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
The NASA page linked above says:
“Certain facts about Earths climate are not in dispute:” and goes on to say:
“Ice cores drawn from Greenland, Antarctica, and tropical mountain glaciers show that the Earth’s climate responds to changes in solar output, in the Earth’s orbit, and in greenhouse gas levels.”
I believe the claim about greenhouse gas levels is false. Although there is a strong correlation between CO2 and temperature, the CO2 changes occur roughly 800 years after the temperature changes . This is because, as the oceans warm, they release more CO2 to the atmosphere. As far as I’m aware all high resolution ice core measurements confirm that CO2 changes are an effect and not a cause. If this is correct then this is another false claim by NASA.
The NOAA web page makes the same false, and much more specific, claim relating to the ice core data. It even says something like: “As the CO2 goes up, the temperature goes up”, an almost perfect quote from Gore.
Chris
Bulldust (03:08:06) :
Is that another way of Pachauri saying “Wild horses couldn’t drag me away” ?
Nigel S (02:50:44) :
“…it’s hard to see any child sitting through it unless they were soundly thrashed and made to.”
That hadn’t occurred to me, perhaps it’s a punishment.
I want to see someone starting to draft ideas for the changes in legislation we are going to need, to break the vicious circle of Pavlovian slavering after the grant money for alarmist studies that bolster political kudos. Now that Joe Ordinary, aka WUWT, CA, and all the others, have enlarged the crack wide enough for public opinion to start tipping.
Integrity Of Science Act? Anyone?
IMO, governments now have a positive opportunity… to
admitannounce they and the public have been duped… owing blah blah… to legislation that was appropriate in the past but we now need fresh legislation to support “clean” science proactively… Public archiving of all data and metadata wrt projects of public significance… Inclusion of statistical auditing in the toolkit required for responsible science… reassessment of grant-awarding systems… basic scientific literacy required for science reporting… inclusion of “citizens’ science” as eg seen on the blogs as an integral factor in the scientific process… accountability of international bodies…Regarding the snows of Mt Klimanjaro.
From news articles this year.
We had a complete whiteout. There was so much snow, we could only see two or three feet in front of us
and am walking in deep snow
There’s quite a bit of snow on the mountain
Re: Peter of Sydney (23:44:26) :
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.
—
In the UK, we have laws. One is this:
http://www.statutelaw.gov.uk/content.aspx?activeTextDocId=1851852
1.
Terrorism: interpretation.
— (1) In this Act “terrorism” means the use or threat of action where—
(a)the action falls within subsection (2),
(b)the use or threat is designed to influence the government [F2 or an international governmental organisation] or to intimidate the public or a section of the public, and
(c)the use or threat is made for the purpose of advancing a political, religious or ideological cause.
So when Al Gore seemingly encouraged the direct action taken against UK power generation, he perhaps should have been more cautious. This is also the law which enabled the UK government to seize cash and assets from Icelandic banks for threatening UK economic security. Carbon Trading and subsidies seem to me to have the same risks.
The sections that may appeal to the government are the asset forfeiture and seizure laws, but there may be some negative PR if the WWF, Greenpeace or even Generation Investment Management are proscribed.
The problem is that all of the claims and counter claims will not be proved, or otherwise, until we are all dead and gone.
LOL…just follow the money for your next AGW fraudulent claim.
I think I’ll watch some football today…
“Glaciers retreating almost everywhere around the world”
Still making the alarmist case. Seems by that statement that glaciers retreating in the present tense only, a new phenomenon. New tactic. Forget telling lies, now lie by omission. Tell the truth NASA about the past, present and future.
“Glaciers have been retreating almost everywhere around the world since the last mini ice age.”
In fact, it is simply unstoppable unless we return to another ice age.
“Disappearing” scientific adjectives being put back in the box.
“Cement a friend (02:53:40) :
Charlie A
Could you ask the US EPA about the statement that methane is 21 times”
Methane is 8 times stronger than CO2:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas#cite_note-Houghton-5
Methane is 25 times stronger than CO2:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/04/080423181652.htm
Methane is 21 times stronger than CO2:
http://www.finanzen.net/nachricht/Green-Holdings-Enlow-Developing-Largest-Ventilation-Air-Methane-Abatement-Project-In-U-S-For-CONSOL-Energy-723811
but no explanation why. Wait here’s something:
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/othergas.htm
“In 1990, a report by an international panel of scientists put the idea in a revised form more useful for policy decisions: the “Global Warming Potential.” This included not only the effects of a gas, but also how long it would stay in the atmosphere. That pushed into the very center of policymaking the fact that some long-lingering gases had a potential for warming, molecule for molecule, thousands of times stronger than CO2.(29) For example, although the current greenhouse effect from N2O was not very large, studies found that the gas would remain in the atmosphere for a century or more. And the level was soaring, thanks to emissions from fertilizers and cow manure. Climate scientists had never given this gas as much attention as they gave to methane, with its fascinating biological feedbacks. But by the early 21st century, N2O had become nearly as important a greenhouse gas as methane.”
