Methane, this is not news to anyone who has spent time in a cow barn, or had a vegetarian roommate who didn't take her charcoal pills.

"Global warming", "Carbon credits & taxes", "Green energy" are not about cleaning up our environment. Their purpose is to disable the American economy and thus our society through regulation and control. This is much like HusseinCare which is not about health care. The socialist marxist agenda is to destroy western culture and its economy. Then the sheep can be much easier gathered.

Oh, good. I was wondering where Rhody's littlest climate contrarian had been all summer. Granted I'd be reluctant to post this nonsense too in the middle of a summer marked by devastating wildfires and drought.

Meanwhile back on this planet...

"Climate change may force evacuation of vulnerable island states within a decade"
www.guardian.co.uk/sustainable-business/blog/polar-arctic-greenland-ice-climate-change

One of the world's foremost climate scientists has warned that vulnerable island states may need to consider evacuating their populations within a decade due to a much faster than anticipated melting of the world's ice sheets...

Mann, who was part of the IPCC team awarded the Nobel peace prize in 2007, said it had been expected that island nations would have several decades to adapt to rising sea levels, but that evacuation may now be their only option.

His warning comes just weeks after the National Snow and Ice Data Centre in Boulder, Colorado disclosed that sea ice in the Arctic shrank a dramatic 18% this year on the previous record set in 2007 to a record low of 3.41m sq km...

Mann said it was not only island states that were feeling the impacts of climate change and warned that the terrible drought and wildfires suffered by the US this year were just the precursor of far worse to come.

"If you look at the US, some of these things are unfolding ahead of schedule and we are already contending with climate change impacts that were once theoretical," he said.

"We predicted decades ago that this might eventually happen. We are watching them unfold and there are very real consequences to our economy and to our environment.

"The climate models tell us that what today are record breaking levels of heat will become a typical summer in a matter of 20-30 years if we carry on with business as usual. Not only will this become the new normal but we will have to change the scale because we will see heat and drought far worse than anything we have seen before."

Nothing to worry about, conservatives (well, unless you care about the farmers or your food supply).

"foremost climate scientists" I wonder what credentials are required to be a "climate scientist"? I suspect it is rather like becoming an "environmental scientist", you simply declare yourself to be one. When one describes himself as a "scientist" it is well to reflect on the state of many "sciences". It wasn't so long ago that "medical science" prescribed electric vibrators to women who suffered from "hysteria". Forty years ago the "foremost climate scientists" were warning of the "coming ice age". That was the fear that led to the creation of "Earth Day".

"Horus consumes the hearts of the wicked"

Ah, yes. The problem is with the "scientists" or maybe with the "journalist" who made that characterization.

Say, Monique, since Warrington is on about credentials what's your background? Must be in the physical sciences or a least something of a scientific nature, right? (btw, don't hold your breath waiting for a response on this one)

fwiw, it's worth Mann has an A.B. applied mathematics and physics, an MS physics, a MPhil physics, a MPhil geology, and a PhD geology & geophysics from the University of California, Berkeley and Yale University, two of the leading "universities" in the country (lol).

"Say, Monique, since Warrington is on about credentials what's your background?"

Russ, Russ, Russ...you don't see the irony in this comment? Maybe Monique should ask you the same question. FWIW, my dad is tougher than your dad...blah, blah, blah.

What background do you have in education policy, Russ?

Oh, I remember now, your kid is dyslexic. That makes you the Robert Oppenheimer of public education.

Ah, so Mann's credentials are in question but climate contrarians lack of credentials must not be mentioned? Let's hope you folks care more about "science" when choosing a "physician."

btw, I'm willing to answer... I have a BS in engineering and applied science, certainly enough to understand general principles of the physical sciences (it's not rocket science), but I also don't presume to question Mann's esteemed credentials or his peer reviewed conclusions.

Oh, and I found this from "Scientific" American...

www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=the-scientific-american-5-2002-11-11&page=2

"What background do you have in education policy, Russ?"

My background is in process improvement and in information management. I often write about education policy from that perspective, although I'm also a dad of children with learning differences, which also provides a somewhat unique perspective.

Notably I also cite those with much more knowledge than me about the subject. Don't force me to quote Alfie Kohn again!

Russ - You really are a "B.S." expert if you think a process engineering/IT background qualifies you to speak on public education policy, especially since, like most progressive hypocrites, your children attend a wealthy private school. You go far beyond your "unique" personal experiences in your sneering RIFuture screeds on supposed "racial cleansing" and "corporatism" in charter schools.

