According to TFA: Likely candidates include venting from oil and gas activities, which are primarily coalbed methane exploration and extraction in this region; active coal mines; and natural gas seeps... The Four Corners coal-fired power plant, near Farmington, is one of the targets Nasa wants to investigate as a possible cause of the methane

Yeah. It's even mentioned in TFA:

This indicates the methane emissions should not be attributed to fracking but instead to leaks in natural gas production and processing equipment in New Mexico's San Juan Basin, which is the most active coalbed methane production area in the country.

'The results are indicative that emissions from established fossil fuel harvesting techniques are greater than inventoried,' Kort said.

The Heartland institute is paid by the fossil fuel industry to spread misinformation about climate change. Popular misinformation sites like WUWT have received $80,000 in a single year. Even as a lowly intern you can get a small piece of the pie. They'll pay you $150/week to comment on relevant blogs, newspaper articles, and social media.

Missed linking to last week's story: http://science.slashdot.org/st...

Of the seven temperature reconstructions you are going to put your faith in the minority report?

The consensus is outlined in the scientific literature. The IPCC reports are a literature review.

Opinions are like arseholes. Everyone's got one. This guy's is paid for by the Hearland Institute.

He doesn't believe in physics because something that cannot exist does not exist? Not very compelling.

Yup. That's about the level of 'argument' presented by Patrick Moore. It basically amounts to just making stuff up. Here is the temperature increase over the last 18 and 26 years according to the satellite reconstruction compiled by skeptic Roy Spencer: http://woodfortrees.org/plot/u... . The warming over the period is considerable. Equivalent to billions of nuclear bombs worth of accumulated energy.

What facts? He hasn't presented any... except to cast doubt on the motivations of the scientists (ironically?)

Honestly, there's a whole chapter on it. He could have figured this just by reading the headers.

Needless to say, scientists disagree. Patrick Moore shows he knows little of science when he says "There is no scientific proof." There is very compelling evidence, but there is no such thing as "Scientific proof".

He laughably accuses scientists of being in the pay of vested interests all the while being a PR front for fossil fuel interests such as the Heartland Institute that published this very piece.

His 'argument' amounts to long debunked talking points.

He shows he hasn't read an IPCC report when he says IPCC will "consider only the human causes of global warming". IPCC outlines scientific consensus on all sources of climate change from solar cycles to milankovitch cycles.

He shows he hasn't looked at paleoclimate reconstructions which show that the Earth has been generally cooling for the last 8000 years and that the current temperatures are likely higher than at least the last couple thousand.

The rest of his argument boils down to simple incredulity, which is not very compelling.

Patrick Moore has been shilling for the fossil fuel/nuclear industry for over a decade. He is more favourable towards the scientific consensus when shilling for the Nuclear industry. Heartland advocates for the fossil fuel industry and appears to be paying the bills these days. http://www.sourcewatch.org/ind...

His opening paragraph is laughable: "There is no scientific proof..." What is scientific proof? There is no such thing as "scientific proof". There is compelling evidence, but there cannot ever be such a thing as "scientific proof"

The rationale he outlines is nothing more than incredulity and a gish gallop of long debunked talking points. Not compelling.