Monday, September 27, 2010

Privacy Policy for define-globalwarming.blogspot.com

Privacy Policy for define-globalwarming.blogspot.com

If you require any more information or have any questions about our privacy policy, please feel free to contact us by email at kutukupretsid@gmail.com.

At define-globalwarming.blogspot.com, the privacy of our visitors is of extreme importance to us. This privacy policy document outlines the types of personal information is received and collected by define-globalwarming.blogspot.com and how it is used.

Log Files
Like many other Web sites, define-globalwarming.blogspot.com makes use of log files. The information inside the log files includes internet protocol ( IP ) addresses, type of browser, Internet Service Provider ( ISP ), date/time stamp, referring/exit pages, and number of clicks to analyze trends, administer the site, track user’s movement around the site, and gather demographic information. IP addresses, and other such information are not linked to any information that is personally identifiable.

Cookies and Web Beacons
define-globalwarming.blogspot.com does use cookies to store information about visitors preferences, record user-specific information on which pages the user access or visit, customize Web page content based on visitors browser type or other information that the visitor sends via their browser.

DoubleClick DART Cookie
.:: Google, as a third party vendor, uses cookies to serve ads on define-globalwarming.blogspot.com.
.:: Google's use of the DART cookie enables it to serve ads to users based on their visit to define-globalwarming.blogspot.com and other sites on the Internet.
.:: Users may opt out of the use of the DART cookie by visiting the Google ad and content network privacy policy at the following URL - http://www.google.com/privacy_ads.html

Some of our advertising partners may use cookies and web beacons on our site. Our advertising partners include ....
Google Adsense


These third-party ad servers or ad networks use technology to the advertisements and links that appear on define-globalwarming.blogspot.com send directly to your browsers. They automatically receive your IP address when this occurs. Other technologies ( such as cookies, JavaScript, or Web Beacons ) may also be used by the third-party ad networks to measure the effectiveness of their advertisements and / or to personalize the advertising content that you see.

define-globalwarming.blogspot.com has no access to or control over these cookies that are used by third-party advertisers.

You should consult the respective privacy policies of these third-party ad servers for more detailed information on their practices as well as for instructions about how to opt-out of certain practices. define-globalwarming.blogspot.com's privacy policy does not apply to, and we cannot control the activities of, such other advertisers or web sites.

If you wish to disable cookies, you may do so through your individual browser options. More detailed information about cookie management with specific web browsers can be found at the browsers' respective websites.

Define Global Warming

To just Define Global Warming as the protracted increase or decrease of global warming temperature in the earths lower atmosphere was not sufficient for the scientific discipline to distinguish the causes and issues in the global warming temperature shift. Modifications in the planets temperature are induced by natural greenhouses gases, and these had to be discovered to define global warming, every one gave unique consequences on the absorbing and escaping of warmth from the lower atmosphere.
To define global warming these natural ingredients were broken into general groupings and estimated the sum to each one that added to global warming; Cloud Cover, Methane CH4 at 7%, Carbon Dioxide CO2 at 20%, Ozone at 7% and Water vapor at 65%. Historical handwritten registers, archeology information and deep ice core study enabled scientist to build this general baseline of the natural chemical elements.
To generally define global warming, it is a normal and slow drift of the warming of the earth lower atmosphere and in point of fact is still a recuperation action from the historical great ice age. In amassing all this information there were random time periods that seemed to be skewed in the warming temperature. Scientist recognized that these notable data variations had to be explained to correctly define global warming; they surmised the data was a consequence of some shape of large natural event that had to occur to have such a large result on the global warming temperature.
NASA was utilizing satellites to study a long-time natural recognized effect to all fishermen named El Nino (warm water currents) and La Nina (cooler water currents), this was finally affiliated to another study on Solar Flare Activity, El Nino came at high Solar Flare Activity and La Nina happened during low activity, this related the 10 year uniform high to low in the warming temperature. A link was shortly made to the abnormal global warming temperature variances by analyzing the "Year with no Summer" that caused large-scale starving throughout Europe in 1816AD, this was caused by the volcanic blast of Tambor that put adequate partials into the atmosphere to obstruct sunlight for decades. When the volcano Krakatau exploded in 1883AD exact record keeping were being kept world-wide and this provided the satisfying data to define global warming fluctuations and the random exceptional divergence that occurred in the data set. Since then numerous past natural events have been related to tops and bottoms of the global warming temperature information set.
Volcanic activity in the early 1100 AD finishing in 1500AD compounded into creating a Mini-Ice-Age in the mid 1600 AD, it took the next three hundred and fifty years for the worldwide temperature to come up to pre-1000AD temperature levels. This natural re-warming of the global temperature was expected to start flattening off in the mid-1900s. In the 1950s Science became worried that the steep gain in warming temperature was not leveling out but carried on the steep angle of increase.
In 1970 all the researchers concurred this sharp increase in global warming temperature was a effect of the additional gases that are being put into the atmosphere by human being activity commencing at the industrial revolution of burning up fossil fuels in the 1700 AD. This added a different class that added to the global warming temperature changes that made up of not of a natural effect, scientists had to re-define global warming once more, adding the component of human being activity. Human being activity since the industrialized revolution added to the natural greenhouse gases an astonishing 149 percent of Methane and still worse 40 percent more of the lethal Carbon Dioxide, the prime worry from these effects is that virtually all of this growth took place from 1900's to the 1970's. Included in human being activity was the removing of forests which is the 2nd largest greenhouse gas remover from the atmosphere, the ocean being number one.
As a result of these primary influences the warming temperature has increased 1.32 degs. Fahrenheit exclusively by human being activity and the bulk of this change came in the past 100 years. In this work to define warming all the data suggested a quick change of two degs. within a very short period of time has had a sizable environmental impact, by continuing the current trend the human being activity will increase the global warming temperature by 3 degs. from the years 2000 to 2060. Deep ice core sampling established the Carbon Dioxide levels of present day duplicate the same levels as the tragic event the wiped out the dinosaurs. This very large increase in Carbon Dioxide began to come about in 1940 at the same time of increase in the call for consumer trade goods and services like the creating of electric power.
It became plain by the 1960s global warming temperature modifications would touch us all. Since then numerous supporting studies to the global warming temperature change have been published; the reactions by Administrations and Big Business in the past 40 years has been OUTRAGEOUS and measures to zero twisting the facts and giving the appearance they are doing something. Clean energy sources have been around for a long time and had Authorities taken action to inform and promote these alternate dependable and cost effective natural energy systems the time line could have been prolonged an additional 80 to 100 years before achieving that critical 3 deg. warming period.

