Global warming overblown?

I don't know how many people live in whatever amount of space where any of you are. New Mexico is the fifth largest state in area in the United States making it larger in area than several countries, yet it is sparsely populated for its size.

One cannot drive the hundred miles from Clines Corners to Roswell or the hundred miles from Las Vegas to Clayton and get any sense that CO2 is a problem or that global warming is a problem. The vast horizons, limitless skies, and virtually no people in those areas presents a far different perspective. I'm sure it feels much different in large, congested, smoggy cities.

Maybe that's why we give one group of scientists more credibility than another?

Source

LOL Walter. Well, if you could see the country around Albuqueque and Rio Rancho compared to that in the lower Rio Grande Valley, this is not a serious problem. We already are attempting to eradicate the juniper as an allergen nuisance (it is illegal to plant them in Albuquerque anymore) and the mesquite, once reviled as a 'trash' tree, is now becoming increasing valuable as fuel for oven fired pizza and bar-b-que. If the trend continues, I look for the mesquite to be put on the endangered species list any day.

It is true we are in the grips of a drought reported to be the worst in 500 years. Is that a result of global warming? The 'crisis funded' scientists say yes. The independent scientists say no.

New Mexico is terribly interesting both from a geological and climatological perspective. We are still seismically active with two catastrophic volcanos that have been long dormant but are not officially declared extinct. The seismologists report that the layout allows the potential of a 8.5 or greater earthquake in southern Albuquerque.

While we are now truly high desert, at the same time there are sea fossils in the rocks on Sandia Crest (10,600+ feet) forming Albuquerque's eastern boundary and a not-so-distant past of rain forests covering this entire area.

It will be difficult to get too excited about creeping Mesquite.

Just curious: what do those scientists say, who don't believe in Global Warming?

I have posted a number of 'non crises funded' scientific opinions earlier in this thread. Also I had to do some earthwquake potential research for a client awhile back, and talked to a renown scientist that worked out of New Mexico Tech in Socorro (about 90 miles south of here). He's retired now but has devloted a lifetime to studying all the stuff about New Mexico's geological structure and climate. His opinion is that we are one of the fastest changing areas, relatively speaking, in the world but evenso the changes are too gradual to be perceptable by anybody not paying attention.

He puts almost no stock in global warming as anything other than normal climatic changes. New Mexico is pretty temperate now; it once was much warmer here long before any humans showed up; and he figures it will become much warmer again at some point whether or not humans live on Planet Earth. He also figures we'll have our normal ice ages every 10,000 years or so per usual as well.

most things are foxy if you dont pay attention. Thats why people who do, get worried.

Hi Walter: I'm a fence sitter on global warming = A bit has occured in the past century, but less than one percent of humans will be injured big time by global warming in the coming century. Neil

Scientist who do not believe have a variety of opinions, most close to mine. Perhaps one percent of the carbon dioxide budget is burning foscil fuel = quite puny. 2 by controlling wild fire, humans may have reduced the carbon dioxide budget by one percent short term. Much of this will catch up in the coming decade as the forest not burned, decays in land fills and on the forest floor. 3 The ocean has not risen in the recent 100 years but some land has sunk toward the center of the Earth 4 storms are not more violent than the average for the past 100 years. 5 The warming crsis scientists have seriously exaggerated, even faked data in an attempt to enhance their employment. 6 several more mentioned earlier in this very long thread. Neil

neil

I'm glad that there are some scientists, who follow your opinion :wink:

Hi Walter: More correctly, I tend to allign with the majority scientist opinion. I admit the scientists being paid to evaluate global warming are more qualified than scientists tring to develop hydrogen powered cars, and other not closely related projects. I confess to prefering the far out niche if there is convincing evidence. Please suggest some things within our grasp we can do now to reduce the impact of global warming or new ice age either of which could accellerate rapidly in the next decade. Neil

Well, I do think that we have some (better: a lot of) responsibility for those, who (perhaps?) will live later on this planet.

Since we do have the knowledge and the possibilties to react ... and act



Kyoto Treaty. Just for the start.

Neil how can you possibly know that less than one percent of the population will be injured "big time" by climate change over the next century?

[and should it be so trivial, thats still as many as 100,000,000 people.]

As nearly as I can tell, the Kyoto Accord is based 100% on the 'science' produced by those groups who benefit from the existance of global warming; i.e. those who's continued funding depend on there being a problem.

Again, I think it is foolhardy to rush willynilly into regulations and requirements that could economically harm or inconvenience hundreds of millions of people while they may have neglible or no effect on any global environmental trends.

In other words, again I am more than willing to make whatever personal sacrifices are necessary for the good of humankind. I am not willing to give up a single freedom or right to accommodate bogus science.

