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 real point behind the NASA story isn’t that they removed the IPCC reference it is that they could’nt even faithfully reproduce 2035, seeking to make it even more alarmist by 5 years, a preposterous assertion for a scientist of James Hansen’s reputation in the first place. One is reluctantly forced to conclude that if NASA/GISS can falsify a simple transposition of data, what weight should we put on their scientific record? Even if there was an AGW case, the data bases must now be viewed as so corrupted as to be meaningless. Oh what a tangled web we weave……..
Otto
A little poem for our climate betters…
Three Rings
the circus came to town one day some twenty years ago no one
thought they’d stay so long we thought that after days they’d go along
their merry ways they’d pack up tents and animals and clowns and
trapeze rigs the big top would be struck and stacked the acrobats and
freak displays the monkeys and trained pigs would move along as we
all waved with smiles big and love for them but why oh why oh why my
friend did they linger here so long we only wished they’d gone away
I guess they thought our love for shows and pageantry and such would
override our common sense or maybe to be merciful they all were lost
in some grand dream about a show that plays unending maybe they
were lost I guess but somehow we the watchers bore the much too
vaunted cost the suave ringmaster’s glow is gone his feet were made
of stone the lovely lady acrobats are left without a home the big top has
been shredded by two decades of life storms the canvas hangs like
banners the tall pole leans and mourns at least the show is over now
but god help each of us to watch out for that next one and then put it on
the bus
The science settled during shipping and handling, like cornflakes.
Thanks for keeping the spotlight of truth focused on the scoundrels that feed at the trough of public funds and sleep with the politicians who use manufactured “scientific facts” to control and manipulate the people.
President Eisenhower warned us about this unholy alliance in his farewell address to the nation on January 17, 1961:
“The prospect of domination of the nation’s scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present – and is gravely to be regarded.”
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/ike.htm
Despite the warning, the alliance flourished and has been manipulating and distorting space age data at least since lunar samples were first returned to Earth by the 1969 Apollo Mission to the Moon.
On June 26, 2008 I went to the National Academy of Sciences Building in Washington, DC to warn members of the Space Science Board about involving NASA in fraudulent claims of global warming.
In addition to journalist Marc Kaufman of the Washington Post and Alan B. Mollahan (Chair of the House Appropriations subcommittee that funds NASA and NSF), were Dr. Ralph Cicerone (NAS President) and as I recall, these Space Science Board Members – Claude R. Canizares (Former SSB Chair), Alan Dressler, Lennard A. Fisk (SSB Chair), Fiona A. Harrison, Charles F. Kennel (Incoming SSB Chair), Louis J. Lanzerotti (Former SSB Chair), Molly K. Maculey, Vera Rubin, Joan Vernikos, and A. Thomas Young (SSB Vice-Chair).
It is regrettable that NASA’s image has been foolishly tarnished by continued involvement in fraudulent claims of CO2-induced global climate warming.
With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel
Former NASA PI for Apollo
“Josualdo (13:12:00) :
DirkH,
N2O is laughing gas, methane is CH4. Just in case.”
While the paragraph i quoted talks about N2O, i quoted it because it explains how these factors are made up: It is not the case that N2O or CH4 have bigger absorptive power than CO2 but that they are assumed to persist longer in the athmosphere.
BTW i don’t believe these assumptions per se. Whenever a number is not exactly known, the IPCC will use the highest reasonable guesstimate and in some cases multiply it with a hundred. It would need a trustworthy study, not peer reviewed by The Team but by somebody else to even raise the possibility that these long persistence times are even remotely justified for me. Remember: Never trust a number from the warmists.
Oliver K. Manuel (13:27:53) :
I like what NASA’s Space division is doing.
It’s very ugly what NASA’s GISS has been up to, getting into bed with the likes of climate flim-flam artists.
Solution: Jettison GISS.