New engine cycle is 60% efficient

Analysis of a new engine design is complete! Here are some facts about it:


1. Utilizes a new thermodynamic cycle

2. Will run on most fuels interchangeably with very low emissions

3. Initial design is a compact engine, 130 hp

4. Over 60% efficient over most of its operating range

5. Which means it can help to stop global warming!


We are now looking at ways to fund construction of the small prototype engine. Any suggestions or offers of assistance are welcome. I may be reached at Ernsdesk@aol.com


The engine design is built around a new "thermodynamic cycle." This is a simplified model of how the engine works, which ignores all the messy details of a real engine such as friction, heat loss, and inertia. The cycle is described as a sequence of operations on a captive ideal gas. The new engine cycle is a combination of two old cycles, the Atkinson (or Miller) cycle and the Diesel cycle: the Atkinson-Diesel cycle.

Oh, no, you can't use this ideal cycle formula to design the exact engine and determine its efficiency, but it gives direction to the analysis. A separate program is used for the actual engine design.

I wanted to post the complete description of the cycle and derivation of the cycle efficiency here, but the equations didn't come over in the document. Send me an email if you would like a copy of the complete Atkinson-Diesel cycle description.

Ocean current switch due to warming could be slower than feared

CHICAGO — The nightmare global warming scenario which provided the plot for a Hollywood blockbuster -- the Atlantic Ocean current that keeps Europe warm shuts down and triggers rapid climate change -- has long worried scientists.
But a study published Thursday in the journal Science found it may not occur as quickly as previously feared.


There is evidence that this current has shut down with some regularity in the past -- and sometimes quite rapidly -- in response to large influxes of fresh water from melting glaciers.
However, it appears as though the current rate of glacial melt is occurring at a more gradual pace which will "give ecosystems more time to adjust to new conditions," said study coauthor Peter Clark, a professor of geosciences at Oregon State University.
Article continues

Flower Power Made Our Climate Grow




This is a startling and completely unexpected result. I am totally cognizant of the powerful role of transpiration in sustaining rainfall over ecology.  The great tropical rainforests are convincing demonstrations.  It is core to my proposal to restore the Sahara and the Asian dry lands.

That it was way more difficult before flowering plants was not obvious at all.

This suggests that upland habitat was typically dryer and way more extensive everywhere except local wetlands.  Suddenly Northern Australia looks like home for dinosaurs and the whole remnant ecosystem.

This also suggests that flowering plants are way more proficient at absorbing carbon.

The rainforests would likely have been hugely constrained to their best drainage and wetlands with intervening dry highlands.  The deserts may not have been much larger but plenty of land would have been seriously marginal.  Again think about Australia.



Flower Power Makes Tropics Cooler, Wetter


ScienceDaily (July 19, 2010) — The world is a cooler, wetter place because of flowering plants, according to new climate simulation results published in the journal Proceedings of the Royal Society B. The effect is especially pronounced in the Amazon basin, where replacing flowering plants with non-flowering varieties would result in an 80 percent decrease in the area covered by ever-wet rainforest.

The simulations demonstrate the importance of flowering-plant physiology to climate regulation in ever-wet rainforest, regions where the dry season is short or non-existent, and where biodiversity is greatest.

"The vein density of leaves within the flowering plants is much, much higher than all other plants," said the study's lead author, C. Kevin Boyce, Associate Professor in Geophysical Sciences at the University of Chicago. "That actually matters physiologically for both taking in carbon dioxide from the atmosphere for photosynthesis and also the loss of water, which is transpiration. The two necessarily go together. You can't take in CO2 without losing water."

This higher vein density in the leaves means that flowering plants are highly efficient at transpiring water from the soil back into the sky, where it can return to Earth as rain.

"That whole recycling process is dependent upon transpiration, and transpiration would have been much, much lower in the absence of flowering plants," Boyce said. "We can know that because no leaves throughout the fossil record approach the vein densities seen in flowering plant leaves."

For most of biological history there were no flowering plants -- known scientifically as angiosperms. They evolved about 120 million years ago, during the Cretaceous Period, and took another 20 million years to become prevalent. Flowering species were latecomers to the world of vascular plants, a group that includes ferns, club mosses and confers. But angiosperms now enjoy a position of world domination among plants.

"They're basically everywhere and everything, unless you're talking about high altitudes and very high latitudes," Boyce said.

Dinosaurs walked the Earth when flowering plants evolved, and various studies have attempted to link the dinosaurs' extinction or at least their evolutionary paths to flowering plant evolution. "Those efforts are always very fuzzy, and none have gained much traction," Boyce said.

Boyce and Lee are, nevertheless, working toward simulating the climatic impact of flowering plant evolution in the prehistoric world. But simulating the Cretaceous Earth would be a complex undertaking because the planet was warmer, the continents sat in different alignments and carbon- dioxide concentrations were different.

"The world now is really very different from the world 120 million years ago," Boyce said.

Building the Supercomputer Simulation

So as a first step, Boyce and co-author with Jung-Eun Lee, Postdoctoral Scholar in Geophysical Sciences at UChicago, examined the role of flowering plants in the modern world. Lee, an atmospheric scientist, adapted the National Center for Atmospheric Research Community Climate Model for the study.

Driven by more than one million lines of code, the simulations computed air motion over the entire globe at a resolution of 300 square kilometers (approximately 116 square miles). Lee ran the simulations on a supercomputer at the National Energy Research Scientific Computing Center in Berkeley, Calif.

"The motion of air is dependent on temperature distribution, and the temperature distribution is dependent on how heat is distributed," Lee said. "Evapo-transpiration is very important to solve this equation. That's why we have plants in the model."

The simulations showed the importance of flowering plants to water recycling. Rain falls, plants drink it up and pass most of it out of their leaves and back into the sky.

In the simulations, replacing flowering plants with non-flowering plants in eastern North America reduced rainfall by up to 40 percent. The same replacement in the Amazon basin delayed onset of the monsoon from Oct. 26 to Jan. 10.

"Rainforest deforestation has long been shown to have a somewhat similar effect," Boyce said. Transpiration drops along with loss of rainforest, "and you actually lose rainfall because of it."

Studies in recent decades have suggested a link between the diversity of organisms of all types, flowering plants included, to the abundance or rainfall and the vastness of tropical forests. Flowering plants, it seems, foster and perpetuate their own diversity, and simultaneously bolster the diversity of animals and other plants generally. Indeed, multiple lineages of plants and animals flourished shortly after flowering plants began dominating tropical ecosystems.

The climate-altering physiology of flowering plants might partly explain this phenomenon, Boyce said. "There would have been rainforests before flowering plants existed, but they would have been much smaller," he said.

Ellen Brown on the Sovereign Debt Trap





I have to thank Ellen Brown for digging up some of the history of State reserve banking through the past century which has been often clouded with misrepresentations and sheer ignorance even among supposed insiders.

Read this and ponder.  Today our private banking system has blown them selves up and is struggling to return to a sound capital base.  This makes it difficult to expand.  We most need the States to form State banks and deposit the States cash resources therein while promoting citizen deposits also.  The mortgage business alone would support this base.

