Posts Tagged ‘Global’

Human Rights Day (December 10, 1998) marks the 50th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. On December 10, 1948, the United Nations adopted this document. It is not legally binding on the signatories, but it has moral force that commands worldwide respect. Thus, the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights is a standard by which many people throughout the world judge the conditions of citizenship and government internationally and within their own countries. This document, which includes 30 articles pertaining to various human rights, is also a focal point of education about human rights in schools throughout the world.
CONCEPTIONS AND ORIGINS
“Human rights are the claims that all human beings are justly entitled to make merely by virtue of their being human” (Plattner 1995, 573). In the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, when this idea became prominent in Western Europe and North America, it carried the label “natural rights” to denote derivation of these rights from the nature of every human being. Each person, according to the natural rights concept, possesses equally certain immutable rights by virtue of her or his membership in the human species; it is the duty of a just government to protect these rights.
The United States Declaration of Independence, adopted July 4, 1776, expresses the “natural rights” idea in these memorable words: “We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these Rights Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the Consent of the Governed. That whenever any form of Government becomes destructive of these Ends, it is the right of the People to alter or Abolish it and to institute new Government . . . ”
This Declaration of Independence by and for the people of a new American nation still has global implications. The same can be said about the Declaration of the Rights of Man and the Citizen issued by France’s National Assembly in 1789, which proclaimed: “The end of all political associations is the preservation of the natural and imprescriptible rights of man; and these rights are liberty, property, security, and resistance of oppression.”
The 1787 Constitution and the 1791 Bill of Rights of the United States of America were designed and adopted to address the civic values of the 1776 Declaration of Independence. This Constitution reflects the understanding among America’s founders that the individual’s rights are at risk if a government is either too strong or too weak. A good government simultaneously is empowered and limited. It is empowered sufficiently by the people to secure their rights against domestic or foreign predators. And this government’s power is also limited sufficiently by the supreme law of its constitution to protect the people’s rights against abuses by their own governors.
During the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, the concept of natural rights was transformed into the idea of human rights. This change reflected an expansion of the scope or range of rights to include two types of claims.
The first and older type is negative; it would limit the power of a government to protect peoples’ rights against its power. The second and newer type of claim is positive; it would enhance the power of the government to do something for the person to enable her or him in some way. Thus, the late twentieth century idea of human rights, which incorporates both the positive and negative types, means that “certain things ought not to be done to any human being and certain other things ought to be done for every human being” (Perry 1998, 13).
The older negative claims on rights are exemplified by Articles 1-21 of the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights. These Articles imply that no government or society should act against individuals in certain ways that would deprive them of inherent political or personal rights, such as freedom of speech, press, assembly, and religion. The newer positive claims on rights are exemplified by Articles 22-28 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. They imply that every government and society should act for individual members to enable them to enjoy certain social and economic rights or benefits pertaining to social security, employment, housing, education, health care, and general standard of living.
CONFLICT AND CONSENSUS ABOUT NEGATIVE AND POSITIVE RIGHTS
There is general or global agreement among advocates of human rights that both types of rights, the negative and positive, must be included in a worthy constitutional government. However, there is worldwide conflict or disagreement about which type of rights is primary and most important in a constitutional democracy.
Advocates for the primacy and predominance of positive rights claim that “bread is more important than freedom of speech.” They argue that the duties of government to provide social and economic welfare benefits for all the people require enhancement of public power and authority to enter all areas of economic and social life to promote the common good (Patrick 1991, 622).
By contrast, proponents of the negative rights tradition worry about the enormous increase of centralized government power required to provide positive rights through large-scale public programs. This could lead to a government so powerful and insufficiently limited that it could arbitrarily deprive particular persons (those out of favor with authorities) of their traditional personal and political rights. Thus, they maintain that human rights generally depend upon the primacy of guaranteed negative rights. They assert: a constitutional democracy that would only recognize negative rights is incomplete; one that would only or primarily recognize positive rights is impossible (Patrick 1991, 623).

writing prices

In the first video in our two part series on HIV and AIDS, we explain how scientists figured out what HIV is, when the infection morphs into AIDS, and where they think the virus originated.