Academic or work-related credentials are not a prerequisite for me, but if you're going to dish it out, then you should be able to take it.

"Ah, so Mann's credentials are in question but climate contrarians lack of credentials must not be mentioned?"

I thought you were brighter than that but apparently you're not. I didn't question your guy's credentials but why would you challenge Monique's credentials in this discussion? Did she conduct the study?

Talk about credentials, today I listened to a "Urban Physicist" (???) on NPR. He was lecturing on the effect of "cities" on the climate. He notes that it has been "getting worse" for 6,000 years.

"Urban Physicist"??

Let us not forget that Al Einstein denied the uncertainty principle right up to his death.

"You really are a 'B.S.' expert if you think a process engineering/IT background qualifies you..."

My background is in process improvement (quality) and information management. Process engineering is something entirely different and I wouldn't argue that everyone in IT shares my particular expertise. As ever, you're welcome to ignore the opinion of data management and process improvement experts. You're certainly not alone in that.

"I didn't question your guy's credentials ..."

And no one else did either or my question my own credentials (over and over), right? Monique of course questions the credentials of the vast majority of climate scientists and in fact the credibility of the scientific community in general on a regular basis with her snarky and seemingly deliberately misinformed posts about global warming. Interesting she chooses not to illuminate us about her own background.

I actually find it odd no conservatives call her out on this stuff. The war on science is an albatross that will follow the party for a long time.

"Most Americans link weather to global warming: survey"
www.chicagotribune.com/business/sns-rt-us-weather-usabre8981ex-20121009,0,540379.story

Russ - I think it's safe to say that most here don't share Monique's views on global warming, but I don't need to "call her out" on her credentials to disagree with her. Again, I find this a very hypocritical charge because you hold yourself out as an expert on all manner of things without credentials (since everything is a "process" in the broadest sense, you must be an expert on everything!) The reason I don't get riled up about this topic is simply because, as a practical matter, I don't think much can be done about global warming besides waiting for the technological breakthroughs necessary to meaningfully reduce carbon emissions. Even if we were to hold carbon emissions constant (which we all know isn't going to happen), it would still cause significant global warming. We've seen what happens when government spends billions propping up "green" companies, so that's not the answer. I am interested in out-of-the-box solutions, such as a controlled release of sulphur into the upper atmosphere to counteract the effects and buy us time. I'm a big fan of nuclear power, but we all know how much progressives hate that. You should be taking the RIFuture crowd to task on their anti-science propaganda against nuclear power, but you probably share their views.

"...you hold yourself out as an expert on all manner of things without credentials"

That's simply false. But at least you seem to acknowledge that a data management professional has some perspective on so-called "data driven" improvement. What's funny is I take grief over here all the time for differing to experts!

In any case, think it's clear you folks are better at dishing it out than taking it. Everyone else's credentials are in question, but question someone from the reactionary right and watch out!

This is similar to a debate in religion. Man made global warming is a religion, it is a matter of faith, the facts are scant. Those "facts" that do exist do not explain their cause, nor do they "play well with others". A natural cycle of the earth's atmosphere is an equivalently good explanation. There is certainly an abundance of geological evidence to support that. I expect that all of those Europeans who endured the "mini ice age" of the 14th and 15th centuries wouldn't happily swap places with us.

I read the link above concerning 75% of Americans "believe" in global warming. This is "faith" in a "revealed religion". I can't believe that 1% of the "believers" are capable of forming their opinions based on facts which they have verified. They accept that it is man made on "faith". They haven't even noticed that the "hole in the ozone" has practically disappeared. In any case, "consensus" does not create a fact. It is reminiscent of all of the people who claimed "the cure for cancer" is in the "rain forest". I used to ask them "which rain forest". This would perplex them because they were unaware how large a portion of the Earth's land mass is covered with rain forest. Meanwhile, my daughter's teachers were warning her against eating at Mickey D's because "they were destroying the rain forest".

Perhaps we should all spend a week end watching the old movies, and a larger number of books, where white Europeans calm the savages by "causing" an eclipse of the sun. I particularly recommend the Henry Rider Haggard novels. He pulls the "old eclipse trick" on the "natives" several times.

"A natural cycle of the earth's atmosphere is an equivalently good explanation."

