Now, I like Tony Blair, and I applaud him for his environmental stances, and the fact that he does care about the potential for global warming. But, again, the data being provided has too much of "if ifs and buts were candies and nuts we’d all have a wonderful Christmas."
The threat posed by climate change may be greater than previously thought, and global warming is advancing at an unsustainable rate, Prime Minister Tony Blair said in a report published Monday.
The government-commissioned report collates evidence presented at a conference on climate change hosted by Britain’s Meteorological Office last year. It says scientists now have "greater clarity and reduced uncertainty" about the impacts of climate change.
In a foreword, Blair said it was clear that "the risks of climate change may well be greater than we thought."
"It is now plain that the emission of greenhouse gases, associated with industrialization and economic growth from a world population that has increased six-fold in 200 years, is causing global warming at a rate that is unsustainable," he wrote.
Over the next century, global warming is expected to raise ocean levels, intensify storms, spread disease to new areas and shift climate zones, possibly making farmlands drier and deserts wetter.
The U.N.-backed Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change says temperatures rose by about 1 degree during the 20th century. Computer modeling predicts increases of between 2.5 degrees and 10.4 degrees by the year 2100, depending on how much is dome to limit greenhouse gas emissions.
Now, Tony is passionate and, from his point of view, says this will happen. You know what? He may be right. But, despite his passionate speech, is Man causing part or all of Global Warming, and, if so, is there anything that can be done? Perhaps there are just too many people. Do we restrict births, and maybe try euthanasia, perhaps in a Logan’s Run type scenario?
Now, I will agree that we do need to lower our output of greenhouse gasses such as CO2 and methane, if not for global warming, at least for better air quality. We need to stop the clear cutting of forests. Replanting programs work well. We need to keep the oceans and waterways clean.
Have I mentioned that the air quality tends to be worse in Blue areas, like NYC, Los Angeles, Atlanta, Chicago, etc, then in areas that are Red? Hmm.
But, I digress.
The article also mentions "computer modeling." Cause, you know that works wonders for weather prediction. Now, I do not mean to demean meteorologists with this kind of discussion: it is a tough job, which is often derided when the weather people get it wrong. The Earth is a dynamic system, and small changes can vastly effect what happens with the weather. But, I will ask yet again: if a hurricane cannot be predicted accurately 24 hours out, how can one predict what will happen 10, 20, 100 years from now?
I’ll throw a maybe out there: what if the increased water temperatures are caused by underwater volcanic vents, which put more heat into the oceans? We know more about the Moon then we do about the deep seas.
Also, I wonder if candies and nuts will be on the Christmas haters hit list next year?
Just an aside: These comments from Blair come as ENGLAND is having one of the coldest winters on record. Russia and much of Eastern Europe are in a deep freeze.
It snowed in Turkey and in GREECE.
Gee, he’s developing “Gore timing.”