The AP reports Tony Blair is alarmed about global warming.   Blair says, "the risks of climate change may well be greater than we thought" and "it is now plain that the emission of greenhouse gases ... is causing global warming at a rate that is unsustainable."

It's just Monday morning but already I have to wonder if this is going to be the week for unrestrained whackiness.   Alito will be approved for Supreme Court Justice and do so with a few votes from liberal Democrats!   One of Saddam's top aides is saying, "Sure we had WMD, what are you stupid.   We shipped them all to Syria in fifty something flights."   So I guess the "Bush lied" thing is being challenged pretty hard by real experts.   Cindy Sheehan is embracing the western hemisphere's most powerful COMMUNIST so I guess when all us stupid conservatives said her "peace inititive" is being backed by the COMMUNIST movement, we weren't just filled with hot air.   Iran finally realizes that the rest of the world is lining up against it.   Palestinian elections have laid bare for the world to see that there is very much a general islamic threat to the non-islamic remainder of the world.   It is difficult to argue that Palestine only seeks peace when the general populace elects a group absolutely committed to violence and genocide.   The truth is marching on.

So the only thing for liberals to do is take the tarp off the environmental thing.   The AP quite nicely pulls the curtain up and opens the first act with the comments of a friendly nation.   So, let's take a look at those comments.   "the risks of climate change MAY well be greater than we thought."   What did we previously think?   What would be greater?   And, what does "MAY be greater" mean?

The AP says "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."   OK, that's what we thought.   I've heard all of these kicked around for almost ten years.   What's new?   What's "more than we thought?"

The AP notes that the "IPCC 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 (sic) to limit greenhouse gas emissions."   Well, nothing has been done to limit gases.   The signatories to Kyoto have a net increase in their emmissions so presumably the right number to look at is at least 10.4 degrees.   The one degree thing has been around a few years.   If we expect a 10.4 degree increase over 100 years, shouldn't we now be kicking around a different number for the current experienced increase?   Shouldn't it now be 1.5% or something like that?   You can do the math but Kyoto has been crawling up our butts since 1997 and the 1 degree thing was mentioned back then, so 8 years has gone by.   10.4 over 100 years should mean an average increase in global temp.s of about a tenth of a degree per year.   Even assuming a geometric rate of increase in temp.s, we should now be talking about an experienced 1.5 degree increase.   But we aren't.   Why not?

Blair also said "global warming is advancing at an unsustainable rate."   What is unsustainable about it?   I think he meant human beings cannot all be sustained if the global temperature rises as much as he predicts" but it is an interesting comment.   I would say that without a large additional body of peer-reviewed scientific studies, in other words a factual body of data, this global warming hysteria is not sustainable.