So if i understand this right they say it’s STRONGER when it stays LONGER in the atmosphere. Now that calms me down a lot because it means it’s not REALLY any stronger on a moment-for-moment base.
Silly me, i should’ve known they just wanted to scare me with those impressive-looking made-up factors like 8, 21, 28.
Kids: NEVER believe a number when it comes from climate scientists. NEVER. They’re ALWAYS made up.
Unkh. It gets weirder and weirder. When i dug up this Methane-CO2 comparison i stumbled across the name Ramanathan. GHG researcher. To see the warmist position, always use wikipedia. This is what the warmists have to say:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veerabhadran_Ramanathan
“His focus then shifted to the radiative effects of clouds on the climate. This was done using the Earth Radiation Budget Experiment (ERBE), which showed that clouds have a large cooling effect on the planet.[7][8] ERBE was also able to measure the greenhouse effect without the use of climate models.[9]
”
Does this mean that the warmist movement had experimental data about the cooling effect of clouds all along and just didn’t use it in order not to endanger their meltdown models? Ramanathan must be ideologically O.K. for them, otherwise he wouldn’t have a page in the wikipedia. They just try to get away with whatever they do, they just ignore how flaky and self-contradictory all their own stuff is.
Roger Knights:
“…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/
…”
That’s fair enough, Roger – I hadn’t seen it before, and as I used the term only yesterday, I just thought….
Anyway, it’s a bit of an obvious one, so it comes as no surprise somebody had come up with it before!
I just looked at the next page of the NASA website on “causes” and found this statement right at the top:
A layer of greenhouse gases – primarily carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide – act as a thermal blanket for the Earth, absorbing heat and warming the surface to a life-supporting average of 59 degrees Fahrenheit (15 degrees Celsius).
Perhaps NASA has no idea that it is water vapor that is the predominant greenhouse gas? what a bunch of hosers! (or liars)
Where are the trolls. Come on Benson et al, where are you? No snidey comment to make on your hero(s) being crooks?
People of today will be surprised to learn that at the height of the UFO myth how many academics believed in UFOology.
The same will be said of AGW in 20 years.
The only real difference between UFOology and AGW is that more academics bought into it.
Hide the sublime??
O/T:
I’m thinking of signing all of my posts and correspondence “Ellie Light” from now on. What does everybody think?
Expat in France (04:38:35) :
Roger Knights:
‘…I found a couple of Nov. and Dec…’
‘That’s fair enough, Roger…’
Like Swan and Edison, spooky!
GBreton (04:41:40)
“A layer of greenhouse gases – primarily carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide – act as a thermal blanket for the Earth, absorbing heat and warming the surface to a life-supporting average of 59 degrees Fahrenheit (15 degrees Celsius)…”!?
My old HS Earth Sciences teacher-who just passed recently-would’ve given NASA an
“F” for -not- including water vapor….
Pretty basic stuff to miss…
So, given all the icebergs that are ripping holes in the IPCC ship, how long will it be before this entire AGW/Climate Change scam goes down like the Titanic, and it’s perpetrators don’t get a seat in a lifeboat?
What will the beneficiaries (Gov’t’s , investors, etc. )of carbon taxes, cap and trade, etc. do to convince us to give them a seat in the boat, instead of shoving their lying heads under the waves?
I am wondering about the figure from NASA at http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/ , showing that today’s CO2 levels, as compared to the maxima during the last 650,000 years, have doubled.
I assume that the last 120 years of the CO2 record are reported by stations close to the related ice cores!? Or are those values from stations all around the globe, as for example the Mauna Kea station and not related to any ice or ice core?
By the way, I think Mauna Kea station is not suitable for CO2 measurements, with all the volcanic CO2…
Although they are correct to delete lies from their publications, the unannounced way these things are done remind me of photographs of Kremlin members being periodically edited, depending upon who is in or out, in the USSR.
Thank god Al Gore invented the internet to expose his own scam.
WHERE IS THE NASA THAT PUT MEN ON THE MOON?!
tokyoboy (23:55:01)
Interesting observation.
This is off-topic and I’m sure it’s been mentioned before but I find it ironic that google adwords triggers this site to display:
How stop global warming?
Siemens has answers how to protect the environment.