At least this continues to show a way forward in this era of banking crisis.

Escaping the Sovereign Debt Trap: The Remarkable Model of the Commonwealth Bank of Australia

By Ellen Brown




The current credit crisis is basically a capital crisis: at a time when banks are already short of the capital needed to back their loans, capital requirements are being raised.   Nearly a century ago, the Commonwealth Bank of Australia demonstrated that banks do not actually need capital to make loans – so long as their credit is backed by the government.  Denison Miller, the Bank’s first Governor, was fond of saying that the Bank did not need capital because “it is backed by the entire wealth and credit of the whole of Australia .”  With nothing but this national credit power, the Commonwealth Bank funded both massive infrastructure projects and the country’s participation in World War I.  

President John Adams is quoted as saying, “There are two ways to conquer and enslave a nation.  One is by the sword.  The other is by debt.” The major conquests today are on the battlefield of debt, a war that is raging globally.  Debt forces individuals into financial slavery to the banks, and it forces governments to relinquish their sovereignty to their creditors, which in the end are also private banks, the originators of all non-cash money today.  In Great Britain , where the Bank of England is owned by the government, 97% of the money supply is issued privately by banks as loans.  In the U.S. , where the central bank is owned by a private consortium of banks, the percentage is even higher.  The Federal Reserve issues Federal Reserve Notes (or dollar bills) and lends them to other banks, which then lend them at interest to individuals, businesses, and local and federal governments.   

That is true today, but in the past there have been successful models in which the government itself issued the national currency, whether as paper notes or as the credit of the nation.  A stellar example of this enlightened approach to money and credit was the Commonwealth Bank of Australia , which operated successfully as a government-owned bank for most of the 20th century.  Rather than issuing “sovereign debt” – federal bonds indebting the nation to pay at interest in perpetuity – the government through the Commonwealth Bank issued “sovereign credit,” the credit of the nation advanced to the government and its constituents. 

The Bank’s achievements were particularly remarkable considering that for its first eight years, from 1912 to 1920, it did not have the power to issue the national currency, and it operated without startup capital.  Sir Denison Miller, Governor of the Bank from its creation in 1912 to 1923, was quoted in the Australian Press on July 7, 1921 as saying, “The whole of the resources of Australia are at the back of this bank, and so strong as this continent is, so strong is the Commonwealth Bank. Whatever the Australian people can intelligently conceive in their minds and will loyally support, that can be done.”


This was not just hype.  In a 2001 article titled “How Money Is Created in Australia ,” David Kidd wrote of the Bank’s early accomplishments:

Australia ’s own government-established Commonwealth Bank achieved some impressive successes while it was ‘the peoples’ bank’, before being crippled by later government decisions and eventually sold.  At a time when private banks were demanding 6% interest for loans, the Commonwealth Bank financed Australia ’s first world war effort from 1914 to 1919 with a loan of $700,000,000 at an interest rate of a fraction of 1%, thus saving Australians some $12 million in bank charges.  In 1916 it made funds available in London to purchase 15 cargo steamers to support Australia ’s growing export trade.  Until 1924 the benefits conferred upon the people of Australia by their Bank flowed steadily on. It financed jam and fruit pools to the extent of $3 million, it found $8 million for Australian homes, while to local government bodies, for construction of roads, tramways, harbours, gasworks, electric power plants, etc., it lent $18.72 million.  It paid $6.194 million to the Commonwealth Government between December, 1920 and June, 1923 - the profits of its Note Issue Department - while by 1924 it had made on its other business a profit of $9 million, available for redemption of debt.  The bank’s independently-minded Governor, Sir Denison Miller, used the bank’s credit power after the First World War to save Australians from the depression conditions being imposed in other countries. . . . By 1931 amalgamations with other banks made the Commonwealth Bank the largest savings institution in Australia , capturing 60% of the nation’s savings.”

Harnessing the Secret Power of Banking for the Public Good

The Commonwealth Bank was able to achieve so much with so little because both its first Governor, Denison Miller, and its first and most ardent proponent, King O’Malley, had been bankers themselves and knew the secret of banking: that banks create the “money” they lend simply by writing accounting entries into the deposit accounts of borrowers. 


This banking secret was confirmed by a number of early banking insiders.  In a 1998 paper titled “Manufacturing Money,” Australian economist Mike Mansfield quoted the Rt. Hon. Reginald McKenna, former Chancellor of the Exchequer, who told shareholders of the Midland Bank on January 25, 1924, “I am afraid the ordinary citizen will not like to be told that the banks can, and do, create and destroy money. The amount of money in existence varies only with the action of the banks in increasing or decreasing deposits and bank purchases. We know how this is effected. Every loan, overdraft or bank purchase creates a deposit, and every repayment of a loan, overdraft or bank sale destroys a deposit.”


Dr. Coombs, former Governor of the Reserve Bank of Australia , said in an address at Queensland University on September 15, 1954, “[W]hen money is lent by a bank it passes into the hands of the person who borrows it without anybody having less. Whenever a bank lends money there is therefore, an increase in the total amount of money available.”


Ralph Hawtrey, Assistant Under Secretary to the British Treasury in the 1930s, wrote in Trade Depression and the Way Out, “When a bank lends, it creates money out of nothing.”  In his book The Art of Central Banking, Hawtrey clarified this, writing, “When a bank lends, it creates credit.  Against the advance which it enters amongst its assets, there is a deposit entered in its liabilities. But other lenders have not the mystical power of creating the means of payment out of nothing. What they lend must be money that they have acquired through their economic activities.”


Banks can do what no one else can: “create the means of payment out of nothing.”  The Commonwealth Bank’s far-sighted founders roped this guarded banking secret into the public service.


The Bank Collapse of 1893 Spawns a New Public Banking Model


The Commonwealth Bank was founded under conditions like those prevailing today: the country had just suffered a massive banking collapse.  In the 1890s, however, there was no FDIC insurance, no social security, no unemployment insurance to soften the blow.  People who thought they were well off suddenly found they had nothing.  They could not withdraw their funds, write checks on their accounts, or sell their products or their homes, since there was no money with which to buy them.  Desperate people were leaping from bridges or throwing themselves in front of trains. Something had to be done.


The response of the Labor government was to pass a bill in 1911 which included a provision for a publicly-owned bank that would be backed by the assets of the government.  In a rare move for the time, the bank was to have both savings and general bank business.  It was also the first bank in Australia to receive a federal government guarantee.

