NASA’s study on Antarctica’s ice: It’s growing
© Getty Images

In a recent study, the National Aeronautical and Space Administration (NASA) reported, contrary to climate alarmists’ claims, Antarctica is not melting, it is gaining ice.

The debate, however, isn’t centered on melting icecaps or drowning polar bears; it’s focused on what many environmentalists claim is unstoppable global climate change.

ADVERTISEMENT

Ever since the Department of Defense released a report calling the phenomenon of climate change a “significant risk” to U.S. national security, it has become an even more highly controversial topic. In fact, almost every Democratic presidential candidate has said that climate change is an impending risk to national security.

Contrary to the claims of many who say NASA shouldn’t even be in the climate change business, I believe the report should be considered positive. Though ice growth isn’t exactly NASA’s forte, NASA is responsible for delivering some of the most important data in the climate change debate, and its new findings about growing ice have been backed by high-level experts in the field of glaciology. 

The report, published in the Journal of Glaciology, was authored by ice experts from NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center, the University of Maryland, and Sigma Space Corporation. All three are very respected institutions with specific specializations in the planetary science and glaciology fields. 

All the findings, based on satellite imagery of the eastern Antarctic ice fields, determine that ice is being formed faster than it’s being melted. These astonishing findings challenge a highly touted 2013 report from the United Nations and undermine many of the talking points climate alarmists have relied on for more than a decade. 

“For east Antarctica and the interior of West Antarctica – there, we see an ice gain that exceeds the losses in the other areas,” Jay Zwally, the report’s lead author, stated in a NASA press release.

Why have these findings led to such a degree of controversy? The answer: Climate change is no longer about the science; it’s about politics and cold, hard cash. Almost every cry from climate alarmists who say the world is about to collapse into a melting wasteland full of rising sea levels, drowning babies, and sweltering summers that kill millions is followed with a call for funding of a specific initiative or political candidate.

Federal agencies, such as the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), invest countless billions of dollars into research on the supposed phenomenon, which is interesting since allegedly “the debate is over.” Strange. One would think if the debate is over, there would be no reason to spend billions on further research about melting ice. These scientific studies are not about science; they are centered on forcing a particular political agenda. 

Just in fiscal year 2015, the President Barack ObamaBarack Hussein ObamaImmigration is top issue facing country: poll Airbnb is doing the Democrats' dirty work Obama puts out call for service on MLK Day: ‘Make a positive impact on the world’ MORE’s budget funded over $3 billion dollars on the “science” of climate change, and billions more have been spent by EPA and other agencies to battle a catastrophic climate disaster.

Scientific research is not a bad thing whatsoever, but the credibility of the science should be considered. According to a report from The Heartland Institute, organizations such as the Earth Defense Fund (EDF) are fundraising using massive lies about climate change and global warming. 

EDF and many other groups utilize the “scientific findings” of climate change and push forward exaggerated statements about the extinction of thousands of animal species and the possibility of millions of impoverished people perishing from crop failures, disease, and other totally unsupported fears. However, the research, especially on glaciers and ice, is often miscalculated. 

In the month of October, the National Snow and Ice Data Center reported that eastern Antarctica showed relative growth of ice past the median “ice line.” That means that ice is growing outward, past the projected stopping point. A contrary statement to those of the EDF and similar organizations.

Rather than listen to foolhardy, unsupported claims made by scientists with financial ties to pro-global warming funding sources, Americans should examine all the evidence for themselves—both from alarmists and skeptics. Only then can policy be defined properly and credibly. Don’t rely on slogans; rely on the facts.

McGrady is a contributor to Red Alert Politics and has been published in The Hill, The Washington Examiner, The Denver Post, Human Events, and The American Thinker. He is also a political science undergraduate at the University of Colorado at Colorado Springs, focusing on the policy around national security, outer space, technology, and the environment. Follow him on Twitter: @mikemcgrady2 or e-mail him at mmcgrady@uccs.edu