We’re conducting a survey of our viewers! If you have time, please give us feedback: https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/SciShowSurvey2017

Hosted by: Michael Aranda
———-
Support SciShow by becoming a patron on Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/scishow
———-
Dooblydoo thanks go to the following Patreon supporters: KSam Lutfi, Kevin Knupp, Nicholas Smith, Inerri, D.A. Noe, alexander wadsworth,
سلطان الخليفي, Piya Shedden, KatieMarie Magnone, Scott Satovsky Jr, Bella Nash, Charles Southerland, Bader AlGhamdi, James Harshaw, Patrick Merrithew, Patrick D. Ashmore, Candy, Tim Curwick, charles george, Saul, Mark Terrio-Cameron, Viraansh Bhanushali, Kevin Bealer, Philippe von Bergen, Chris Peters, Fatima Iqbal, Justin Lentz
———-
Looking for SciShow elsewhere on the internet?
Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/scishow
Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/scishow
Tumblr: http://scishow.tumblr.com
Instagram: http://instagram.com/thescishow
———-
Sources:
https://www.avert.org/professionals/history-hiv-aids/overview
https://aidsinfo.nih.gov/
https://www.hiv.gov/hiv-basics/overview/about-hiv-and-aids/what-are-hiv-and-aids
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3119211/
https://www.hiv.gov/hiv-basics/overview/history/hiv-and-aids-timeline
https://hab.hrsa.gov/livinghistory/issues/Gay-Men.pdf
https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/june_5.htm
http://img.thebody.com/cdc/pdfs/mmwr04jul81.pdf
http://science.sciencemag.org/content/224/4648/500
https://www. hingtonpost.com/news/to-your-health/wp/2015/02/24/tracing-the-long-convoluted-history-of-the-aids-epidemic\
http://www.iflscience.com/health-and-medicine/where-did-hiv-come/
http://www.stat.wisc.edu/~larget/Genetics629/hiv.pdf
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3234451/
http://www.who.int/gho/hiv/en/
https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/su6004a11.htm
http://www.aidsmap.com/Saliva/page/1322841/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9989543
http://www.usp.br/nepaidsabia/images/BIBLIOTECA/_MIGRAR/oralhivtrans.pdf
https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/00001257.htm
https://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/medicine/laureates/2008/press.html
https://www.hiv.lanl.gov/content/sequence/HelpDocs/subtypes-more.html
http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/47352/title/HIV-Spread-from-Haiti-to-NYC-in-1970—Patient-Zero–Not-to-Blame/
http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0025956
https://retrovirology.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1742-4690-6-49
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC393899/
http://bedford.io/pdfs/papers/faria-hiv-spread.pdf
———-
Images:
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Aids_Quilt.jpg
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Hiv_gross.png
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T_cell#/media/File:Healthy_Human_T_Cell.jpg
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Pneumocystisjiroveci.jpg
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pneumocystis_pneumonia#/media/File:PCPxray.jpg

On May 25, 2016, OADS offered the first in the “We Were There” lecture series. The inaugural event, “And the Band Played On…Early Days of the AIDS Epidemic in the United States: Views from Atlanta and Hollywood,” commemorated the 35th anniversary of the first AIDS MMWR article with a presentation by Dr. Harold Jaffe and Dr. Jim Curran. They shared their unique perspectives from their time leading CDC in the early response to HIV/AIDS, discussing their personal experiences and relating them to clips from the film And the Band Played On. Dr. Jaffe and Dr. Curran were then joined on stage by Dr. Walt Dowdle and Dr. Martha Rogers for a question and answer segment.

Comments on this video are allowed in accordance with our comment policy: http://www.cdc.gov/SocialMedia/Tools/CommentPolicy.html

This video can also be viewed at

Global warming is thought of as one of the biggest threats to world security in modern times, and it is arguably already taking its toll in our weather system. By a combination of natural cyclical progression, and the impact of human behaviour and activity over the last century, the Earth is steadily seeing the effects of the global warming phenomenon. But what exactly is global warming, and exactly what impact could it have on our environment?

