can you trust NASA's data on GW when they can't even produce a competative space vehicle?

That's like saying because a company's accountants make an error, its engineers can't be trusted. The people working on the space shuttles (engineers) have nothing to do with the people working on global temperature data (climate scientists).

This isn't the first time you've been wrong and I've been right, by the way. Ruling of the US Supreme Court:

"Because greenhouse gases fit well within the Act’s capacious definition of “air pollutant,” EPA has statutory authority to regulate emission of such gases from new motor vehicles."

How old are you? When I was a young child, too young to read the news, Pres. Kennedy said we would land a man on the moon by the end of the decade. The U.S. did so, in July 1969. When the financial support and mindset is there, NASA can deliver. I will never forget watching that first step on the moon.

The Russians are stepping up after years of the U.S. being the dominant force in the ISS. It was a political, financial decision to focus on other objectives, and has nothing to do with NASA's inability to produce quality data on GW or anything else.

sure, why not? the two are not related in the slightest

apples and oranges...climate data and spaceships

also, i might just be in denial, but i dont buy that article for a second...

"Following the Columbia shuttle disaster, Russia's Soyuz and Progress spacecraft remained the only means of delivering crew and cargo to the ISS"

What...the...***...we have more than once spaceshuttle, soooo its not like one getting obliterated is going to positively cripple US based spaceflight. also...the design for the spacecraft is fine, columbia's safety integrity was compromised by an accident during liftoff, not crappy engineering. russian spacecraft would have to be abso-f***ing-lutely amazing to bust that much coin when we could do it ourselves without the hassle of negotiation.

still, theres an aweful lot to that article, so its either a really well put together lie, or, as i suspect, missing a LOT of information that explains FULLY why the US has been put in a position where we have to haggle with the russians for spaceships.

It is satellites that monitor the Earths climate most satellites are not launched from manned craft but on small launch vehicles (rockets) and Nasa still has these, now and after 2010. While there may be a problems getting astronauts into orbit small and medium satellites won't be a problem.

If NASA were the only climate research organization that showed a warming trend you might (I emphasize "might") have a point. But since the GISS dataset agrees with other independent temperature datasets, your criticism is completely unwarranted.

You also obviously have little understanding of the complexities that go into the space program. Given their constantly fluctuating budgets, changes in leadership and direction coming from politicians, and the immense challenges of landing on Mars, NASA is actually an extremely impressive organization to anyone that's ever worked on complex technical systems.

NASA does not make space vehicles, NASA is not an aerospace corporation. When Boeing and Lockheed start competing for a government contract, they'll design a competitive space vehicle.

The United States can't produce a competitive vehicle of any kind, so why would you expect it to produce a competitive space vehicle?

What would any of that have to do with temperature data? The denial industry seems to get more desperate for something to say every day.

The data are the data. Idon't think economic or political problems should be taken into account when evaluating data.

Blame that on lack of funding, not poor quality engineers. BTW, you are going to say somebody is not competitive, perhaps you should spell it correctly.

Yes, you can blame Dr. Sanders I believe, the nutcase at NASA who is arguably a left wing pro AGW. However, the common engineer and scientists at NASA do not necessarily agree with the management's position. I know several NASA scientists who think AGW is wrong.

Yes, NASA made many mistakes on their data collection of North American temperatures, however did admit their mistakes. Yet the management continues on this course of scientific fraud.