First, the only two names I've seen are Jim Peacock and Harold H. Doiron.
One might point out that thousands of NASA engineers, scientists, etc, became unemployed with the demise of the space shuttle.
It would be fair to assume that some of them are looking for jobs.
And with 30 years working on the space shuttle, and quite possible other NASA programs before that, it's not impossible that their general qualifications aren't all that current.
If one has a name and a credential, denying global warming pays fairly well these days.
It's not terribly surprising that at least a few of them would cash in on their glory days.
Also, keep in mind, that at 70, one's mind isn't nearly as sharp as it was at 30.
Unfortunately I can vouch for that in spades. :(
But denying global warming doesn't require brilliance -- as evidenced by some of the posters that we see around here.
All you have to do is put your name on something that the Koch brothers have paid to have written.
So out of the thousands who worked on "the manned program (which was not just Apollo) you are taking the word of some 20 unnamed "scientists & engineers" on yet another website set up to push the denier agenda, I note in just the second point they shoot themselves in the foot and play a denier theory on the so called pause between CO2 rise and temperature rise, in other words these people seem to have no understanding of atmospheric theory and what caused paleoclimate change or that when CO2 was added it also added to warming and not in the small way suggested.
But then I also note the claimed number of 'experts here is 20, odd as last time this was tried back in 2012 they claimed 49, seems they have lost 29 somewhere along the way, whoops.
The only name that seems to appear in your web link is Jim Peacock an engineer
In fact in the previous version I see few actual scientists and an awful lot of engineers and a few administrators. So as usual your so called evidence is nonsense. The itemized list seems to be a reworking of standard denier arguments
3. "it's all models"
4. "warming is good"
5. "CO2 is plant food"
So no real effort is even being made to cover this as denier nonsense.
http://www.businessinsider.com.au/nasa-s...
People in the original list are those like Christopher C. Kraft, Jr. who was with the space program going back to the Mercury missions and is now 90 years old, so he meets the first denier requirement of extreme age. But is not a scientists, which seems to be the other denier requirement.
As usual you have a link that does nothing but play old denier theories and has nothing to back anything it is saying, 20 un-named people sat around and decided AGW was all wrong, but !!!
Who are they really, what scientific evidence do they use to refute the science, where was this so called result published, your answers in order to these questions you seem not to be worrying about are
1. Who are they really - As I said only one name (not 20) is mentioned in your list
2. They claims are backed by little i.e.
Take this listed on your link
http://www.therightclimatestuff.com/Boun...
It makes many claims and boasts a lead author with a PhD
Sadly it seems his PhD in in engineering, so they could not even find a lead author with any qualification even remotely related to climate,
the author http://www.desmogblog.com/harold-doiron
that should be all a real skeptic needs to dismiss this, but I'm sure that won't be the case with you. It's also hard not to notice in the references for this paper, many seem to be denier non-peer reviewed sources like NIPPC and the ever useful denier front Energy & Environment, most of the other 'real' papers mentioned are pro-AGW papers, so what you think that proves is as always anyone guess.
Why do you think they are not concerned? Of course they are concerned. Human caused global warming has yet to proved but,every one should be concerned about drastic weather change and global weather patterns.
Wow, you found 20 old guys that aren't concerned about something that was never in their field to begin with? How impressive. What's their average age, 80?
because they are republicans
http://www.therightclimatestuff.com/SummaryPrelimReport.html
