Dear Editor:
Mr. Mike Smith writes that the petition Against Global Warming has been signed by 31,000 scientists. Hmmm... I checked out the site, it appears that anyone can sign on and claim to be a scientist.
If you check the reputable scientists, those that have published at least one peer-reviewed article in a scientific journal (and not necessarily about global warming), the list shrinks drastically. This is a very lenient requirement—I have two articles published with my name listed as an author based on my M.A. in chemical physics from the University of Oregon. (To clarify the phrase peer-reviewed: in any reputable scientific journal the editors send all articles submitted to at least two scientists who have previously published in the same field or a related one. Those scientists read and review the article to see if it has any obvious mistakes, and send a critique to the editors. If the reviews are generally favorable, the article is published.)
A wikipedia article that attempts to list those scientists who have publicly stated their opposition finds about 40 names. And most of their comments are not from peer-reviewed scientific publications, they are from newspaper articles. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming.
In contrast, you can look in Annex II at the list of contributors to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) WG1 4th Assessment Project, found on pages 955—968. There are roughly 40 names per page for a total of over 500 scientists (the last page is not full). Annex III, found on pages 969—979, lists the scientists from approximately 32 countries who reviewed those findings. There are over 100 scientists listed for the United States alone.
The IPCC Summary for Policymakers states bluntly: "Global atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide have increased markedly as a result of human activities since 1750 and now far exceed pre-industrial values determined from ice cores spanning many thousands of years (see Figure SPM.1). The global increases in carbon dioxide concentration are due primarily to fossil fuel use and land use change, while those of methane and nitrous oxide are primarily due to agriculture."
See http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-spm.pdf.
For more discussions of the implications of global warming for New Mexico, and for economic development opportunities in our sun-and-wind-rich state, you can view the entire Re-Energize America conference, chaired by congressman Harry Teague and held at NMSU in Las Cruces August 31—September 1. Go to http://mediasite.nmsu.edu/ and click on the Re-Energize America link.