Global warming can be defined as an overall gradual increase in world temperature over time. This is measured by averaging Earth and Ocean temperature, and has shown a steady upwards trend over recent decades. Furthermore, it is thought that over the last half a century, this has been a result of human civilisation and industrialisation. One of the major contributors to global warming is what is known as greenhouse gas, which comprises largely of carbon dioxide from general human activity.

Global warming as a process is thought to be highly devastating in terms of its effect on the climate. ‘Climate change’ is a phrase which is often use in association with global warming, and it has potentially catastrophic consequences for the world in which we live. ‘Climate change’ also covers global cooling, which can also occur as a result of human activity and greenhouse gases, and reflects a substantial change in the world’s climate, which could change our habitat beyond recognition. This could be characterised by unusual weather patterns, resulting in more frequent natural disasters, which could in turn lead to political and social chaos in the decades and centuries to come.

There are a number of international political treaties which have been set up to change the progress of global warming, although their tangible upshots still remain to be seen. Through political cooperation, it is hoped that environmental targets can be met on an international scale, to make a real difference to the environment. However, at a personal level, there is significant scope for helping, rather than hindering the world in which we live, including recycling household waste, and reducing personal carbon emissions.

Global warming is arguably one of the biggest threats to human civilisation, and it is something which requires a drastic change in lifestyle to reverse. However, with a personal and political impetus, it is hopeful that the damage done to the planet can be reversed for future generations to enjoy.

Jonathon Hardcastle writes articles on many topics including Business, Employment, and Society.

A few weeks ago, Miguel Franco, mayor of the Mexican town of Tepatitlan (about 60 miles NE from Guadalajara) gave, with the typical candour & honesty of those lands, his diagnosis about the financial crisis. More or less, he said the there is no such crisis, because more money is being made from business everyday “today there´s money & the day after the guys from the stock market say that is gone, who ate it? The money is still there and they’re not going to cheat us”.
This rather curious statement brought upon him (as you could expect) a storm of jokes and critics, but, truth be said, despite his apparent simple-minded reasoning, this Mexican Mayor has rubbed the salt in the wound of one of the aspects to take into account in light of the present economic turbulence.

It’s true. Everyday more money is being “made”, there are more products & more economic activity. Until, suddenly, a group of investors say that the stocks sold on the market no longer have the value they used to, and, as obvious consequence, the whole world faces the threat of a recession.

The real question here is: what the hell happened, for example, with Citigroup? Nearly two years ago, this financial company had a stock value of 277,000 million dollars, on the other hand, this last week its price had plummeted to merely 6,000 million. This means that 271,000 millions vanished on thin air, but why?

The painful answer is that Citigroup never really had a value of 277 thousand million dollars. This number wasn’t backed by concrete reality, but by the supposed profits foretold by the “financial analysts” (a mixture between sorcerers and businessmen). So, when their “cotton candy” castle came trembling down, the investors loudly crashed their heads in the hard, unmerciful real world.

The crash in the price of the stocks of Citi & a bunch of other companies who have lost as much as 90% of their value, constitutes an indisputable proof that our present economic system is standing in bare air, holding from illusions, cheats and hopes, which becomes really dangerous in generalized fear times, as those we live in.

They’ll never admit it, but not even the economists had a full idea about how deep is the crisis; which were its causes and how much it’ll take us to get out of it. Hidden behind their baroque math & unintelligible concepts, they’re just as confused as we are.

We need to understand, once and for all, that the economy is not, and can never be an exact science. The financial system is more like an enraged horse with meth addiction. We can try to tame it, but we’ll never fully succeed.

Here’s just one example. The Money Exchange market alone moves more than $ 1,350 TRILLION dollars every year (3.7 trillion every day). That’s just too much money to track and see if the counts match.

