Ice Age coming? Deleted from NASA

by Jimboot on January 18, 2011

I tweeted about this article on the 15/12/2010. It was here on the NASA site but that page is now gone and it is no longer in the Google index. Oddly though it is still being linked to within the NASA site itself here

I think NASA need a better CMS if they intend to remove content in this manner. It leaves internal 404s all over the site. Not that it would affect their ranking, it would just make it very annoying for visitors.

I used to very be very annoying to family & friends, banging on about global warming and the need to do something about it.  I marched in Melbourne 4/11/2006 for Walk Against  Warming but now, I have done a complete turnaround because of inconsistencies like this in the science. I really do not understand why there is talk of implementing a carbon tax when the scientists don’t even agree. (Newscientist says more more ice in AntarticaNASA says less ice)  We have NASA contradicting itself on its own site as well. Presumably this is why the article was removed. Or maybe it was just a cockup and the article will reappear soon.

Luckily I did a screen cap of it as I thought it would be taken down.

NASA Sun is responsible for climate change

NASA Sun is responsible for climate change - click to read

So whilst I think it is a great idea to reduce, reuse, recycle, I think it is bloody downright nonsensical to shackle Australia to some sort of global carbon tax, when even the scientific community is confused as to what the heck is going on. I’m a massive fan of of alternate & free energy and spend a LOT of my spare time researching and experimenting.

I didn’t hear any of the mainstream “climate change” advocates  predict the record freeze in the northern hemisphere nor the record wet down here. Why on earth should I believe their fearful doomsday predictions on so called “climate change” ?

{ 1 trackback }

Carbon tax 4 questions. — SEO | Net Censorship | Free Energy | iPad - Less BS
March 8, 2011 at 9:33 pm

{ 16 comments… read them below or add one }

Tom Butlin January 19, 2011 at 4:41 am

Great points about SEO.
As far as climate changa goes, you can’t confuse climate and weather. They are apples and oranges (1 week vs 1 century) different people and different skills.
I have heard PLENTY of CS scientists talking about extreme weather events becoming more common and more severe. Including cold events.
Also the gulf stream has been predicted to be affected by GW, resulting in a cooling in western Europe. As always, the evidence is split.

Jimboot January 19, 2011 at 7:11 am

Because the evidence is split is a good reason not to implement a tax that taxes the very stuff we are made of. It’s ridiculous.

Jimboot January 19, 2011 at 7:49 am

I’m talking specifically about the weather predictions for this season. Other meteorologists predicted the record freeze in the north but the UK Met office did not.

Russell C January 20, 2011 at 3:49 am

Fascinating how many attempts there are in the global warming crisis to hide information, such as the stuff exposed in the ClimateGate emails, the lack of transparency in certain ‘hockey-stick temperature uptick’ studies, and perhaps how climate hysteria might have influenced would-be saboteurs of a major UK coal-fired power plant – I detailed that hypocrisy in my article last week, “The Far-left ‘Jumps the Shark’ over Tucson Tragedy” I also noted how NASA scientist James Hansen characterized such power plants as “factories of death” in his infamous UK Guardian op-ed from February 15, 2009.

Within my article are links to my prior articles, where I detail one of the MOST troubling instances of hiding stuff that supposedly seals the case for man-caused global warming: when skeptic scientists are accused of being paid by oil and coal associations to fabricate false climate assessments, why is the central piece of evidence proving this contained in a 1991 ‘leaked coal industry memo’ that no one is allowed to see?

Mr. Freeze January 20, 2011 at 6:08 am

Visit Joe Bastardi over at Global temps are diving. Fact. Evidence. Indisputable. Global temps are climate not weather. AGW is dead. R.I.P.

grayman January 20, 2011 at 7:21 am

Hi, just got here from Steve Goddards website you are a good read so far and will make your site a shortcut on my deaktop. NASA is right the sun does drive our climate but that has been known for a long time but why let good science get in the way of AGW. look forward to more from your site.

Jimboot January 20, 2011 at 7:31 am

Thanks russell ill go and have a read.

Jimboot January 20, 2011 at 7:41 am

Wow thanks. Joe is great. I will Watch regularly

bob loblaw February 8, 2011 at 7:53 am

Wow, Joe Bastardi is great! As soon as I visit his site he just instantly reaffirms what I’ve decided is true! I just know that he is an authoritative voice on climate change, and not a glorified weather man any sensible person could see is speaking well outside of his area of expertise. And his name is not funny at all!

bob loblaw February 8, 2011 at 7:57 am

“I didn’t hear any of the mainstream “climate change” advocates predict … the record wet down here.”
This is because you weren’t paying any attention. Here is the website of the Qld Office of Climate Change, which on 10th November published an ‘Inland Flooding Study’, warning of “increased risk of flooding from extreme events due to climate change.” (see sidebar)
And since you mention them you should have a look at NASA’s explanation of the difference between weather and climate.

Jimboot February 8, 2011 at 8:00 am

So you want a carbon tax based on these conflicting views?

Jimboot February 8, 2011 at 8:59 am

Yep so much of this debate is about shooting the messenger it seems. The evidence is conflicting as you point out the inconsistencies with NASA yet the ‘solution’ is a tax on carbon? Any business owner tries to reduce costs where they can. For instance in my own business I am very conscience of things like the air conditioning. We have a timer so it only works during business hours. We don’t use incandescent lighting. So whilst I consider myself an environmentalist I do these things because it makes good business sense. A carbon tax will NOT change that. If a device came out tomorrow that was cheap and could take your home off the grid & make you self sufficient Governments would try to shut it down. If they were serious about clean energy they would not be pursuing a carbon tax. They would be pursuing clean energy tech like this one

Stephen Oriold May 30, 2011 at 9:45 am

Hey, Jimboot,

There is a WONDERFUL tool out there, called the Web Archives.
It can be accessed at

You go to the site, plug in the URL you are interested in, and, if they had the chance to crawl and save the page you are interested in, it comes up from the Archives in seconds.

This particular page from NASA was crawled ONCE, and was saved in the archives on May 27, 2010. You can look it up yourself if you want to, or, since I have just checked it, here is the direct link to the archived page:

Thanks for your excellent work.

Jimboot May 30, 2011 at 2:58 pm

Thanks Stephen,
Can’t remember if I checked WBM when I published this post. Interesting to see it is still there though. Thanks for the link. I think I actually have an account there from memory.

Science Webdev September 23, 2011 at 11:42 pm

I remember when I was young (so do you Jim) not that long ago we/they used to say some one has to pay, unfortunately its starts at our generation, forget all the hoohaa and politics about climate change etc, what would really be wrong with renewable energies and our kids breathing cleaner air.
Has anyone that is against the tax actually looked at how much it will cost them per year? I doubt it, you would be pleasantly surprised if you actually looked.

Inconsistencies in science you say? well they will never agree and that’s the beauty of it, they (scientists) will forever debate (good) the topic but will always en-devour to look at the facts (unlike most of us) and find the best solutions when there is an obvious problem, unfortunately ‘climate change’ is probably not the correct term to use anymore as it has been over used.
In saying all that I will say quickly that the web and publications would be the most underestimated resource by scientists and there organisations for getting there message out there, whats the point if no one knows? google ‘filter bubble’ people for the rest of my thoughts.

Jimboot October 1, 2011 at 12:07 pm

I guess your comment presupposes that the tax will do anything. What was the last tax revoked without replacing it with another one?

Leave a Comment

Previous post:

Next post: