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
Another great lump has fallen off the IPCC’s global warming propaganda machine.
This is from the Sunday Telegraph
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/globalwarming/7066720/UN-climate-science-panel-incorrectly-linked-global-warming-to-rise-in-natural-disasters.html
UN climate science panel incorrectly linked global warming to rise in natural disasters
The United Nations’ climate science panel is facing further embarrassment after claims it incorrectly linked global warming to a rise in natural disasters.
By Chris Irvine
24 Jan 2010
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change claimed in 2007 that the world had “suffered rapidly rising costs due to extreme weather related events since the 1970s”, suggesting that part of the increase was down to global warming. But the scientific paper on which the IPCC based its claim was allegedly not peer reviewed or published by the time the report was issued. When it was eventually published in 2008, it came with the caveat: “We find insufficient evidence to claim a statistical relationship between global temperature increase and catastrophe losses”.
Despite the concession, the IPCC failed to clarify the statement ahead of last month’s Copenhagen summit. The claim formed a central argument at the climate change conference, where African nations demanded £62 billion in compensation from rich nations responsible for the highest amount of carbon emissions.
Jean-Pascal van Ypersele, vice-chair of the IPCC has now conceded that the evidence will be reviewed. “We are reassessing the evidence and will publish a report on natural disasters and extreme weather with the latest findings,” he said.
Roger Pielke, professor of environmental studies at Colorado University, who commissioned Dr Muir-Wood’s paper, told The Sunday Times: “All the literature published before and since the IPCC report shows that rising disaster losses can be explained entirely by social change. People have looked hard for evidence that global warming plays a part but can’t find it,” he said.
“The idea that catastrophes are rising in cost because of climate change is completely misleading.”
Douglas DC (05:31:31) : says ” 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…”
Now make your old HS Earth Sciences teacher proud and submit a request for clarification. Click on “Site Manager: Randal Jackson”, down at the bottom right corner of the webpage.
P Gosselin (07:18:21) :
“WHERE IS THE NASA THAT PUT MEN ON THE MOON?!”
I’d say it’s in the serious part of NASA, and not in the Fraud Division.
Don’t let one rotten part soil your opinion.
Enabling AGW/Hansen is not a good “sign”. Not immediately acting to save itself means it can’t. I’ll give them two weeks. This is a gigantic political issue, too.
CNN has figured it all out. They have a bar chart that tracts most viewed articles. A new McDonald’s bar opening up in some town got way more views yesterday than any other item. That would make news about glaciers coming or going WAAAYYYY down the list. It ain’t them folks, it’s us. oops. Gotta go. Meeting some friends down at that new bar!
These revelations of these IPCC scientific errors alone are enough to overturn the Massachusetts v. EPA decision of 2007. The ruling in favor of the EPA required that there be an injured party and the first injury mentioned was the “…global retreat of mountain glaciers…”. Later in the injury passage there was an observation that “…rising ocean temperatures may contribute to the ferocity of hurricanes.” Both of these IPCC conclusions that the majority opinion were based on have been proven wrong.
In case the facts alone are not enough to revisit the decision the Climategate scandal should be enough. The science was not argued to the Supreme Court. The case was based on an appeal to authority argument where the IPCC was the authority. The Climategate emails have left the moral authority of the IPCC in tatters.
The majority decision is available at:
http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/06pdf/05-1120.pdf
Bad editing acknowleged.
I just want to thank all of you at Watts Up With That? who have kept us informed. Thank you!! (I’m giving you a virtual hug)…. there!
It is pretty scary when a US science agency appears to have adopted witch craft at the expense of science.
If glacier melting is misleading, if the connection between global warming and natural disasters is misleading, if scientists intentionally “hide the decline”, then at what point do we throw in the towel on the entire notion of global warming as say the science is simply too corrupt to know whether or not it is correct?
They are still calling Kilimanjaro’s snowcap “disappearing”, which is also typical of their generally biased and loaded writing style. I haven’t seen any specific date on when it actually will disappear, unlike their earlier certainty about the Himalayan glaciers. It seems that one equatorially-situated mountain might be more easily assessed than hundreds of glaciers in the highest mountain range in the world. Recent evidence, as most of you already know, has indicated the snow cap is being ablated by dry winds, rather than melting as the alarmists had maintained. The snowcap has been shrinking, but it hasn’t disappeared, and if further climate change brings more snow to it, it might grow again.
They are still on a full court press, despite a couple of setbacks.
Richard Tyndall (01:04:43) : says “.. 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….Am I incorrect in this or is NASA again being misleading?”
Dan Rather got burnt by a memo regarding GW Bush that was “fake but accurate”. I think in this case, NASA is “accurate but misleading”.