We live in the middle of an economy moving at the speed of light and the only things we can do is using our common sense and hope that the waters return to their level, because, at the end of the day, the tempting stock exchanges & world economy are just illusions, just a Mirage.

garibaycamarena@hotmail.com

The legendary Indian spiritual leader Mahatma Gandhi (1869-1948) once said: “The earth has enough for the needs of all but not the greed of a few.” His words have since proved to be quite prophetic!

The world today is in chaos and by that I’m not merely referring to the tumult taking place in the Middle East; what I’m talking about is the imminent extinction of hundreds of millions of people as a result of global warming. In both scenarios the United States plays a central role!

I have already pretty much detailed out how and why global warming is happening and which nations are most responsible for its acceleration, as well as who’s doing what and who is not to rectify the situation in my article entitled: Global Warming–How It Could Spark World War III.

That said, I’ve included a list of figures below to illustrate to what extent each nation/region is responsible for greenhouse gas pollution in the atmosphere (greenhouse gases are widely held to be the engine behind the accelerated global warming seen today):

USA: 30.3%

Europe: 27.7%

Russia: 13.7%

South East Asia: 12.2%

South/Central America: 3.8%

Japan: 3.7%

Middle East: 2.6%

Africa: 2.5%

Australia: 1.1%

The Truth Behind The Lie

To many in marketing circles the concept of manipulation of social evidence is nothing new. Basically what it entails is manipulating tools of evidence to further one’s goals.

Thus for example, until fairly recently in internet marketing circles, the practice of manufacturing bogus testimonials was fairly widespread. The objective being to convince visitors to one’s website to purchase products on the strength of those manufactured testimonials.

In the arena of global warming much the same has been happening. In the same manner that a defense counsel in a court case will produce its own expert witness to discredit that of the prosecution (or vice versa) so has the Bush II administration paraded a string of bogus experts to decry global warming as just a myth!

In 2007 a good number of environmental scientists and climatologists publicly stated that they’d been pressurized by various Bush II factions to manipulate data to downplay the seriousness of global warming!

Which simply begs the question: why is the Bush II administration going to such lengths to hide the truth about global warming?

Snatch ‘n’ Grab Operation Gone Awry

It is now widely accepted that the invasion of Iraq had little to do with terrorism, less to do with democracy but everything to do with oil! The question still remains however, why did the US go to such lengths (which included manufacturing evidence) to illegally invade a sovereign state under what at best can be described as a thinly disguised pretext for war?

Was it merely a question of the then single remaining superpower claiming its right to wield that might as it saw fit irrespective of international law, just as Nazi Germany once did?

Or was it a case of a few vain men hoping to claim their slice of immortality through a legacy festooned with the glory of having secured new oil reserves for a nation with a quenchless thirst for the stuff?

Or perhaps the U.S. oil reserves were so desperately low that Bush II and his New World Order buddies were prepared to force a snatch and grab operation that could easily have escalated into third world war, so as to shore up those dwindled oil reserves?

Or maybe, just maybe, the U.S. desperately needed to stockpile a vast amount of oil for something far, far more sinister.

To keep at bay a monster it helped so much to create!

Threads Weaving A Disturbing Tapestry Of Events

These days more often than not fact is stranger than fiction. When we look at the Bush II Administration’s policy on global warming it is beyond perplexing why they have gone to such lengths to deny its existence.

For sure, his Have-More buddies in oil and other environmental-damaging industries have plenty to gain by muddying the waters, but what if there’s really more to this repudiation of global warming than that!

What if this is a carefully concocted plot that has been kept under wraps for years?

Here’s what we know thus far about global warming. The data has been around for well over a decade and has been readily available to government officials. Since the turn of the 21st century scientists across the globe have been warning of the extent of global warming; warnings that apparently fell on deaf ears! (Well at least as far as the Bush II administration was concerned.)

But supposing this was not actually the case.

What if the Bush II administration did listen, but only to those scientists who’d concluded that the world had reached the point of no return? And that global warming could not be reversed anytime in the foreseeable future and thus by proxy neither could its ensuing effects!