That's of course not so, which is why most scientists do not believe it. I'll admit that most folks don't think like scientists, which speaks to my point about the need to have at least a basic understanding of science to form valid opinions on this one. There's plenty of examples from the climate contrarian camp of this. Just wait for a cold winter or a big snowfall to be held out as "proof" that warming isn't occuring. In fact, Monique offers up this kind of misconception...
www.anchorrising.com/barnacles/011870.html

A good theory both describes past events and makes valid predictions about the future. The greenhouse gas theory predicts that a 35% increase in CO2 will effect climate. That prediction has been confirmed by rising temperatures. If this theory is wrong, we'd need an explaination how greenhouse gases do not effect temperature that both accounts for the past and predicts what happens next. What is the mechanism that causes this natural cycle? No doubt those cycles exist, but they don't fully account for the observed changes and/or predict what's coming next. You can't just state that natural causes are a "good" explanation and leave it at that.

Note, that belief in science to explain natural events is not like religion, which by definition requires and article of faith. Quite the contrary in fact.

"A natural cycle of the earth's atmosphere is an equivalently good explanation."

That's of course not so, which is why most scientists do not believe it.
---------------
I wonder how many of those scientists are "seeking grants"?

One must always wonder about the "best science". 50 years ago homosexuality was a "treatable disease", now it is celebrated. 40 years ago scientists warned of the "coming ice age". Newsweek's cover showed America covered with a glacier. I remember when the "best science" predicted that the Earth would entirely deplete it's petroleum reserves on a date certain in June of 1981. I also remember when the "ocean's would feed us forever".

All of this was backed with "data streams".

So now an article in Newsweek is the same as the weight of every major climate organization on the planet? Come on, you folks are smarter than that.

You're essentially arguing against believing any scientific theory. It's really a shocking thing to see this kind of thinking in vogue among the fringe-right. Hey, the theory of gravity as originally understood has been proven to have been flawed. What proof do those egg-heads have? Let's jump off the roof! (seriously, please don't)

"Is there a scientific consensus on global warming?"
www.skepticalscience.com/print.php?a=17

Oh, and Dan, nuclear power is really just a massive hoax perpetrated by "scientists" who want project funding. Must be true! You know, because of that Ice Age thing in Newsweek.

WF, here's some "sciency" stuff from your local correspondent on why only the sun could be influencing global temperature (I loved this one)...
www.anchorrising.com/barnacles/007769.html

Perspective? Try this for perspective. The sun sends 29.4 Megajoules of radiation to every square meter of the Earth's surface every day. (No, I have no idea what a Megajoule equates to. It just sounds impressive because it has the word "mega" in it.) Now, how many Megajoules does man's CO2 equate to? Again, I have no idea. But it isn't in the realm of what the sun sends us.

Case closed. Science is fun! (I pointed out that by the same logic your furnace couldn't be influencing the temperature in your house, but that's probably just my religion creeping in)

Russ - Monique has her views on the subject and Warrington likes to play the skeptic. Unlike the progressive lemming crowd, we don't all have to agree with each other here. Their views on global warming are not my own, so please leave me and others out of your "you folks."

Point taken. Of course you lump me in with all progressives who uniformly hate nuclear power. Granted I'm not a big fan (in contrast to the all of the above policy of the Obama administration) but there are some who think the risks involved pale in comparison to the benefits.

I primarily worry about the lack of any long term storage solutions for spent fuel and that no nuclear project has been undertaken in this country without massive taxpayer backed disaster liability limits (I'm sure some libertarians are with me on that one).
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price%E2%80%93Anderson_Nuclear_Industries_Indemnity_Act

"So now an article in Newsweek is the same as the weight of every major climate organization on the planet?"

Russ, perhaps you are just not old enough. The "coming ice age" was part of the inspiration for "Earth Day". Since the "coming ice age" is now ancient history, and has been replaced by "Global Warming", which has transmuted to "Climate Change", that info is a little hard to come by. I guess you had to be there. It didn't hurt that Sen. Gaylord Nelson needed a little face time.

www.climatedepot.com/a/3213/Dont-Miss-it-Climate-Depots-Factsheet-on-1970s-Coming-Ice-Age-Claims

Now it is all explained by the "state of the science" in the 1970's. What will they be saying in the 2040's? It is worthy of note that the "NASA expert" ,James Hansen, who is pushing "Global Warming" was also the "NASA expert" pushing the "coming ice age".