John A (23:19:41):
Well said. It is no surprising because much of the so-called evidence for global warming has been either anecdotal or based on opinion without a through peer review. Perhaps, our logo for the denier tee shirts could be that poor polar bear sitting on an ice floe waiting for his girl friend with the slogan the science is scuttled. The problem with much of mean green movement is they are their own truth detectors and will not listen to conflicting information. It appears that the WUWT kids are about to kill the goose that lays the carbon footprint. A lie is still a lie. How can they be so stupid to think that we have lost our copies of what they write and say?
I spent 24 hours at the Guardian Monbiot article, posting facts. None of the believers even addressed them. But their tenacious zealotry was remarkable.
If you have time go to: http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/georgemonbiot/2010/jan/21/christopher-booker-prize-climate-change-scepticism
Read Arbuthnot’s comments. He spent more than 24 hours pounding them silent, one by one. At the Guardian! gatekeeper to the Myth.
AdderW (06:44:08) :
No increase in natural disasters
No increase in diseases
No increase in species extinction
No overall loss of sea ice
Penguins are happy and breeding well
Polar bears are happy and breeding well
(all these are pretty much proven so far)
What I expect to see within 6 months, once we get some real science in the mix:
No actual increase in temperatures last century (ie it was all made up from ‘adjusted’ data)
CO2 being happily used by plants etc so the rate of increase goes down
We will get taxed anyway…….
UK govt voted out
Oz govt voted out
We will get taxed anyway…….
oh, yeah,
No actual ocean ‘acidification’
Can someone answer something for me? 84% of ALL the world’s glaciers are in the Antarctic – FACT. As far as I am aware these glaciers are not melting. So, does that mean that the vast majority of the world’s glaciers are NOT melting. Or are many of the Antarctic’s glaciers melting, even though the temperature drop requirement would surely be huge? Anyone know?
suckered by IPCC
I think some had eyes wide open
Mike Bryant (13:17:04) :
From the ‘Al Gore’ school of poetry I presume.
DaveE.
The ghost of Big Jim Cooley (14:59:02),
Glaciers are the world’s easiest thing to cherry pick. Pictures can be dramatic, and small countries such as Switzerland can reflect changes in the local climate. But the claim that a fraction of a degree change in global temperature will cause massive glacier melt is ridiculous:
Much is made of local climates like the Himalayas and Switzerland. But out of the planet’s 160,000+ glaciers, only a tiny percentage are tracked.
Most of the climate alarmists point to this site: click
That page shows almost all advancing glaciers. But checking other years shows different ratios. So it is true that in Switzerland glaciers are generally retreating – and have been since before the industrial revolution. As the first link points out, “…the advance of the Antarctic and Greenland glaciers, which contain more than 90% of the world’s glacial ice, completely contradicts previous predictions that warming would cause these glaciers to retreat.”
Furthermore, there is zero evidence that CO2 levels have any effect on glaciers. Aside from the requirement that the local climate remains below freezing, precipitation at higher altitudes has the greatest effect on glacier growth. Glaciers – frozen rivers – are fed by snowfall at higher levels, which is a function of the local climate – not of global warming.
mandolinjon (14:07:51) :
How can they be so stupid to think that we have lost our copies of what they write and say?
That’s easy:
They have misconstrued so much they have completely lost track of how much is real and how much has been grossly exaggerated. Lately, we have begun to see how out-of-touch they have become through the mirage of thier own hysteria.
They believe their own alterations.
C02
Mercury – solar wind blasted-off atmosphere
Venus – 96% – massive atmosphere
Earth – 0.038% – massive hydrosphere, moderate atmosphere, sequestered C02
Mars – 95% – once massive atmosphere/hydrosphere, now only sequestered H20, trace atmosphere and polar caps
Does NASA even look at thier planetary science anymore?
photon without a Higgs (15:25:22) : says
” ‘suckered by IPCC’
I think some had eyes wide open”
My general rule is not to assume evil intent when stupidity, carelessness, or cluelessness suffices as an explanation.
