What is "extreme," the new buzz word? There's nothing extreme about NASA's AGW position.
"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," they wrote.
"...possible overwhelming impact of natural climate drivers...." Well, natural climate drivers could certainly overwhelm AGW, but that certainly doesn't mean a thing concerning whether or not AGW is real. It's real. In addition, the climate scientists who support that fact that AGW is real have studied the "natural climate drivers." They don't look at global warming in a vacuum.
I would love to see the ideologies of these "signers." They are probably generally very laissez-faire capitalist leaning. They want capitalists to have free rein to spoil the Earth. Check their stock portfolios. Check where they get their money. Check where they got their money.
Also, which one of them is as learned in climate science as the climate scientist who say AGW is real? Just because one is or has been an astronaut doesn't mean much in this debate. What are astronauts? They've been military personnel chosen as being suited to do the job of being an astronaut. When were they tested on their knowledge of environmentalism and climate science during the evaluation process?
Also, since were on the subject, how many astronauts feel exactly the opposite from the "signers"? I bet there are plenty, not that it matters over-and-above the actual science. It only matters if one is hyping pro-polluter rhetoric, if one is for Big Oil, Gas, and Coal and the other polluters who care about making money first and with the health of the planet and humanity almost never in sight except via misleading PR campaigns.