A NASA link with a graph without any reference/legend whatsoever (it's easy to manipulate data by playing with colors and putting a threshold in white and another in red, but if we dont know exactly what is means it's just like snake oil marketing), this is very disappointing for a agency that is supposed to produce science. This is tabloid level.
'In the image, the areas classified as "probable melt" (light pink) correspond to those sites where at least one satellite detected surface melting. The areas classified as "melt" (dark pink) correspond to sites where two or three satellites detected surface melting.'
While I do feel that the use of the word "unprecedented" was not warranted (and should be criticized), the rest of the article is fine.
areas classified as "probable melt" (light pink) correspond to those sites where at least one satellite detected surface melting. The areas classified as "melt" (dark pink) correspond to sites where two or three satellites detected surface melting
and who it was produced by;
Jesse Allen, NASA Earth Observatory and Nicolo E. DiGirolamo, SSAI and Cryospheric Sciences Laboratory
So, on balance, I'd say they are almost definitely not just making this stuff up, which would actually be tabloid level, and they instead are actually producing actual science.
I mean, what do you think NASA are doing, given they actually have satellites and stuff? Ignoring the massive amounts of collected data and instead making up graphs to trick republicans into installing solar panels or what? I don't get it.
