NASA to Earth: Global Warming is for Real, Folks!

February 24th, 2010 by Tina Casey

NASA is putting its two cents into the global warming conversation with a new website that details the climate change phenomenon from soup to nuts, including videos, articles and a huge archive of images.

[social_buttons]

Those of you who still believe that NASA faked the moon landing with outtakes from director Stanley Kubrik’s classic sci fi romp 2001: A Space Odyssey will probably want to take a pass on this and go straight to the Shutter Island website for the inside scoop on conspiracy theories, but if you are interested in what’s actually going on out there the link to NASA’s Global Climate Change website is http://climate.nasa.gov/warmingworld.

NASA’s Climate Change 101

According to NASA’s study of global temperature data, the past decade was the warmest on record and 2009 is tied for second place as the warmest year since modern global record keeping began 130 years ago. Yes, the U.S is having an especially nasty winter this year but there is a whole big planet out there and lots of other stuff is going on.

Climate Change: Follow the Money

Not that money is equivalent to truth, but sometimes it can be an indication of motives. It’s no accident that oil money is behind organizations like the Southeastern Legal Foundation, which is challenging the U.S. EPA on greenhouse gas emissions, to say nothing of Exxon’s history of involvement in climate denialism. Contrast that to the U.S. Department of Defense, which just issued a Quadrennial Defense Review assessing threats to national security that basically put the entire U.S. military on global warming alert. So, follow the money: some companies are betting against global warming (and therefore against our national security if you believe the DoD), but a growing list of other companies are putting their money behind NASA and the DoD by supporting climate legislation and engaging in national sustainability initiatives.

Image: NASA logo by http 2007 on flickr.com.

Keep up to date with all the hottest cleantech news by subscribing to our (free) cleantech newsletter, or keep an eye on sector-specific news by getting our (also free) solar energy newsletter, electric vehicle newsletter, or wind energy newsletter.

Tags: Global Weirding, NASA

About the Author

Tina Casey Tina Casey specializes in military and corporate sustainability, advanced technology, emerging materials, biofuels, and water and wastewater issues. Tina’s articles are reposted frequently on Reuters, Scientific American, and many other sites. Views expressed are her own. Follow her on Twitter @TinaMCasey and Google+.

Eve

Earth to NASA. Nobody ever beleived in this scam and now it has been proven to be a hoax.
Eve

Earth to NASA. Nobody ever beleived in this scam and now it has been proven to be a hoax.
Eve

Earth to NASA. Nobody ever beleived in this scam and now it has been proven to be a hoax.
Robert Ragsdale

The article appears to make a point that following the money leads to biased results. Isn’t NASA funded by the Federal Gov’t? Doesn’t Congress seem to have a bias towards global warming (ie CAP and Trade, green jobs)? Could NASA’s advocacy reflect the interests of their funding source? The key issues for me are that the raw data and model methodologies are not readily, publically available and IPCC results cannot be easily duplicated. A couple of descriptive words for you: transparency, peer review, ethical research.
Robert Ragsdale

The article appears to make a point that following the money leads to biased results. Isn’t NASA funded by the Federal Gov’t? Doesn’t Congress seem to have a bias towards global warming (ie CAP and Trade, green jobs)? Could NASA’s advocacy reflect the interests of their funding source? The key issues for me are that the raw data and model methodologies are not readily, publically available and IPCC results cannot be easily duplicated. A couple of descriptive words for you: transparency, peer review, ethical research.
Robert Ragsdale

The article appears to make a point that following the money leads to biased results. Isn’t NASA funded by the Federal Gov’t? Doesn’t Congress seem to have a bias towards global warming (ie CAP and Trade, green jobs)? Could NASA’s advocacy reflect the interests of their funding source? The key issues for me are that the raw data and model methodologies are not readily, publically available and IPCC results cannot be easily duplicated. A couple of descriptive words for you: transparency, peer review, ethical research.
Chris Ryan

Bye the way… on the graphs shown at the links you provide, there are no uncertainty bars. That alone should make you question the results.

Sorry… I don’t buy it.

I hope that Senator Inhoye is successful in getting a criminal investigation started. I think they will find lots of fodder for charges.
Chris Ryan

Bye the way… on the graphs shown at the links you provide, there are no uncertainty bars. That alone should make you question the results.

Sorry… I don’t buy it.

I hope that Senator Inhoye is successful in getting a criminal investigation started. I think they will find lots of fodder for charges.
Chris Ryan

Bye the way… on the graphs shown at the links you provide, there are no uncertainty bars. That alone should make you question the results.

Sorry… I don’t buy it.

I hope that Senator Inhoye is successful in getting a criminal investigation started. I think they will find lots of fodder for charges.
Chris Ryan

I honestly wish that there was something believable in this article. NASA has tainted itself by allowing its data to be used by the CRU and IPCC, both of which bodies are now totally discredited. NASA itself has taken huge damage through the Climategate e-mails.

If you were smart, you would make sure that you say NOTHING on this subject for quite a long time and then, when you do, make sure your data is 100% accurate, that the methods used are clearly documented, that all data manipulations and assumptions are detailed carefully and then that any uncertainties are shown in a statistically relevant fashion.

AGW is simply not believable anymore. The high-priests of Climate Change have lied too many times and cried “wolf!” too many times. Worse, the idol has clay feet.
Chris Ryan

I honestly wish that there was something believable in this article. NASA has tainted itself by allowing its data to be used by the CRU and IPCC, both of which bodies are now totally discredited. NASA itself has taken huge damage through the Climategate e-mails.

If you were smart, you would make sure that you say NOTHING on this subject for quite a long time and then, when you do, make sure your data is 100% accurate, that the methods used are clearly documented, that all data manipulations and assumptions are detailed carefully and then that any uncertainties are shown in a statistically relevant fashion.

AGW is simply not believable anymore. The high-priests of Climate Change have lied too many times and cried “wolf!” too many times. Worse, the idol has clay feet.
Chris Ryan

I honestly wish that there was something believable in this article. NASA has tainted itself by allowing its data to be used by the CRU and IPCC, both of which bodies are now totally discredited. NASA itself has taken huge damage through the Climategate e-mails.

If you were smart, you would make sure that you say NOTHING on this subject for quite a long time and then, when you do, make sure your data is 100% accurate, that the methods used are clearly documented, that all data manipulations and assumptions are detailed carefully and then that any uncertainties are shown in a statistically relevant fashion.

AGW is simply not believable anymore. The high-priests of Climate Change have lied too many times and cried “wolf!” too many times. Worse, the idol has clay feet.