Has NASA Got it Wrong?

The following is a picture describing the scientific method for kids from NASA's SciFiles:
It captures the frustration of things not working pretty well (Do observations and experiments support hypothesis -> No), but it falls short after that. The graphic implies that if data doesn't support your hypothesis, it's the fault of bad experimentation. Worse, it seems to follow that we should only accept observations and results that support our hypotheses. Cherry-picking results is a problem not a solution.

Of course, it is possible that failure to confirm a hypothesis is an experimental problem (though less likely if care is taken in experimental design and execution) but it could also be that they hypothesis is wrong and needs revision.

Perhaps this is too nit-picky for a children's page, but I think NASA can do better.

[h/t: The Geeks' Guide to World Domination]

Fly me to the moon

This is a pretty cool, if Flash heavy site: We Choose the Moon.

This month is the 40th anniversary of the Apollo 11 moon landing, and the above site recreates the event for "real-time" (that is, real time minus 40 years) tracking of the mission, with video, images and audio (including astronaut chatter) from 1969.

It's a neat way to let those of us who are too young experience that exciting piece of history.

At the same time, you can check out the NASA gallery featuring current photos of the landing site from the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter Camera that reached lunar orbit late last month.

[h/t: Bad Astronomy]

Global Warming Still Happening: James Hansen Strikes Back on Climate Data, Scores Points for Team God

In a newly-released statement, James Hansen, NASA scientist responsible for their temperature data, explains "what's really going on" with recent headlines that described errors in reported climate data and raised concerns regarding the realities of global warming. Yes, says Hansen, we made errors, the blogger told us about them, and we corrected them. The corrections are insignificant he claims, (see fig.) and were blown out of proportion by the conservative media in an effort to enable "the royalty" in power to go on destroying the Earth. In fact, he says, we already knew that 1998 wasn't the warmest year on record, and they reported this previously. He should've just stopped with the data ("Just shut up James. You had me at no significant difference). But no. The latter half of the letter is a fervently emotional rant about, "usufruct (WTF?), gorillas, captains of industry, court jesters and how Hansen is just working to save "Creation". Freaky.

Hey, I appreciate the man's passion and I'm all in favor of individuals and industries taking responsibility for their impact on the environment. But it would be nice to see scientists approach the issue with a balanced, objective perspective, not as Crusaders fighting to protect God's creation from Satan's evil oil-hungry minions. I don't care what God or Satan think. I just want some reality please. And don't tell me your too busy defending God's domain to get your data straight.

Case for Man-Made Global Warming Made Up By NASA Scientists?

Blogger Steve McIntyre has apparently discovered what seems to be a blatantly fraudulent presentation of NASA temperature data which has been used to make the case for global warming:

"NASA has now silently released corrected figures, and the changes are truly astounding. The warmest year on record is now 1934. 1998 (long trumpeted by the media as record-breaking) moves to second place. 1921 takes third. In fact, 5 of the 10 warmest years on record now all occur before World War II."

NASA's Reto Ruedy and James Hansen, the scientists responsible for the data, are blaming a Y2K data glitch. How convenient. Hansen made headlines previously, when he publicly denounced the US government for trying to censor his data. Sorry guys, but you're scientists. Not really cool to blame the computer for your hugely massive "mistake" of misinforming the world on global warming. Hard to believe they never even took a glance at the final data...

Despite this fiasco regarding the US data, it seems that long-term global temperatures are indeed on the rise as previously believed.

The science on this issue has become so corrupted by politics I find it pretty much impossible to know what to believe. Hopefully the scientific community will take this as a lesson that the ultimate price of compromising objectivity by selling out to political and corporate interests is the loss of the public trust. Once this happens, the benefits and freedoms science can provide are lost to society altogether. Maybe I'm naive to hope we haven't yet reached that point...