Jack Lang was Australia ’s Treasurer in the Labor government of 1920-21 and Premier of New South Wales during the Great Depression.  A controversial figure, he was relieved of his duties after he repudiated loans owed to the London bankers.  In The Great Bust: The Depression of the Thirties (McNamara’s Books, Katoomba, 1962), Lang described the Commonwealth Bank’s triumphs and tribulations in revealing detail.  He wrote:

“The Labor Party decided that a National Bank, backed with the assets of the Government, would not fail in times of financial stress. It also realised that such a bank would be a guarantee that money would be found for home building and other needs. After the collapse of the building societies, there was a great scarcity of money for such purposes.

“. . . Chief advocate of the cause of a Commonwealth Bank was King O’Malley, a colorful Canadian-American . . . Before coming to Australia , he had worked in a small New York bank, owned by an uncle. . . . He had been much impressed by the way that his uncle had created credit. A bank could create the credit, and at the same time manufacture the debit to balance it. That was the big discovery of O’Malley’s banking career. A born showman, he itched to try it out on a grand scale. He started his political career in South Australia by advocating a State Commercial Bank. In 1901 he went into the first Federal Parliament as a one-man pressure group to establish a Commonwealth Bank, and joined the Labor Party for that purpose.” 

King O’Malley insisted that the Commonwealth Bank had to control the issue of its own notes, but he lost on that point – until 1920, when the Bank did take over the issuance of the national currency, just as the U.S. Federal Reserve was authorized to do in 1913.  That was the beginning of the Commonwealth Bank’s central bank powers.  But even before it had that power, the Bank was able to fund infrastructure and defense on a massive scale, and it did this without startup capital.  These achievements were chiefly due to the insights and boldness of the Bank’s first Governor, Denison Miller. 

The other bankers, fearing competition, had thought that by getting one of their own men in as the bank’s governor, they could keep it in line.  But they had not reckoned on their independent appointee, who saw the opportunity posed by a government-backed bank and set out to make it the finest institution the country had ever known.  As Lang tells the story:  

“The first test came when a decision was required regarding the amount of capital needed to start a bank of that kind. Under the Act, the Commonwealth had the right to sell and issue debentures totalling £1 million. Some even thought that amount of capital would be insufficient, having in mind what had happened in 1893. . . .


“When Denison Miller heard of it, his reply was that no capital was needed.”
Miller was wary of going to the politicians for money.  He could get by without capital.  Like King O’Malley, he knew how banking worked. (This, of course, was before the modern-day capital requirements imposed from abroad by the central banker’s bank, the Bank for International Settlements.)  Lang went on: 
“Miller was the only employee. He found a small office . . . and asked the Treasury for an advance of £10,000. That was probably the first and last time that the Commonwealth lent the Bank any money. From then on, it was all in the reverse direction.


“. . . By January, 1913 [Miller] had completed arrangements to open a bank in each State of the Commonwealth, and also an agency in London . . . . [O]n January 20th, 1913 he made a speech declaring the new Commonwealth Bank open for business. He said:


“‘This bank is being started without capital, as none is required at the present time, but it is backed by the entire wealth and credit of the whole of Australia .’


“In those few simple words was the charter of the Bank, and the creed of Denison Miller, which he never tired of reciting. He promised to provide facilities to expand the natural resources of the country, and it would at all times be a people's bank. ‘There is little doubt that in time it will be classed as one of the great banks of the world,’ he added prophetically.


“. . . Slowly it began to dawn on the private banks that they may have harbored a viper. They had been so intent on the risks of having to contend with bank socialisation that they didn’t realise they had much more to fear from competition by an orthodox banker, with the resources of the country behind him.


“. . . One of the first demonstrations of his vigor came when the Melbourne Board of Works went on the market for money to redeem old loans, and also to raise new money. Up to that time, apart from Treasury Bills and advances by their own Savings Banks, Governments had depended on overseas loans from London . . . . In addition to stiff underwriting charges, they found that the best they could expect would be £1 million at 4 per cent., at 97 1/2 net.


“They then decided to approach Denison Miller, who had promised to provide special terms for such bodies. He immediately offered to lend them £3 millions at 95 on which the interest rate would be 4 per cent. They immediately clinched the deal. Asked where his very juvenile bank had raised all that money, Miller replied, ‘On the credit of the nation. It is unlimited.’”


Another major test came in 1914 with the First World War: 
“The first reaction was the risk that people might start rushing to the banks to withdraw their money. The banks realised that they were still vulnerable if that happened. They were still afraid of another Black Friday.


“There was a hurried meeting of the principal bankers. Some reported that there were signs that a run was already starting. Denison Miller then said that the Commonwealth Bank on behalf of the Commonwealth would support any bank in difficulties. . . . That was the end of the panic. But it put Miller on the box seat. Now, for the first time, the Commonwealth Bank was taking the lead. It was giving, not taking, orders. . . .

Denison Miller . . . was virtually in control of the financing of the war. The Government didn’t know how it was going to be achieved. Miller did.”

And so this interesting story continues.  Miller died in 1923, and in 1924 the bankers got back in control, throttling the activities of the Commonwealth Bank and preventing it from saving Australians from the ravages of the 1930s Depression.  In 1931, the bank board came into conflict with the Labor government of James Scullin.  The Bank’s chairman refused to expand credit in response to the Great Depression unless the government cut pensions, which Scullin refused to do. Conflict surrounding this issue led to the fall of the government, and to demands from Labor for reform of the bank and more direct government control over monetary policy.

The Commonwealth Bank received almost all of the powers of a central bank in emergency legislation passed during World War II, and at the end of the war it used this power to begin a dramatic expansion of the economy. In just five years, it opened hundreds of branches throughout Australia .  In 1958 and 1959, the government split the bank, giving the central bank function to the Reserve Bank of Australia , with the Commonwealth Banking Corporation retaining its commercial banking functions.  Both banks, however, remained publicly-owned. 

Eventually, the Commonwealth Bank had branches in every town and suburb; and in the bush, it had an agency in every post office or country store.  As the largest bank in the country, it set the rates and set policy, which the others had to follow for fear of losing customers.  The Commonwealth Bank was widely perceived to be an insurance policy against abuse by private banks, serving to ensure that everyone had access to equitable banking.  It functioned as a wholly owned state bank until the 1990s, when it was privatized.  Its focus then changed to maximization of profits, with steady and massive branch and agency closures, staff layoffs, and reduced access to Automated Teller Machines and to cash from supermarket checkouts.  It has now become just another part of the banking cartel, but proponents say it was once the lifeblood of the country. 

Today there is renewed interest in reviving a publicly-owned bank in Australia on the Commonwealth Bank model.  The United States and other countries would do well to consider this option too.


Special thanks to Peter Myers for reproducing major portions of Jack Lang’s book in his weekly newsletter. 

Ellen Brown developed her research skills as an attorney practicing civil litigation in Los Angeles . In Web of Debt, her latest of eleven books, she turns those skills to an analysis of the Federal Reserve and “the money trust.” She shows how this private cartel has usurped the power to create money from the people themselves, and how we the people can get it back. Her websites are www.webofdebt.comwww.ellenbrown.com, and www.public-banking.com.