I believe I am correct that not one prominent scientist who disbelieves global warming trends was invited to speak or present data at the more recent global summits on this issue.

Consider the following. You have to plow through a lot of mind numbing technical jargon to get to the thesis which is: the models being used by the prevailing group of pro-global warming scientists are wrong.

I won't make up my mind on this based on one or two opposing opinions. But until all sides of the issue are considered, I'm not ready to jump on board with Kyoto or any other plan that could be as useless as the global cooling hysteria of 30 years ago.

http://www.multi-science.co.uk/mcintyre_02.pdf

Hi Steve; I can't possibly "know anything about global warming for sure as some of the proponents think it is ok to lie for a "good" cause, but I do like to put tentative numbers on things to get a ball park idea. I can redefine "big time" if my numbers prove improbable. Isn't that what global warming advocates do? Would you agree one million persons have already been harmed, big time, by global warming that has occured since 1904? That is about 0.4 % of the average planetary human population of the resent century. How many persons were harmed, big time, by the total activism of the green movement ie the ban on DDT in Africa? Neil

I have to agree Fox's remarks about the "global cooling hysteria" of thirty years ago. There was in the late 1960's and early 1970's, fear expressed of an eventual decline into a new ice age. But it didn't get grant money, and "climatologists" (as they were not yet known, then) found it much more profitable to tout global warming, and, having learned their lesson, so claim the hour of danger was upon us.

That being acknowledged, i consider Kyoto to be a valuable initiative, simply because any move to make our environment cleaner is a good idea. I suspect opponents of the global warming theory as much as i suspect the proponents.

I don't know Neil and I wouldn't presume to guess. The language of science is essentially cautious. But the overwhelming evidence points to global warming as

real
anthropogenic
dangerous

There is no possible reason for the UK Chief Scientific Advisor to govt. to put a spin on climate change issues.

Hi Setana: My open minded side, agrees with you, but I think the truth is likely near the half way point, but closer to the anti-green point of view on carbon dioxide. I lean toward the green on most other pollutants. I agree reducing carbon dioxide will reduce other pollutants perhaps drastically. My guess is rolling back to 1999 emissions or even 2001 emissions will have about the same economic down side to the USA as an asteroid hit that enlarges the San Francisco Bay to include all the near by cities. Our economy is fragile and can not survive the loss of several million key citizens, nor conforming to Kyoto. I assume this because I have suggested about a dozen ways to reduce carbon dioxide emissions ( most of which produce no credit in the Kyoto calculations) none of which have gotten rage reviews nor any alternatives. The standard rebuttal is: trust us, sign Kyoto and moderately painless ways will be found to meet the deadlines. The previous green trust me were quite painful, accomplished little and it is still an even debate that they were necessary.
Obviously the USA can meet the Kyoto deadlines by cutting the USA standard of living by about ten times, back to the dark ages. Please suggest some other methods besides improving efficiency, which I suspect is mature technology that will not yield much more improvement. Neil

Would be interesting to see US-Americans live like Europeans 1500 years ago

We did for awhile, but it was a little over 200 years ago.

I have simply observed that i think the Kyoto plan can yield positive results. I have neither stated nor implied that this is a "solution to the problem of global warming." I am not at all certain yet that there is a problem with global warming. In my never humble opinion, the most proximate danger to standars of living for most Americans remains the outrageously plutocratic nature of national policy and legislation, especially tax legislation. Goods get hauled by over-the-road truckers because people can't or won't wait for gratification, and retailers and distributors have become obsessed with stock turn-over. What is good for oranges and string beans, however, does not apply to other consumer goods. A great deal of distribution of goods is accomplished through very expensive and poluting means--the railways have withered away in this country because they've been relegated to hauling raw materials, and have almost no finished goods transport orders. When i was a child, you did not see new cars being hauled down the road by semis--you saw them stacked in the identical fashion on flat-bed rail cars. Systems of public transportation either languish or eat up huge amounts of municipal revenue because we live in a culture of hop in the car and go get it. The expressways around hundreds of U.S. cities are filled twice each day with automobiles each containing a single passenger. Long distance bus lines have virtually cut-off small town America because it became unprofitable to attempt to compete on any but the busiest routes.

Our economy does not depend on the appallingly wasteful habits Americans have developed since the end of the Second World War. I'm not being holier-than-thou, either--i freely admit that i hop in the jeep and head down the road when the fancy takes me. But i also live in a society in which my choices for living and buying and even eating would be serverly limited were i not the owner of a vehicle. That it is this way does not mean economic catastrophe nor collapse if circumstance ever forces us to change. It will be painful, and although it probably won't occur in my lifetime, it is inevitable. My pragmatic consideration is that the current administration has so mortgaged the economic futures of our successors in this country, that your argument only has force in so far as we ought not to burden them further.