it is arranged, noting that they do not show the puny temperature changes or overlay the temperature changes on their CO2 graph shows that they do not want Joe Public to connect the dots. All inconvenient truths are omitted.
And here is the list of all the calamities that Global Warming has caused.
http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/warmlist.htm
Pheww!! AGW is quite a problem, obviously.
The sad thing is that so many politicians fell for it (or used it to their advantage).
.
E.M.Smith (02:09:51) :
I remember when I was forced to leave Unix, and move over to Windows. It was terrible. But there were toolboxes, so you could do the same as on Mac’s, in DOS windows. You still can.
Nowadays, in the .NET world you can do wonderful things using CSharp. String-handling is FANTASTIC. So is file handling.
Its much, much better to write small CSharp programs doing what you want, than than those terrible, cryptic unix commands.
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.”
Replaced? With a real alternative… may I ask why? There is no AGW, asking for this mob of conmen to be replaced is just asking for the next con to be created and launched upon a gullible world ready to swallow any lies to self-flagellate and punish themselves for living in the first world, and the hangers on of the third world to demand reparation.
sHx
I’m very surprised NASA still link the retreating Mt Kilimanjaro snow cap with AGW. See the Mote & Kaiser link in American Scientist below: –
http://www.americanscientist.org/issues/feature/the-shrinking-glaciers-of-kilimanjaro-can-global-warming-be-blamed/1
The shrinkage has been taking place since at least as far back as 1880. By 1953 for example the ice area had shrunk by 66% of what it was in 1880.
“The observations described above point to a combination of factors other than warming air—chiefly a drying of the surrounding air that reduced accumulation and increased ablation—as responsible for the decline of the ice on Kilimanjaro since the first observations in the 1880s. The mass balance is dominated by sublimation, which requires much more energy per unit mass than melting; this energy is supplied by solar radiation.
These processes are fairly insensitive to temperature and hence to global warming”.
“An additional clue about the pacing of ice loss comes from the water levels in nearby Lake Victoria. Long-term records and proxy evidence of lake levels indicate a substantial decline in regional precipitation at the end of the 19th century after some considerably wetter decades. Overall, the historical records available suggest that the large ice cap described by Victorian-era explorers was more likely the product of an unusually wet period than of cooler global temperatures”.
” If human-induced global warming has played any role in the shrinkage of Kilimanjaro’s ice, it could only have joined the game quite late, after the result was already clearly decided, acting at most as an accessory, influencing the outcome indirectly”.
D. King (02:07:34) :
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory cartoon…
Wow, Itchy And Scratchy it ain’t. It’s so poor that it’s hard to see any child sitting through it unless they were soundly thrashed and made to.
Charlie A
Could you ask the US EPA about the statement that methane is 21 times a more powerful greenhouse than CO2 which is cited to come from the IPCC 2nd assessment report?
If one looks at the emission wavelength spectra that is nonsense. The wavelength lines for CH4 are much less than CO2 – by eye maybe one tenth.
You say that public law 515 requires Federal Agencies to have quality of information guidelines. There is no quality of information in quoting the IPCC.
I would ask if I was a US citizen. Your EPA is aiming to issue endangerment regulations on 6 greenhouse gases of which CO2 and CH4 are the major ones (according to them) but ignore water vapour. I believe there is a pending law suit about that but public action to necessary to blast the AGW alarmist out of all public offices.
sHx (02:12:55) :
Interestingly, the NASA page still links the retreating Mt Klimanjaro snow cap with AGW. Didn’t the top Mt Klimanjaro scientist say recently the snow melt had something to do with the regional climate and not due to AGW? I haven’t got the time to search for it at the moment, but I wonder if anyone else remembers it.
Deforestation.
http://www.heartland.org/policybot/results/16905/Junk_Science_Ki
NASA stands for “Need Another Scientific Advisor”.
I found a couple of Nov. and Dec. WUWT-uses of the phrase. “the science is scuttled,” the earliest being in this thread:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/29/u-cru/
Glaciergate???
Treeman (23:40:57) :
Pachauri just announced that he was not resigning his position at the IPCC over the Himalayan galcier stuff up:
http://www.indianexpress.com/news/I-m-not-quitting–says-Pachauri/571049
More and more one appreciates the telling significance of Ken Briffa’s remark in one of the leaked e-mails to the effect that what is sound science and what the IPCC wants to hear are not always congruent.
Briffa, by the way, seems to be the one major figure in this glorious brouhaha who has nothing to say.
Don’t stop at deleting the reference to IPCC4 and the Himalyas, take the rotted corpse of AGW out back, dig a hole, and bury it. Better yet, make Jim dig the hole.
I can only hope that NASA will smarten up before they get their budget slashed to the bone. Boot him out.
NASA – once the spearhead of post-human enlightenment, now a bastion of misanthropic backwardness.
Sorry for being O/T
(Or is it OT? Seems everything is about scandal in climate science today).
CRU engaged in propoganda tactics and manipulation of public opinion.
http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/01/climategate_just_sign_on_the_d.html
AT:
“In an e-mail dated 9 October 1997, Dr. Joseph Alcamo admonishes other members of the Jones Gang to forget credentials and just get signatures.
I am very strongly in favor of as wide and rapid a distribution as possible for endorsements. I think the only thing that counts is numbers. The media is going to say “1000 scientists signed” or “1500 signed”. No one is going to check if it is 600 with PhDs versus 2000 without. They will mention the prominent ones, but that is a different story.”
For them, good science is when public opinion favours it.