Monday, August 16, 2010

Global Warming - Burning My Iceland

Living on a tropical island, is quite unique. If you love the natural world, there are many things you could do it. I grew up in a small valley in the hills south of my island and I have known my whole life.

Field trips to a pretty fast pace of the canyon hills hundred meters is all worth it when I have to choose a place near the top only. It is a true blessing to be able to do. It is a wonderful job, too. The tops of steep hills to near the base is covered by savannah grasslands. The very steep slopes and along its base are wooded ravine. More than jungle delirium. If you look in the mountains in the distance, are the golden color of the meadows a great contrast to the dark green jungle hills. It is amazing to know how my mind that a hundred years ago, almost all of these dark hills. Jungles all the way up. Wow. And one reason why not.

Fire was a tool for humans used almost since its discovery. He also has done before. And one of the biggest weapons for hunting deer has become here in the jungles of the south. What they do is a fire. Just set a fire the flame and let it rip. Help if you would have difficulties. For once it's gone and burning in arable soil, a wonderful thing called life happens next. New shoots of grass from the hills and burned black. And the deer is probably a surprise, because they consume these tender buds. The wild hunter waits.

Oh, but all the other things that there was kindled a fire in the hills happened. Surely this is not the arsonist would have thought about it. Let us straight in the direction that things go happen. The fire is determined and set on fire. The atmosphere is the first hit. A powerful greenhouse gas (carbon dioxide), a by-product of combustion of vegetation is directly exposed to the atmosphere. But wait. We do not really feel their effects for a long time. No, not right. Global warming. Exactly. It is not surprising that the collective memory of vegetation in the world is still a significant contribution to global warming? his strike.

While in the flames, a fire are often lost in a jungle. The fire will stop, right? That is true. The last time. But the fire will not die once they walk into the jungle. He has to burn its way into a little "to run into the water and most of the jungle. You know, it will take at least one meter. Do burnout. So how can you burn burn, walking to the size of forests . The more you burn, the less the jungle. Strike two.

Now, the fire died and the hills are bare. When the rain comes, and then the soil to wash away. I have never burned washed flee a hill by the rain. Soil erosion by sedimentation in water. But that does not matter. The ocean is big. Will not hurt. In the grand scheme of the oceans, not too much. For aquatic life in rivers, coral, and the open sea populations that feed and live on these reefs, the damage is absolutely fatal. Strike three.

Add all. We have professionals on the one hand, the shot immediately after a new fire is enticing deer. It would be easier to catch. And only useful for the hunter. We are opposite on the other side, and the list is impressive.

- The air in our atmosphere gets an infusion of a potent greenhouse gas that contributes to global warming. We know without doubt that large and persistent global warming has caused and is accelerating, climate change may very well end our day.

- It is the country. Our lower jungle. This quickly leads to loss of habitat for animals. The bright green jungle of our gold and the sea of our savannas are burned from the hills of text and black. All animals, nests or caves caught fire, food, well, that's just their loss. And if it rains, we lose our topsoil. The roots in the city, burned clean. accelerated soil erosion, I despise. .

- It is the sea, rivers are included. Immediately after the soil erosion is the effect of sedimentation. This transported soil spreading. And blankets and suffocates when it finally stabilized. Sedimentation is the bearer of death for microscopic organisms, plants, fish and corals, to say the least. In the aquatic environment, is the destruction of large and extended. Imagine that your air is filled with the ashes of all time. What would be the quality of your life, what then?

He has about 700 million tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere every day. There is no doubt, no debate. A large percentage comes from the constant reminder of the natural landscape. We have to change the way they do things.

The survival of our race, have to stop global warming. Climate change in progress should be maintained, if not reversed. If we refuse to realize this, it will matter in fifty or a hundred years? Spread the word. Take part. We can still save.

Proof of Evolution and challenges of global warming


The idea of anthropogenic global warming is under fire in recent months. Those who collect and disseminate information, it was discovered the numbers have changed, so that man is warming seems to be done.

Some of these "scientists" are now conceded that the data shows global warming has not happened since 1995.

Thousands of scientists have provided information that the idea of artificial contradiction with global warming. Only recently has this idea confirmed.It-against has been shown that global warming scientists "have falsified data. This is already accepted.

This reveals the fact that politics can affect the results of some scientists. Ie. Scientists are not all looking for a little 'practice.

Our world, of course, seems to be cooling or heating. This site is for thousands of years. However, until now, there is no evidence that humans are the trends van deze case (solar activity seems to be the TE Meest scientific explanation).

It 's amazing how the idea of man and global warming seems to Darwinian evolution made in parallel with each other.

O data and information was collected mainly in universities and government institutions (this is the fox guarding the hen house?).
or Both make use of ad hominem attacks, like the call of the opposition "flat earthers" or other names.
Opponents or are prohibited by most of the original data. I'm just not allowed much of the information used to support the ideas seen.
o The two have strong support from the media, despite the fact that the scientific evidence against two ideas overhelmingly
or Both are strongly encouraged in public schools and universities.

It is easier to transmit data on global warming to find (even if the data were kept secret years) is that Darwinism Because dealing with the evolution of different aspects of science.
The person is interested in digging beneath the surface of normal university or high school during the next hoaxes (or science just terrible) was used to "prove" the theory of evolution.

or Piltdown Man, a creature with characteristics of both humans and monkeys. Used for four decades, the theory of evolution is to take hold "in the United States until someone discovered that the" monkey-man'was formed by mixing of two monkeys and human bones were found with the bones as they age, filed teeth, etc.
Or Nebraska man was a man-ape of high-profile ", used in the test Sccopes (high profile). It 'very instrumental in establishing the idea of man evolving from apes. Following this" monkey man "was shooting with a single tooth of an extinct pig.
or embryos Haeckel was a chart with various vertebrates that "all steps in the evolution" in its infancy (which is also the same phase of Gill). This image is a hoax at the end of 1800. (Although we still found in many textbooks today).

These hoaxes and bad science are not the exception. There are literally dozens of scientific laws, principles and facts that directly contradict the theory of evolution.

Statist regimes (including Nazism), socialism and communism are all based on the Darwinian theory of evolution (in particular to eliminate the idea of Judaism and Christianity). Their posters often include the theory behind their ideas.

Today it seems that the same people behind the artificial global warming is pushing the idea of evolution.

Unless something beneath the surface of typical hand, we remain convinced of information that educators and politicians for decades teaches us that both ideas.

Politics and science do not mix. And if they do not mix together, always knowing that suffers at the expense of politics. Recent discoveries have shown that the "science of man-made global warming is seriously compromised. With all the facts that we discover the trend, it seems that the same happens with it as well.

