Video of the Day: Ask a NASA climate scientist
By Sophie Vorrath on 12 September 2013

Do you have a question that’s always confounded you about Earth’s climate? Do you, like some of Australia’s most powerful Conservative politicians, wonder why it matters that the climate is changing now if it has changed in the past? Or how scientists know changes seen in recent decades are the result of human activities, not natural causes?

Well wonder no more, because NASA is inviting you to ask one of their climate scientists. As the video below explains, NASA scientists are inviting anyone and everyone to submit their climate question, either via a 10-15 second video or via Twitter, using the hashtag #askclimate. In turn, NASA will respond, even recording video responses to some of the questions it receives, which it will post to the NASAExplorer YouTube channel.

So, do you have a question?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=49Lu1dTa0_k&feature=player_embedded&list=UUAY-SMFNfynqz1bdoaV8BeQ

Can NASA really be trusted......???

How many billions are they receiving to prove climate change......?????

49 Former NASA Scientists Send A Letter Disputing Climate Change

Some prominent voices at NASA are fed up with the agency’s activist stance toward climate change.The following letter asking the agency to move away from climate models and to limit its stance to what can be empirically proven, was sent by 49 former NASA scientists and astronauts.

The letter criticises the Goddard Institute For Space Studies especially, where director Jim Hansen and climatologist Gavin Schmidt have been outspoken advocates for action.

http://www.businessinsider.com.au/nasa-scientists-dispute-climate-change-2012-4


Quote:

The Letter March 28, 2012 The Honorable Charles Bolden, Jr. NASA Administrator NASA Headquarters Washington, D.C. 20546-0001 Dear Charlie, We, the undersigned, respectfully request that NASA and the Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) refrain from including unproven remarks in public releases and websites. We believe the claims by NASA and GISS, that man-made carbon dioxide is having a catastrophic impact on global climate change are not substantiated, especially when considering thousands of years of empirical data. With hundreds of well-known climate scientists and tens of thousands of other scientists publicly declaring their disbelief in the catastrophic forecasts, coming particularly from the GISS leadership, it is clear that the science is NOT settled. The unbridled advocacy of CO2 being the major cause of climate change is unbecoming of NASA’s history of making an objective assessment of all available scientific data prior to making decisions or public statements. As former NASA employees, we feel that NASA’s advocacy of an extreme position, prior to a thorough study of the possible overwhelming impact of natural climate drivers is inappropriate. We request that NASA refrain from including unproven and unsupported remarks in its future releases and websites on this subject. At risk is damage to the exemplary reputation of NASA, NASA’s current or former scientists and employees, and even the reputation of science itself. For additional information regarding the science behind our concern, we recommend that you contact Harrison Schmitt or Walter Cunningham, or others they can recommend to you. Thank you for considering this request. Sincerely, (Attached signatures) See here http://www.businessinsider.com.au/nasa-scientists-dispute-climate-change-2012-4

Yea yeah. 20 NASA Apollo era retirees with no climate expertise try to debunk NASA scientists who do.  The usual Appeal to Authority with no arguments presented to back up their "feel it my bones" opinions.

Denailists have not exactly had a good track record at predicting future temperature compared to climate scientists.

http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/Predictions_500.gif

muso wrote on Sep 15^th, 2013 at 9:26pm:

Yea yeah. 20 NASA Apollo era retirees with no climate expertise try to debunk NASA scientists who do.  The usual Appeal to Authority with no arguments presented to back up their "feel it my bones" opinions.

Back to your AGW contortionistic ways.....the article says 49 NASA scientists not 20.

And I would bet my left knacker they all know more than you do about the climate.

You can live in denial as long as you want to......!!!!!!!


Quote:

Denailists have not exactly had a good track record at predicting future temperature compared to climate scientists.

You guys (alarmists) are the denialists, not us skeptics, at least we look at both sides of the argument and then freely make a unbiased decision.

BTW I told you that fraudster John Cook and his sceptical science blog are anything but a reliable source of information.

If you want to see the anthropogen global warming religion at its heights then the skeptical science blog is it.

Even the title is deceptive...they are anything but sceptical.

Its like going to the Vatican if your a catholic, the meca of global warming....!!!

Ajax wrote on Sep 16^th, 2013 at 10:40am:

You guys (alarmists) are the denialists, not us skeptics, at least we look at both sides of the argument and then freely make a unbiased decision.

I haven't seen any evidence of you looking at both sides of the evidence.  Anything that is contrary to your opinion, you deride as being part of a conspiracy. You won't go near Skeptical Science because you have been brainwashed into thinking that it's all nonsense (without actually looking at the arguments). You won't read anything by the IPCC, NASA, The Australian Bureau of Meteorology, the CSIRO and the list goes on. 

You prefer opinions without supporting data from Nils Axel Morner as opposed by verified data from the University of Colorado.

In fact, you will accept anything that backs your claims, regardless of whether it comes from a retired electronics salesman or a Classics graduate who has been caught out modifying graphs to manufacture data.

muso wrote on Sep 16^th, 2013 at 10:52am:

Ajax wrote on Sep 16th, 2013 at 10:40am: You guys (alarmists) are the denialists, not us skeptics, at least we look at both sides of the argument and then freely make a unbiased decision. I haven't seen any evidence of you looking at both sides of the evidence.  Anything that is contrary to your opinion, you deride as being part of a conspiracy. You won't go near Skeptical Science because you have been brainwashed into thinking that it's all nonsense (without actually looking at the arguments). You won't read anything by the IPCC, NASA, The Australian Bureau of Meteorology, the CSIRO and the list goes on.  You prefer opinions without supporting data from Nils Axel Morner as opposed by verified data from the University of Colorado. In fact, you will accept anything that backs your claims, regardless of whether it comes from a retired electronics salesman or a Classics graduate who has been caught out modifying graphs to manufacture data.

Not so dude....???!!

I find it very hard to get any valuable information from individuals or entities that are riding the AGW religion's gravy train.