In much of the climate.nasa.gov pages NASA conflates _anthropogenic_ global warming, global warming, and climate change. The disappearing Mt Kilimanjaro snowcap is a sign of climate change. It is misleading to imply that it is a sign of AGW. Remember that the disappearing Mt Kilimanjaro snowcap (and the 2030 himalaya glacier disappearance) are on a page purporting to be EVIDENCE of (anthropogenic ???) global warming.
The NASA pages have many outright errors. I have been requesting corrections of only the most egregious errors, with the end goal of forcing NASA to clean house on their own.
However, you are free to request clarification and/or correction by clicking on the feedback link to the site manager that is located at the bottom right of the webpage.
It is much easier to get individual gross misstatements corrected than it is to force a change in the overall tone and bias. Mt Kilimanjaro falls more into the bias category.
I’ve found it strange that Hansen (NASA) started pushing global warming in 1988, the year that Richard Feynman died. I think that if Feynman had been alive, AGW would have not gained the traction it did. Just seems a strange co-incidence given that Feynman had just raked NASA over the coals.
Charlie A. The NASA site under “Evidence” also has the standard Chart for Atmospheric CO2 levels for the last 650,000 years as evidence of the current level of CO2 being forced by Man, because it had been fairly stable.
They neglect to mention the Millions of years prior to that where it was 10 times higher than now without any interference from Man at all, and which included an Ice Age when CO2 was 4000ppm.
Science by “social cascade”
I’m been discussing this issue with many others who have told me that the 2035 mistake has been known since around 1999. If this is true, then why are there so many stories on google that describe the 2035 date?
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&q=himalayan+glaciers+may+disappear+by+2035&aq=2sx&aql=&aqi=g-s2g-sx7g-s1&oq=himalaya+glacier
When NASA said 2030, they meant in metric years, not regular years.
CAGW is augering in. There are a few folks left at NASA who know what that means. It might be time to abandon that particular ship, eh boys?
{ K. Bray in High California, USA (08:28:15) :
{ P Gosselin (07:18:21) :
“WHERE IS THE NASA THAT PUT MEN ON THE MOON?!” }
The “NASA THAT PUT MEN ON THE MOON?!” …
were the World War 2 Scientists from Germany who are either:
retired, or in prison for war crimes, or dead. }
I correct myself, I did not check enough “peer reviewed” information.
No German Rocket Scientists ended up in prison for war crimes that I can find, I thought Rudolph did, but he was only accused and not prosecuted. He did lose his US citizenship and medal of honor and had to move back to Germany. I confused him with someone else, however many of the German scientists resumes were “whitewashed” of “unacceptable associations” as defined by Harry Truman, thus clearing them for work at NASA. Apologies for my inaccuracy.
Article: ARTHUR RUDOLPH, EX-GERMAN ROCKET SCIENTIST WHO HAD …
Rocky Mountain News (Denver, CO); January 3, 1996 ; 483 words …Byline: ASSOCIATED PRESS HUNTSVILLE, ALA. — Arthur Rudolph – the former German rocket scientist who helped put Americans on the moon but left the U.S. after being accused of war crimes – has died in exile. He …
Chicago Sun-Times
By the way, that Saturn 5 Rocket he contributed to was remarkable,
still to this day… Why did NASA toss the blue prints in the dumpster?
? more stupid scientist tricks ?
For all glaciers in the monitoring system, the last survey year was 2007. Many glaciers haven’t been monitored past the 80’s. The number of surveys done have varied from just a few to maybe a dozen. Monitoring was done at different times of the year. Etc. The condition of the data in terms of being able to aggregate it would be a nightmare for any learned statistician. I wouldn’t want to live on the difference between data error and natural variability. As for patterns that could be correlated to AGW, forget it. The data pool is worse than temp sensors.
Is this the same NASA to whom we are entrusting the lives of our Astronauts?
P Gosselin (07:18:21) :
“WHERE IS THE NASA THAT PUT MEN ON THE MOON?!”
I’ll take the part that boldly goes where no man has gone before: the AGW division is a bust.
The science was settled and it was unsettling that is was settled. The science is now just unsettling. 😉
DaveE.
Tony B – Here’s one that’s been right before our eyes.
CLIMATE POLICY – FROM RIO TO KYOTO
A Political Issue for 2000 – and Beyond
(In particular refer to page 19/20: ‘Politics Enters into Drafting the IPCC Report.’ Here examples are given of ‘substantial changes … made between the time when the report was approved in Madrid and the time it was printed. (The convening lead author, Ben Santer, readily admitted to making these changes.)
I forgot the link
http://media.hoover.org/documents/epp_102b.pdf
If NASA corrects things on it’s site, being that it is a public agency, I think it should be required to have a corrections page. We have the right to know when NASA corrects things and the reasons why.
DirkH,
N2O is laughing gas, methane is CH4. Just in case.