For some form of evolution is clear evidence to support the theory, Darwinism is more than likely continue on the same track as the man who took the global warming. It could also last for many decades, however, the current serious problems of evolution to the public.

Why does not Al Gore debate on global warming?

As I write this article, the U.S. is a large explosion in the Arctic. E 'was 40 degrees at Miami Orange Bowl, the coldest ever. Beijing, London, Seoul falls and says other parts of the world under the snow important in their history. And Al Gore, there is a need for a debate on planet Earth. I know I would say that this extreme cold is caused by global warming.

To say that the two basic facts about global warming come. One thing is global warming. And two, the warming caused by man. He said that the 3,000 scientists around the world and all disciplines of climate in 100% agreement on these two issues.

It may surprise you, but I agree with these points. What I can not live without debate position. Who is that Al Gore is he? To begin, it is not even a scientist! If nothing else, you could probably learn a challenge, especially if they are scientific. Heck, I think I can learn a thing or two!

I guess that means that the discovery of new evidence or research, contrary to his position, would not be accepted. I wonder if 3000 scientists could find agreement with this statement? Why spend taxpayer money warming of global research, if it did?

Does Al believe that man is 100% the cause of global warming? Here I request the data. I read enough science to know that millions of years the Earth was covered with ice. to melt a massive global warming and that man was not there. Scientists tell us that the main causes of submarine volcanoes and the sun, I think the sun and volcanic eruptions are an important part of global warming? I want to hear the percentage of debate. I wonder if it would do more for the environment and put a sock in the mouth of the volcano to another or in the mouth?

To say that we go to the disaster in the coming decades. I have heard of freshwater and coastal areas, but what about Chicago. I have neighbors who do not just "warm up have been here. Again, I'm not ready to see the disaster in the future and sees his friends. In the U.S., we have seen cooler temperatures of this decade (it is the Convention on growth Copenhagen climate change by the United Nations), but the carbon emissions of more people. What is the science of climate around this? Then these data suggest at least a period of a catastrophe?

All must agree that no study of personal preferences or policies on global warming. He was able to obtain an objective attitude in the treatment of all data completely. We assume that each insured of his advisers, he knew all the possible interpretations of the abuse. There are other models or scenarios that can be accepted. The Admit it, you can not discuss because they would be exposed as a fraudster. Remember, this is the same man who gave us several versions of Al Gore in his presidential race.

To have enough money to support the global warming of his family for generations. No descendant of Al Gore will never work. Instead his mantra of "no more debate, I would like to hear" no more dollars "! What about the commitment of all to all the money he makes of global warming on the poorest countries in Africa to make.

You and the global warming debate

And 'concern is not the proper way to active scientific argument on global warming. This application is based on best practices of science, scientific data and evaluation of evidence. In the short term in a context of science, the presence of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere creates a greenhouse effect which helps to keep warm. This is acknowledged by all scientists. Global warming scenario arises because we have a lot of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere for our activities - such as burning coal. The more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere can lead to abnormally warm temperatures, with potentially devastating consequences. Scientists have spent years trying to find out if this scenario is correct. Environmentalists say that yes, skeptics say no. Among scientists, the majority say 'yes', but a small and vocal minority crying, no! What about this?

The way of working scientists is as follows. We Are Scientists, and I'm one of them, a number of hypotheses, some ideas that we want to control. We make observations and experiments, often supported by calculations. What we are looking for a number of tests, which can, in principle, to show that we are wrong, that we want evidence that potentially can be shown that Our assumption is wrong. It 'important that such evidence exists. If you can get without testing can be done in principle able to demonstrate that your idea is not correct, scientists turn away from you. This may at first seem a bit 'strange, but this is the way we work. What are you doing this to show that neither you nor anyone else can prove that you're so wrong, maybe you're right! Remember, the finding that corresponds to your hypothesis by itself does not prove that your hypothesis is true, because who can say that some other assumptions may not fit the observations?

For example, when they met two competing ideas. A classic example is the Copernican system against the old Ptolemaic system of the Sun and planets. Copernican system, with the sun at the center was not accepted by both scientific and religious op gronden was a time when this vastgesteld Ptolemaic "system works equally well - indeed beter in a way. There was no obvious way to demonstrate whether the system is, at that time.

Another recent example is the problem of the ozone hole in 1980 and 1990. Hypothesis (a) that emissions of chemicals used in refrigerators and hair sprays, etc., can cause destruction of the ozone layer is over the upper atmosphere. Test to prove that the error may be the following. If we take the concentration of ozone in the upper atmosphere for a period of time, and I think it has not fallen, it falsifies the hypothesis That human activity caused the destruction of the ozone layer - because there is nothing to explain. Note that the position in front of the depletion of ozone observation does not prove that human activities are causing the destruction of the ozone layer. Something, but not necessarily of human activity.

Positive feedback is exhausted and then open the question of natural or human activities. All we can do for some is to falsify the hypothesis that human activity has caused the destruction of the ozone layer. What actually happened was the discovery of the ozone layer over the Antarctic ozone hole's mass, with significant ozone depletion. Combined with a healthy observational data of any kind, for which the Nobel Prize, the ozone hole would swift and decisive action in the international form of the Montreal Protocol. Thus, although initially only to distort the situation, a great weight of evidence can be very convincing in the truth of hypotheses. The risk that we are causing the ozone hole was very large.

The same scientific method is not applicable in the case of debate global warming. In fact, this method can not, in my view, be applied. However, discussions are mainly represented as scientific debate, with political and economic consequences that follow relied on the results of objective scientific discussion. I maintain that no objective scientific debate, simply because the rules of science are not met. Instead, I propose that this discussion assumes the risk. What is the risk of climate skeptics wrong? What is the risk to the environment (if it is) that he would not? Instead of continuing in this dry, I justify my position, telling an imaginary conversation between two physicists, Horace, and Twinkle.

Before you begin, remember, there are two kinds of skeptics of climate skeptics who deny the absolute existence of global warming at all, and skeptics of climate relative who agrees that there is global warming but is not blame our introduction of additional carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, which is not our fault. Rather, the observed warming is only part of the natural cycle of the earth. Horace is somewhere in between, mostly relatives, but with a touch of absolute.

Enter Horatio and Twinkle, sitting with his coffee in the dining room on the seventh floor of a well-known Department of Physics, who will remain nameless. Dining room overlooking the harbor, and you can change the path to the hills on a day to see clearly how the present. But this is not the position that they are interested. This is an old argument, that focus. Horace is a climate skeptic. Twinkle, his friend, believes that humans cause global warming, and that "something must be done.

"This climate of the Copenhagen meeting began," says Twinkle to get the ball rolling.

"Yes," replies Horatio. "Let's see if a good case for this time to come, rather than simply repeat the catechism faithful defenders of the environment!

And now, "murmurs Twinkle, sipping coffee.