Fuelling Up For A Global Catastrophe

In other words there was no point implementing measures to curb greenhouse gas emissions (thereby slowing down global warming) and that in fact the best policy was to forge powerfully ahead and ensure that America was readied for the ensuing catastrophe no matter the cost!

If it meant manufacturing a war, so be it! If it meant causing the deaths of hundreds of millions of people to achieve that aim, so be it! After all this wouldn’t be the first time in history that the few had been sacrificed for the many! Oh! Except in this case it is the many sacrificing for the few, or more specifically, The Have-Mores!

When looked at from this perspective, that the U.S. is fuelling up for a long term global catastrophe, it all begins to make some sense! Especially considering that Saudi Arabia still has the greatest oil reserves in the world and has never said no to U.S. oil demands!

Bottom line, it is quite conceivable that the U.S. under Bush II has been insuring against (or at least trying to) a global catastrophe predominantly of its own making! But alas even the best laid plans go badly awry. Iraq didn’t turn out to be the pushover they’d expected and the oil is not gushing the way they had envisioned.

Think that such a scenario is way over the top? Think again! Remember Iraq? Remember Hurricane Katrina?

The way the Bush II government handled Katrina was so shameful that Google for some reason best known to it was compelled to replace post-Hurricane Katrina satellite imagery with pre-hurricane images on its map portal (Damage control? Trying to hide America’s shame from the rest of the world? At whose behest one wonders?).

As you can well imagine, when it came to light, the whole sordid affair was an extreme embarrassment to Google (And certainly not good for business! The search engine business thrives on the premise that results are accurate and impartial and not manipulated!).

But the point I wish to emphasize here is that if the Bush II government could shun its very own citizens (albeit mainly citizens of color) in such a cavalier fashion why would they give a damn if their actions resulted in the deaths of hundreds of millions of Africans or peoples from other parts of the globe who are going to be worst hit by global warming?

In World War II the Nazi’s genocide weapon-of-choice was hydrogen cyanide gas, what irony that in the upcoming global warming related genocide, gas too is the weapon of choice; carbon dioxide gas!

Stop Global Warming

Ba Kiwanuka is the webmaster of http://www.internetbusinessmart.com

Everywhere you turn, green is on the minds of the human race. Global warming, skyrocketing oil prices, smog choked air; it is all finally coming to a head. For many of us this is our second really serious environmental movement. We can remember back in the early seventies the effects of the hippies, they had us stop littering and returning our pop cans for a nickel. Grade schools tried to convince to place solar panels on our roofs, and buying smaller cars. And it all worked for awhile.

But alas Reagan came into power and the contrast of the hippie was created, he was the yuppie. They were the same people more or less, but now instead of ingesting hallucinogens and taking part in orgiastic rituals in the back of a tie dye painted school bus, they erupted onto the capitalistic scene in a rage not seen since the twenties. Working around the clock pulling down enviable salaries and bonuses, and then buying up stocks of high tech start ups like they were LSD. Yuppies raised the entire standard of living of a generation of people throughout the free world. Yes, the trickle down did almost dry up, but check your facts even the poorest among us are better off post eighties then before.

During this time of me firstism, the environment took a hit. Yes, we tried to save the rainforest, we sent checks, we read our labels on fine furniture, but by and large we went about our business. We bought SUV’s, big screens, computers, appliances, took trips, bought yachts, and pretended paradise was a place on Earth and it would last forever.

Enter sobriety. The good times did not last, children were shooting their schools up, and we began to feel guilty. The dot coms crashed, and war began to break out at alarming rates. People like scientists and terrorists got our attention and we realized that there was a price to pay for me first. Dammit anyhow.

Fast forward to 2007, here comes the environmental movement again, just in the nick of time. Polar ice caps are disappearing, holes in the ozone, devastating hurricanes demolish cities built below sea level, and we need to fix it. But how? This problem is bigger than unsightly litter; this is the very livability of our planet.

