Monday, September 27, 2010

Privacy Policy for

Privacy Policy for

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

At, 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 and how it is used.

Log Files
Like many other Web sites, 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 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
.:: Google's use of the DART cookie enables it to serve ads to users based on their visit to 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 -

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 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. 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.'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.

Sunday, September 26, 2010

Interactive You and the global warming debate in goverment

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 Interactive 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)


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.


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 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.


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.