"Well, you know what I mean, says Horace." You can see that these emails from the University of East Anglia say. It 's a bit increased.

"I've read them. I guess I should respond Twinkle. But it is a normal story. Sceptics say that e-mail to change everything, and great people say that nothing will change. You have heard that the Saudi representative to the meeting in Copenhagen. Talk your interests.

"Yes, but you can! Climate change over time, changing a lot. How do we know that, as a result of human activities?

"Look, we know something. Outset weather people tell us that the temperature is rising so fast that it must be unnatural. And all models show that if we have more CO2 in the atmosphere cause temperature rise. We created the CO2 'atmosphere. The temperature is rising. of course!

"Yes, you are basically good. I agree that more or less. I'm not so sure the temperature is increased. But this is not the point.

"What's the point then? Twinkle adds pauses, as Horace with a cup of coffee.

Horace takes her hand.

"You know, like me that the model .....' begins.

"Can I come with you? Socrates, the new professor of Greek, put the tray on the table beside them.

"Yes, yes, of course, says Twinkle." We just talked about the climate in Copenhagen.

"Yes, I'm just saying that climate models are really bad" Horace again. Socrates Horatio nods and continues. 'Biosphere is not bound up, and worst of all, from a physical point of view, the treatment of clouds just totally unrealistic. We simply can not predict the amount of temperature increase due to the presence of a certain amount of CO2' atmosphere.

"These models are really that bad? Socrates asks.

"Clouds are the key, says Horace.

"Then you do not trust any predictions of the model?" Asks Socrates.

"In addition to the overall result of the introduction of CO2 in the atmosphere caused the earth - Horace agree," introduces Twinkle.

"Yes, but like the earth?" Said Horace. "I do not think people came out with figures. There is very little influence. Maybe it does not matter what people Have done. Perhaps the most important changes are very natural. Models proves nothing!

"Oh, God!" Twinkle says. It is unclear whether this is a common expression of anxiety or attention with his friend and colleague of Horace. Three sat in silence a few minutes, drinking coffee. The silence is broken Socrates.

"Can I ask you, Horatio?

"Of course!

'If I ask you, that no evidence would have changed his mind and said it was wrong, what you reply''

"You mean that the observational data?

"If you want answers to Socrates.

"Well, 'says Horace. And then there is a silence, as he reflects on the question." This is an interesting question.

"He wanted to see the growth temperature of 10 degrees, and he knows that he is mistaken," Twinkle introduces cunning.

"I never said that!" Horace said, smiling at his friend.

"Well, we are waiting. What would convince you're wrong? Requests Twinkle.

"Maybe I can ask the same question, Twinkle? Said Socrates. What would convince the skeptics were right all the time?

"The fall of 10 degrees temperature! Horace says, laughing.

There is silence. But this time it's different kinds of silence. Horace and thought Twinkle.

'Well, of course, Twinkle, says over time, "when we went to introduce the current rate of atmospheric CO2 and temperature rise, and then ..... say in the next 50 years .. .. "

"What are you, Horace?" Socrates asked how to stop fading.

I'm not sure that there is one thing to prove to me that people give answers that significant global warming Horace. Maybe a lot of factors, "he adds.

Horace and Twinkle look and frowned. Both know that the theory is a theory, as it is objectionable in principle in an experiment or observation - or at least decent call "thought experiment. Socrates crystallizes their concerns.

"I wonder if you could say that global warming is not so much a theory about how you feel?" It gives you an embarrassed chuckle.

"Well, there are things that can prove one way or another. Want me to say that this is far from proven, says Horace.

"Yes." But asked what would be our position to refute! Twinkle Bulb. In addition, all experiments that do not consider the experiments that we are willing to risk to do, right? How can I do nothing and wait 50 years! This is the problem!

Horace pulls a wry face, but are not actively agree.

"We can not refer to the question of perceived risks? Asks Socrates. It stops time." As global warming seems compelling, "he added.

"You say that with great risk? - I was right, and it is not, and vice versa? Requests Twinkle

"Hey, wait, I. ..." Horace said, see the issue.

"Well, it must be admitted, because none of us are acceptable evidence, or Rather, a refutation, is down on the risks, is not it? Interrupt Twinkle.

"You mean the more serious consequences if the skeptics are wrong? Socrates asked Twinkle.

"I must say, Twinkle says," is not it? "

"Look, it's crazy." Horace is a bit 'crazy. "Therefore, nobody could have predicted the end of the world, but because we can not disprove, we need to place ITS head. This is not science, it's anarchy!

"Yes, this is a good philosophy," says Twinkle. " I totally agree with you that if I have a crazy theory, this is for me to try to prove that is not for you to refute. But there are two things. First, we agree that global warming can not be proved or disproved in a way that satisfies us. Secondly, the theory is not crazy .... in reality, not just a theory, Socrates turned to us. But this is a good qualitative basis, although not quantitative, agree. I think, Socrates asked the right question. Comments that convince you that you're wrong? I have no answer. You do not understand. The risk we are talking about, not worthy of rigorous science. The risk of error is worse, Horatio, than risk my mistakes. "

Horace grumble, but retains his world.

What follows from this conclusion? I suspect most people will look at Twinkle. Adverse effects of environmental misconduct, of course, because we are many resources, human and natural, very effective in combating a nonexistent problem to use. Perhaps global economic growth will be slower than usual. However, as Horace wrong, and we do little or nothing in his opinion, no single package of bank's survival, advertisements, chairman of the Federal Reserve System of wisdom from any source, to save us from a series of disasters, the least that can be major problems. Most people, almost all countries at the meeting in Copenhagen, the defender of the "precautionary principle. They are divided on the side of Twinkle. Precautions should be taken.

Parts of the above vision is a bit 'different from the global warming debate. This is a relief, because the way the discussion tends to believe that it is absolutely impossible for a layman to understand that scientists believe, even when the disputes between environmentalists alone. It is said that sea level rise of 3 feet, others say six feet! How to know who is right? You can not make your mind from the effects of global warming, climate scientists to listen to dissent, that the better the general pattern of atmospheric circulation on Earth! In my opinion, the above is that the global warming debate is not based on science, because the correct application of standard scientific arguments are not sufficient. Thus, the non-scientist simply make their own choices based on how they see the danger, not realizing that their lack of experience prevent them from holding opinions.

Articles Global Warming About


This is not the time to be complacent and apathetic. We need to act positively and constructively. There is pain and destruction is imminent. We must not shy away from the truth, but "An Inconvenient Truth" can be. It's time to put our shoulders to the wheel and focused with all the concentration. With global warming going to engulf us. And if we spend too much time, we really swallow. Then you walk in the dark. We can provide the biggest disaster that we saw and spoke only to fight in the exciting films remains to be established in fact. If global warming is expanding its tentacles over us, will not continue reading this article. Why humanity will die!