The stage is set for a hero to rally around, a catalytic personality whose charisma and logic persuade us to see beyond our next trip to the mall. Who will this person be? One so charming, so effervescent, that we will once and for all realize our actions today have an impact beyond next week? Who will finally make us do the right thing? Believe it or not it just might be Al Gore. Turns out he is smarter than we all thought. He wrote a book, and as luck would have it he is liberal so Hollywood helped him make a movie.

We all thought about our wasteful ways and vowed to do better. But as we have seen guilt only goes so far. Sooner or later we would return to our merry ways of indulging our whims at the price of the environment. But the ball is rolling; nothing feeds social movement faster than what is seen as the cool thing to do. And if Hollywood is doing it then it is cool.

But cool wears out, cool changes like the wind. What doesn’t change is our love for money. $ 3 a gallon gas hurts, we buy smaller cars. It is cool and saves us money, different from the Hummer, which used to be cool and costs a lot of money.

So we have something cool and saves us money. It is a rarity when going cheap is also the hip thing to do. But in this case the environment wins as does our pocketbook. But wait we have been here before right? During the oil embargo in the seventies not long after the environmental movement lost its steam, gas went up, and cars were bought more for mpgs than horsepower and style. What happened to that movement? Well see above and gas prices leveled out, sure they continued up more, but at a less frantic pace. We could afford it; we were making all that money being yuppies.

So what is different down? There is now money to be made in the environmental movement. Serious money. Remember when conspiracy had it that Exxon bought up all the plans around that could make cars run on Chicken manure? It was ridiculous of course, but the fact of the matter is big money was never behind the environmental movement. Until now, now we have that Exxon, plus Chevrolet, plus Archer Daniels Midland in on it. So are numerous start ups, taking the place of dot comers are alternative fuel companies, sprouting up everywhere. And let us not forget the international scene, where the former third world economies in places like Asia are well versed in the problem of bringing alternative technologies to the masses.

There is also money to be made in cleaning up factories, which are paying huge levies for polluting; there is money in recycling, finally. Money is also to be made in turning sea water into fresh water, and reclaiming fresh water sources; if you can imagine a solution you can imagine a profit.

You see the solution is the same with every problem. The trick is this; you have to make people want to do something. Seriously want to, not guilt them. Guilt wears out, but doing something for you does not. If you can make people think there is something in it for them they will do it. That is the motivating force of everyone from Mother Theresa to Adolph Hitler. And now that the green movement has serious green money to be made in it, then it is here to stay.

Of course, a couple of more stories about the peril of polar bears always help. We like cute too.

Mac McMann writes from the male point of view at [http://www.manslant.com] .

Global warming is an issue that affects everyone who calls anywhere on earth home. We should each make an effort to do what we can do in order to ensure that we are preventing global warming. Here, you will find an outline of tips that you should use in order to know your part in global warming. Apply the suggestions that are listed here, and send them to your friend, family, and coworkers. Pass it along to everyone you know so that we can all work together to save the world. 1) One of the first steps that you can take in order to prevent it is to make sure that you keep the tires on your vehicles properly inflated. If you allow your tires to be on the road and they are not properly inflated, you could produce hundreds of pounds of greenhouse gases each year. Greenhouse gases lead to the damage that global warming produces.

2) When shopping for groceries, do not allow yourself to walk away with plastic and paper bags. Take a cloth bag to the store in order to carry your merchandise. By doing so, you are reducing the need to throw away the plastic bags and contribute to the global warming crisis.

3) In each of our homes, we should try to find the lights that we use the most and then replace the bulbs with bulbs that are specifically designed to be energy efficient. This may cost more than a standard bulb, but it will prevent the damaging effects of it and reduce the amount that you pay on your electricity bill each month as well.

4) Many farms and farming equipment put harmful greenhouse gases into the atmosphere that lead to global warming. If you would like to prevent it, you should try to buy foods that are organic in nature. You may also consider growing your own food and buying the food that is grown in your area. This reduces the gases that are released into the atmosphere and the gasoline that is required to ship food to your area.

