NASA Climate 'Skeptics' Respond with Science! Just Kidding.
The Signatories
"Obviously this letter first gained attention because the signatories are former NASA employees.  They are being touted as "top astronauts, scientists, and engineers" and "NASA experts, with more than 1000 years of combined professional experience."  Okay, but in what fields does their expertise lie?
Based on the job titles listed in the letter signatures, by my count they include 23 administrators, 8 astronauts, 7 engineers, 5 technicians, and 4 scientists/mathematicians of one sort or another (none of those sorts having the slightest relation to climate science).  Amongst the signatories and their 1,000 years of combined professional experience, that appears to include a grand total of zero hours   of climate research experience, and zero peer-reviewed   climate science papers. "  

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Response from NASA Chief Scientist Waleed Abdalati to Letter on NASA Climate Studies
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You have to do better than this Inhere! NASA by the way has 18,000 employees!
update
New NASA Data Blow Gaping Hole In Global Warming Alarmism?
No, new data does not “blow a gaping hole in global warming alarmism”
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Misdiagnosis of Surface Temperature Feedback
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Old skeptic story that is simply wrong because “Spencer’s model is "unrealistic", "flawed", and "incorrect". As ThinkProgress points out, a geochemist has shown that Spencer’s models are irretrievably flawed, "don’t make any physical sense", and that Spencer has a track record in using such flawed analysis to draw any conclusion he wants.”
Roy Spencer’s Great Blunder
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Inhere when are you going to post some real peer reviewed evidence from climate scientist rather than the rubbish from  skeptic blogs and non peer reviewed journals?
We still are waiting for you or the Coota skeptic to come up with any natural forcings that can explain all the observations and account for the AGW signatures.Put up some peer reviewed climate science to show us that the IPCC and the overwhelming majority of climate scientists have got it all wrong.ie put up or shut up!
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Also worth noting that some of these Ex NASA employees have been invited to attend a Heartland  Institute conference on climate change in may!I wonder if any are receiving any money or support from the HI?
Inside the dark Heartland of climate denialism
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
doug

POLLUTION is UNCOVERED & EXPLAINED BY SCIENCE, not excused or endorsed by science.
Industry & commercial interests ("market forces") may find reasons (costs, eroding profit etc) to overlook reality.

Perhaps this is what you meant.