The title says it all. But, as is our wont, we'll elaborate with some excerpts we believe to be of import, as follows:
"Dr Drew Shindell of NASA's Goddard Institute of Space Studies has led a new study which indicates that much of the general upward trend in temperatures since the 1970s - particularly in the Arctic - may have resulted from changes in levels of solid "aerosol" particles in the atmosphere, rather than elevated CO2...."
"Shindell's research indicates that, ironically, much of the rise in polar temperature seen over the last few decades may have resulted from US and European restrictions on sulphur emissions. According to NASA:
Sulfates, which come primarily from the burning of coal and oil, scatter incoming solar radiation and have a net cooling effect on climate. Over the past three decades, the United States and European countries have passed a series of laws that have reduced sulfate emissions by 50 percent. While improving air quality and aiding public health, the result has been less atmospheric cooling from sulfates."
And, we'll take the opportunity to repeat the words of another rocket scientist we earlier quoted for you:
"...we know in the future these fuels (i.e., coal liquids - JtM) are going to become important to aviation. Petroleum is dwindling and you're going to need to make fuel out of coal, natural gas and biomass." — Dan Bulzan, NASA Glenn Research Center and AAFEX project manager
One reason we're submitting all these pro-coal NASA opinions to you, by the way, is because it was one NASA scientist, James Hansen, who first began to demonize coal as the Carbon Dioxide Devil that would roast us all in a cloud-shrouded Hades if we didn't stop using fossil fuels.
His learned colleagues, apparently, do not concur.
And, from the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration:
aerosol levels from dust storms and volcanoes alone would account for as much as 70 per cent of the temperature rise seen in the Atlantic ocean during the past 26 years, leaving carbon simply nowhere.