Skeptical, sure. Just last week I heard an "expert" on NPR telling America that 50% of college men subjected to "hazing" have been sodomized. Should I be buying that one? Where I went to school, "hazing" was institutionalized and I never heard of such a thing. Spending the first year sitting only on the front half of a seat, sure. Sodomy, forget it. Is my personal "data stream" corrupted? Perhaps I got too much of that "acid rain" on my head back in the 80's. Maybe those cancer causing power lines near my house fried my brain? Could there be Radon in my basement? Was there Mercury in my childhood inoculations? Perhaps I am overcome with grief for the millions who have died from malaria since the scientifically ridiculous banning of DDT?

No doubt there were a few sensational articles in the 1970s. I've seen those lists before and there's still no comparison to the volume of peer reviewed studies on warming today. You're essentially arguing that because some news articles got it wrong 40 years ago, we should today ignore scientific studies.

Check out William Connolley's page on this. Got me humming The Clash...

"Was an imminent Ice Age predicted in the '70's? No"
www.wmconnolley.org.uk/sci/iceage/

For instance, here's his comment on the National Academy of Sciences report cited in the link you provide:
www.wmconnolley.org.uk/sci/iceage/nas-1975.html

From the foreword (by V E Suomi, Chair of the US Committee for GARP):

"...we do not have a good quantitative understanding of our climate machine and what determines its course. Without the fundamental understanding, it does not seem possible to predict climate...".

I believe that this is an accurate assessment of the state of knowledge at the time.

From the preface (by W L Gates and Y Mintz):

"Our response to the concerns [about climate variations [WMC]] is the proposal of a major new program of reseach designed to increase our understanding of climatic change and to lay the foundation for its prediction".

So far so good: the report doesn't believe prediction can yet be done, and its response is to recommend more research, not to make predictions.

"The 'coming ice age' was part of the inspiration for 'Earth Day'."

That's interesting. I decided to look that one up. According the "Reason":
reason.com/archives/2000/05/01/earth-day-then-and-now/1

Of course, the biggest environmental crisis facing humanity nowadays is supposed to be global warming. Not surprisingly, worries about the future climate were a common theme among alarmists on the first Earth Day. However, they couldn't agree on what direction the earth's temperature was going to take.

"The greenhouse theorists contend the world is threatened with a rise in average temperature, which if it reached 4 or 5 degrees, could melt the polar ice caps, raise sea level by as much as 300 feet and cause a worldwide flood," explained Newsweek in its special January 26, 1970, report on "The Ravaged Environment." In the service of balance, however, the magazine also noted that many other scientists saw temperatures dropping: "This theory assumes that the earth's cloud cover will continue to thicken as more dust, fumes, and water vapor are belched into the atmosphere by industrial smokestacks and jet planes. Screened from the sun's heat, the planet will cool, the water vapor will fall and freeze, and a new Ice Age will be born."

That's quite a bit different than the scientific consensus we have today.

Russ
"...we do not have a good quantitative understanding of our climate machine and what determines its course. Without the fundamental understanding, it does not seem possible to predict climate...".

I believe that this is an accurate assessment of the state of knowledge at the time. "
---------------

'Now it is all explained by the "state of the science" in the 1970's. What will they be saying in the 2040's?"

Just because it is "the best science we have" does not indicate that it is complete knowledge.

It may be that we are undergoing a little warming, but "peer reviewed" or not, the evidence that man is causing it is not "proven". Surely the amount of manipulated data that has been found is reason to cause skepticism, even doubt.

Surely the amount of money being thrown at "green energy" must make one wonder if the money being thrown at "green science" does not in itself produce adherents. Scientists live by grants.

It was always so. The great museums of natural history at both Harvard and Yale exist because wealthy relatives agreed to build the museums if Harvard and Yale both created departments and installed nephews as head of those departments. Since human nature is a constant, the story of the competition to create those museums is rather interesting. To be fair, paleontology did turn out to be a "science". But it was scoffed at until the money appeared.

If money is available to "study" global warming, do you think the employees are likely to discredit the concept? Remember human nature and Google "scientific fraud".

In a more religious age, the explanation would be "God did it". In a secular age, it is only natural that the explanation is that "man did it".

"It may be that we are undergoing a little warming, but 'peer reviewed' or not, the evidence that man is causing it is not 'proven'."

That's a perfect illustration of why I think a basic knowledge of science is required to speak coherently about this issue. You're asking for an impossibility. I've posted this before...

