Conspiracy theorist? I'm sorry you feel that way. The question "Why would NASA have an agenda for global warming?" is a very good one. Why would they? It seems that the National Aeronautic and Space Administration would be a support agency for the National Weather Service (NWS) and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), and possibly the EPA, although there seems to be a whole lot of a whole lot of redundancy there. Not unusual for bureaucracies, but I digress.
But the reason any of these agencies have an agenda for global warming is because they are all run by the executive branch of the United States government, which sets the agenda for all bureaucracies. And the Obama administration most assuredly has an agenda for Anthropogenic Global Whatever (AGW). He won't shut his pie hole about it. So that's where the agenda comes from. It isn't conspiracy theory, it's conspiracy fact, and it is quite deliberate.
Not to put too fine a point on it, but if you're going to dismiss me as a conspiracy theorist for saying that, what are we to make of your claim that the oil companies are conspiring to discredit AGW? Without calling you a conspiracy theorist, I already explained that the oil companies don't need to do that. Their market is not going anywhere soon. The only risk to oil companies is government cap & trade taxes, or other policies based on a non-falsifiable, non-quantifiable conjecture. Government policy with no identifiable prescription, endpoint, target, or description of success is a recipe for tyranny and oppression.
The fact is, we can wish and tax the oil companies into oblivion until the cows come home, but that won't change the fact that human prosperity brought about by capitalization and industrialization, that is just now reaching the most backward third world countries, and lifting them out of abject poverty and pestilence, depends on fossil fuel. There is no technology now, under development, or on the horizon, that comes close to the ability of fossil fuels to meet the demand. There just isn't. Believe thee me, if there were, it would be an instant success, and people couldn't get enough.
One can only hope that when that technology reaches the adoption rate of fossil fuel, in daily use by billions of people, that it works as cleanly and as safely as fossil fuel. Because the drawbacks to a technology are rarely obvious until it is in daily use by billions of people. Then it's too late.