Understanding global warming

Global warming is a phenomenon that occurred for some time. Our blue planet hotter because of the increased volume of carbon dioxide. tons of carbon dioxide from burning fossil fuels and nonrenewable resources such as coal, natural gas, gasoline, oil, oil shale, etc. The use of fossil fuels on a large scale began with the 16 th century Industrial Revolution in the early Great Britain and colonies of Great Britain. The Industrial Revolution witnessed the opening of the steam engine that runs on fossil fuels. But for centuries, scientists have found that gradually burning of fossil fuels is associated with high levels of air pollution. Burning of fossil fuels leads to a large percentage of harmful gases such as carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, sulfur dioxide, nitrogen, etc., left in the atmosphere. These toxic gases have a negative impact on the climate and ecology of our planet. They also have a negative impact on our health.

Emissions of sulfur dioxide and nitrogen in the water with the formation of corrosive acids, dissolve, damage irreparably damage the graves and palaces of marble.

Sulphur dioxide and water, sulfuric acid (very aggressive)
Nitrogen dioxide and water to nitric acid (strong corrosive acid)

Sustainable

Therefore, when these toxic gases in a mixture of water and form rain water, the inevitable consequence of acid rain, acid rain, such as vulgar. This acid rain can eat the surface of architectural splendor, as mentioned above. Refinery near the Taj Mahal in Agra, India released a deadly gas into the air above the mausoleum. These gases have led to the formation of acid rains, which have a devastating impact on this area was pure white marble Taj Mahal. The destruction was so great that the management of the plant will be developed by the Government of India, and environmental activists. The factory was ordered to reduce their emissions to reduce the high level of production and close some of its activities on a beautiful monument and the tomb of Mughal Emperor Shah Jahan and his wife Mumtaz Mahal (then the name of the monument) to prevent all falls to pieces. The plant has made several attempts to methods for their production, planting trees, through the development of ecological park, which currently is home to many migratory birds and rare birds. protection, and a sincere response from the plant one of the seven wonders of the modern world of decadence, reassured the government and activists. However, environmental defenders could not sleep. We hurt hundreds of companies around the world, environmental laws and regulations in their daily lives. Measures for environmental protection should be done in the long term. environmental projects in the short term and sudden provocation "ecological systems" for the sake of advertising and image quality are desirable, nor useful. Sustainable development and environmental protection are the only weapon we have to deal with global warming.

Greenhouse

The temperature on our planet is increasing because of global warming. The burning of fossil fuels will lead to emissions of greenhouse gases. Carbon dioxide, water vapor and methane, some of the greenhouse gases are known. These gases absorb infrared radiation, and to give. Greenhouse gases tend to trap heat and raising temperatures on our planet. Thus, as a result of greenhouse gas emissions, which is our planet is always heated by an enormous size and global warming in this steady rise in temperatures and parameters of the catastrophic consequences for our planet and our lives. The hot air melts the glaciers and snowy peaks of thawing. When the heat intense, ice and snow, most of the mountain ranges around the world will melt very quickly. Melted ice and snow will enter the waters of rivers and eventually into the sea, and the unprecedented rise in sea level. Swell rivers and seas overflow and flood the country. Coste vanish, plunge whole countries. In addition to flooding, extreme weather events such as heatwaves and cold periods, floods, droughts, hurricanes and other T'ikapapa global warming.

Deforestation

Deforestation is another aspect that global warming, because it causes an abnormal increase in the amount of carbon dioxide. Global warming is already installed on our planet. Nevertheless, if global warming is underway, will eliminate all existing forests of our planet, and cause complete destruction of marine flora and fauna. Thus, global warming, deforestation and global warming, which, in turn, causes the causes blurred woods. What a vicious circle!

Ozone layer

The ozone layer protects the earth from ultraviolet radiation, direct and unapologetic (UV) rays of the sun is exhausted. Some gases better than chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) and halons and CFCs or hydrobromofluorocarbons produced by our industry as we know, the food ozone. Aerosols produced various industries because of the ozone layer wear away. Ata ozone hole or depression in the ozone layer, usually a hole in the ozone layer. As the ozone hole is growing in this area, more UV rays penetrate the Earth's atmosphere as possible. Elevated levels of ultraviolet radiation in the atmosphere make our planet uninhabitable. Excessive exposure to UV radiation leads to the development of skin cancer and cataracts in humans. Excessive exposure to UV radiation also causes irreparable damage to many species of animals and plants. The consequences of this is an incurable problem in the food chain. Ozone depletion is a very contentious issue, as professionals, as well as disadvantages. Irony (w) hole in connection with the fact that ozone is a greenhouse gas. Too much is growing, and global warming is not a sufficient population, complete skin cancer outcome.

Meltdown

This distribution differs from the economic collapse that we have recently experienced. Although we have yet again demonstrated that the feet of decline in the autumn, we, our proven, or someone did not like and does not affect if all caps melting icecaps and glaciers in the world, and if we used these phenomena, and widespread fear of global warming.

We are ready ...?

Unfortunately, I'm not ready to face a catastrophe of this magnitude. We have divided among us, to reduce emissions in countries and to what extent. At various meetings and conferences at the highest level, we only discuss the numbers, levels and prices, and the land is ticking biological clock threatened. There is no unity among all developed countries, developing and underdeveloped countries because of global warming. Everyone agrees that global warming is a threat to universal disaster and spells destruction. But the big question: which country has jurisdiction and that the country should take the initiative to sharply reduce harmful emissions. Blame blame and Buck everywhere, and pointed accusing fingers, increasing the burden of proof, and allegations against the prosecution and it seems that on the agenda, while global warming continues to constantly engulf our planet. Developed countries are always ready to correct the pressure and intimidation in the less developed countries, as well as supporting LDCs to developed countries, the slogan of hoarseness. Mercury does not show signs of weakness. You can shoot at an alarming rate, and the policy is a step ahead of speeches, debates, heated mirrors, power and domination.

Real enemy

What the hell are we all, for all of us? Time is running out. Get up, wake up, all you dream and stop the controversy and strife. We want another disaster like what happened 65 million years, and erased all the dinosaurs on Earth? No, we want to be destroyed. And it keeps us united against a common cause? What prevents us put aside our individual problems? Because in reality we are all made from the same creator. Rather than emphasize that because we have decided to forget and focus on our differences a number of other walls that we built our country into a nation, race, state by state, race, and man by man? There is a big enemy of global warming? Enemy who is in ourselves?
The choice is ours. If we work together and make concerted efforts to avoid global warming, or let the enemy within us, to create several groups with us and beat us all. If we keep the enemy at a distance, for us, we will eventually overcome all of us. And if we, the people of 21 century living in this beautiful, middle and base enough to prefer the power and political interests should be protected, and racism, and not threaten our planet, we must win by heating in general. Because our opponents do not seem to global warming, but ourselves.