From the crucial RealClimate site, here’s a well-written post that puts the finger on what is wrong with the NASA website page discussing last year’s climate, the warmest in history.
Not only does it strangely avoid discussing what might cause such warming, but then it actually goes on to make a weak attempt to mislead. Arthur Coulson explains:
"3.
One thing I could not help but notice was that the NASA webpage about the 2005 temps makes no mention of any potential causes for the warming trend. Despite going into some depth about the severity of the warming, any mention of a cause or potential cause is glaringly obvious. In fact the last sentence of the article makes a vague and misleading reference to urban heat island effect:
…
the largest annual and seasonal warmings have occurred in Alaska, Siberia and the Antarctic Peninsula. Most ocean areas have warmed. Because these areas are remote and far away from major cities, it is clear to climatologists that the warming is not due to the influence of pollution from urban areas.
Seeing as how most of the public does not really differentiate between "pollution" and "emissions" NASA may as well be saying that it’s climatologists don’t think that GHG emissions could be connected to the temperature trends and that CO2 emissions only have a local impact on climate. NASA’s PR department is not just preventing its scientists from talking about their work; it is misrepresenting their work. Once you get to the GISS website there is mention of Green House Gas emmisions but not on the main NASA site. It makes me sad."
Comment by Arthur Coulston — 29 Jan 2006 @ 10:17 pm
Kit Stolz 