Here's Hawking from "A Brief History of Time:"

In order to talk about the nature of the universe and to discuss questions such as whether it has a beginning or an end, you have to be clear about what a scientific theory is. I shall take the simpleminded view that a theory is just a model of the universe, or a restricted part of it, and a set of rules that relate quantities in the model to observations that we make. It exists only in our minds and does not have any other reality (whatever that might mean). A theory is a good theory if it satisfies two requirements. It must accurately describe a large class of observations on the basis of a model that contains only a few arbitrary elements, and it must make definite predictions about the results of future observations. For example, Aristotle believed Empedocles’s theory that everything was made out of four elements, earth, air, fire, and water. This was simple enough, but did not make any definite predictions. On the other hand, Newton’s theory of gravity was based on an even simpler model, in which bodies attracted each other with a force that was proportional to a quantity called their mass and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them. Yet it predicts the motions of the sun, the moon, and the planets to a high degree of accuracy.

Any physical theory is always provisional, in the sense that it is only a hypothesis: you can never prove it. No matter how many times the results of experiments agree with some theory, you can never be sure that the next time the result will not contradict the theory. On the other hand, you can disprove a theory by finding even a single observation that disagrees with the predictions of the theory. As philosopher of science Karl Popper has emphasized, a good theory is characterized by the fact that it makes a number of predictions that could in principle be disproved or falsified by observation. Each time new experiments are observed to agree with the predictions the theory survives, and our confidence in it is increased; but if ever a new observation is found to disagree, we have to abandon or modify the theory.

"Surely the amount of manipulated data that has been found is reason to cause skepticism, even doubt."

Richard Muller started with that premise and with funding from the Koch brothers. Any idea what he found regarding the IPCC? Good scientists are skeptics, the whole point of peer review. It's simply not possible to explain away the evidence as a hoax as much as you might wish it to be so.

www.nytimes.com/2012/07/30/opinion/the-conversion-of-a-climate-change-skeptic.html?pagewanted=all

Russ,

First, let us understand that I do not dispute that there may be some warming. My skepticism concerns man's effect on it. I do not find the evidence compelling.

The NYT link you gives refers to studies for the last 250 years (I wonder how good those 1750 thermometers were). I note that data begins with the approximate end of Europe's mini ice age. I am assuming most studies going back to that date are European. So, some warming is to be expected. Next, major natural events are overlooked. Consider Krakatoa, that blackened the skies over the U.S. for several weeks. I expect that equals 50 years of mankind's "carbon based" endeavors. Never mentioned is the admitted errors in temperatures during the 90's that resulted from the closing of so many "weather stations" with the collapse of the Soviet Union. So many inconvenient truths ignored.

Hawking's comments are worthy of consideration.But I know nothing of his prejudices. As I mentioned, Al Einstein denied the uncertainty principle right up to his death. Quantum physics is very difficult if you do not accept it.

Physicists have time and again suggested/proven the existence of parallel universes, they call them the "multiverse". Unlike much of "climate science", their experiments are observable and repeatable. Their hypotheses are not universally accepted. So, which group do we sneer at? More than that, do we abandon our acceptance of the photon?

I am sorry, but so long as science is driven by "grants", I expect the results to justify the grants. I am not amazed that natural forces may coincide with man's existence. I am also swayed that our "secularism" sometimes approaches "pantheism". Rather than put it to good use, we chain off portions of the earth's surface because it is "pristine". Those starving humans? Let them eat cake. I understand Marie actually said "manche merde", but "history" didn't like it.

"I know nothing of his prejudices."

He's just explaining what a theory is. That's not a matter of opinion.

"I am sorry, but so long as science is driven by 'grants', I expect the results to justify the grants."

Which is why studies are peer reviewed. You're arguing that scientists conspire to cover up research results from unrelated institutions when it would be in their own interest to expose those erroneous results and attract that funding to their own research.

Four of our papers have undergone extensive scrutiny by the scientific community, and the newest, a paper with the analysis of the human component, is now posted, along with the data and computer programs used. Such transparency is the heart of the scientific method; if you find our conclusions implausible, tell us of any errors of data or analysis.

It would also require us to believe that climate skeptics like Mullen fudge their results out of fear the Koch brothers would cut off funding!

www.guardian.co.uk/science/2012/jul/29/climate-change-sceptics-change-mind

The funding for the project included $150,000 from the Charles G Koch Charitable Foundation, set up by the billionaire US coal magnate and key backer of the climate-sceptic Heartland Institute thinktank.

It's really quite strange how far afield from fact some are on this issue.