Nothing that comes from NASA, or the UN could possibly be considered anything more than propaganda.
NASA allowed the deliberate misrepresentation of data to turn the obvious cooling of the 90s to appear to be warming, and the UN hijacked the names of legitimate scientists, against their wishes, and contrary to the results of their research, for climate propaganda directed at a tax to empower the UN’s global tyranny.
But you apparently find that to be ‘credible.’
Hearing someone defend something when they have a dog in the fight has way less credibility/impact than the identical defense from a source that is neutral, or even opposed to the topic.
At no time did I question the validity of anything in the article, merely pointed out that the source would be EXPECTED to have those conclusions.