The Pros And Cons Of The NASA Earth Observatory

How does one go about defining things as good and bad? Some things can be good and bad at the same time, like using satellites and computers to solve ecological problems. There are a lot of pros and cons but the cons outweigh the pros because the images will need validation, one can’t trust in a satellite and computer to give all the answers, and time isn’t exactly on their side. Validation has to come from somewhere to make sure the images that are looked at can be trusted. “Without proper validation, satellite data should not be taken at face value.” (NASA Earth Observatory) Just looking at a picture and inferring a conclusion as to what's going on in the picture doesn’t mean anything if the image isn’t lining up with other sources. In the NASA Earth Observatory they explain “needs to be validated, or compared with other sources of information to see if there is agreement.” How would the study turn out if half their evidence wasn’t valid? Being valid isn’t the only problem with the satellites, there’s also the fact that they're just pictures.

Even using a computer is not going to give any sufficient feedback that doesn’t need to be questioned. In the NASA Earth Observatory it states “‘[y]ou can’t look at images from space and use computers to give you the answers. You still have to have a muddy-boots biologist trudging through the forests.’” “Raxworthy” explains how pictures and images from satellites can’t always be blindly trusted because to know the whole story one has to go look for it instead of taking a photograph of it. If the images can be valid and satellite-trusted there wouldn’t be enough time to finish everything that was