We need to keep some perspective on what the climate.nasa.gov site is. It is not a scientific data site run by GISS. It is not a place where NASA scientists present their findings.
It is a public outreach, public education site. There are subsections specifically targeted at teachers and sections for kids. It is the sort of thing that journalists would also use for general background info.
This sort of site, even though it is not central to climate science itself, is important in its effect on general public knowledge and its affect on the general discussion of climate change.
CITIZEN SCIENTISTS !!
Anthony Watts and others have chosen to focus on reviewing and auditing the hard science portion of the climate change industry. I, with a much less detailed understanding of the science, have chosen to do what I can to ensure that what NASA and other US governement agencies popularize and promulgate to the masses matches up with the actual science.
I don’t know who generated the content of the website, but to me it appears that it was done by a typical journalist or public relations writer that doesn’t have much knowledge of science. It also appears the the writer(s) of the website bring with them a strong pro-AGW bias which shows up in their ready acceptance of statements such as the 2030 disappearance of Himalayan glaciers, or saying that the rise in temperatures over the last 50 years is twice the rise in the previous century.
A few posts above Kate says “I spent 24 hours at the Guardian Monbiot article, posting facts. None of the believers even addressed them.”
I would like to suggest that a more powerful way to affect the overall tone of the public climate change discussion is to review government websites like this; and point out and get corrected both errors and unsubstantiated claims.
My assumption is that the majority of readers of WattsUpWithThat, although they may not be climate scientists, do have sufficient understanding to identify potential errors and unsubstantiated claims; do have the motivation to do the literature searches to see what is actually in the scientific literature; and have the boldness to take that final step and submit requests for change.
Don’t just complain in blogs. Take direct action and contact the government organzations and request corrective action when they promulgate erroneous or unsubstantiated information.
/rant off
Charlie A,
I agree. I checked the NASA site out earlier today. It sources questionable claims back to the IPCC report, not the original source. Another poster on this site said that they had numerous hits of WWF listed as sources in the IPCC report in question. Some seemed pretty far fetched. It looks like NASA, and perhaps others are now using the IPCC report as a washing machine to cleanse far out assertions, and then calling it “evidence”.
Right on, Charlie! It’s the electronic equivalent of “storming the gates” to let our government — who are employed by us and and are there to serve us with diligence — know when they are off-base and out of touch with the real world. AGW thinking/ policy/ science/ religion/ whatever is WAY OUT OF CONTROL. We MUST speak up as you suggest or only blame ourselves for the government we get.
It’s nice to know that reputable sites correct any errors or suspect information as soon as they discover it. Wouldn’t it be wonderful if all websites did the same thing 🙁
Thank you for that correction Charlie A. While it relieves GISS of blame for deliberate fraud it enhances my point about the alarmosphere being engaged in a game of Chinese whispers in which each other’s alarmist claims are quoted as primary data & exagerated.
Ummm, you need to re-think your Google adds. I’ve been noticing that Google has been putting pro AGW adds on blogs and webpages that are proving that the whole thing is a hoax.
Here’s the add I see right now on your page:
“Stop Global Warming” – Nature Canada (with cute picture of polar bears… of course)
Am I the only one who is glad that they are at least attempting to fix known problems on their web site? Even if it’s for the wrong reasons, and even if they are still openly alarmist, they are better than young-earthers and moan-hoaxers in the fact that when something is known to be openly wrong, they remove it.
Removing information proven to be false proves nothing aside from the fact that they have a diligent webmaster.
“”” photon without a Higgs (05:43:57) :
WHERE IS THE NASA THAT PUT MEN ON THE MOON?! “””
Well that was the Engineers that put a man on the moon; NOT the scientists.
And I’m sure many of those engineers are still gainfully employed somewhere.
It’s the scientists who have to make up something els to work on for their grant money. Engineers don’t get grant money.