5) You may want to check the filter that your vehicle uses to circulate air every couple of months. If an air filter becomes congested and dirty, it will release nasty gases into the atmosphere that lead to global warming.

6) It is important that you try to use products that are recycled. If you do this, it will reduce the amount of waste in landfills and will also reduce the need to cut down more trees in the environment.

7) You can also prevent global warming by driving your vehicle less. You can carpool with others, or take a public transportation method. You may even consider buying a bicycle or walking to places that you wish to go. This is not only great for the environment, but great for your body as well!

www.tellmeaboutglobalwarming.com [http://www.tellmeaboutglobalwarming.com] brings you thought provoking information about global warming. Be sure to check out all the pages and decide for yourself.

© 2007 copyright by DSquare Marketing and Della Franklin.

Highly respected and capable teachers, virtually no standardized tests and a strong social safety next help explain why Finland consistently rates among the best public education systems in the world. Hasan Piker of Pop Crunch breaks it down. http://www.tytnetwork.com/join

I JUST SUED THE SCHOOL SYSTEM !!!

THE PEOPLE VS THE SCHOOL SYSTEM

How do YOU think we can create a better future of learning. Go here and share your thoughts on the topic! http://www.bit.ly/2ciqj4z

Check out the audio only version here: https://soundcloud.com/prince-ea/we-just-sued-the-school-system

Music by:
http://djsneverendingstory.com/

Filmed and Edited by
http://shareability.com/

Directed By
Joel Bergvall and Joe Lombardi (https://vimeo.com/aztechfilm)

Awesome Animation and Graphics By
Hodja Berlev (https://www.facebook.com/Neonbyte-382305275259022/)

Casting and Assistant Production By:
Spencer Sharp (https://www.facebook.com/dispencery/?hc_ref=SEARCH)

BOOK REFERENCES. If you are interested in learning more on the subject I would suggest a few books to get started

1) Weapons of Mass Instruction by John Taylor Gatto
2) Creative Schools by Ken Robinson
3) I Love Learning; I Hate School by Susan D Blum
4) The One World SchoolHouse by Salman Khan

Join My Motivational List and get Exclusive Videos, Discounts and Updates
http://princeea.com/exclusive

Prince EA
http://www.facebook.com/princeea
http://www.twitter.com/PrinceEa // @PrinceEa

Home


http://princeea.tumblr.com

Global News Coverage on Bloomberg TV LIVE

Bloomberg TV brings you the latest in business, markets, U.S. and global news. C-suite executives and our in-house experts provide in-depth analysis on geopolitical events, the latest economic data, market moves, the U.S. presidential campaign, Brexit, international politics (and more.)

Like this video? Subscribe to Bloomberg on YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/Bloomberg?sub_confirmation=1

And subscribe to Bloomberg Politics for the latest political news:
http://www.youtube.com/BloombergPolitics?sub_confirmation=1

Connect with us on…
Twitter: https://twitter.com/bloombergtv
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/BloombergTelevision
Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/bloombergtv
Video Rating: / 5

The U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) gave a grim assessment of the impact of global climate change in a new report dated November 17, 2007. According to the Panel’s latest report, the build-up of carbon dioxide on Earth already imperils islands, coastlines, and a fifth to two-thirds of the world’s species.

The IPCC panel report says that global warming is “unequivocal”. It estimates that as early as the year 2020 between 75 and 250 million people in Africa will suffer water shortages. It goes on to state that residents of Asia’s largest cities will be at great risk of river and coastal flooding. Europeans can expect extensive species loss. North Americans will experience longer and hotter heat waves and greater competition for water.

In the best case scenario, temperatures will keep rising from carbon already in the atmosphere, the report said. Climate change is here as witnessed by melting snow and glaciers, higher average temperatures, and rising sea levels. If unchecked, global warming will spread hunger and disease, put further stress on water resources, cause fiercer storms and more frequent droughts, and could drive up to 70 percent of plant and animal species to extinction.

“We have already committed the world to sea level rise,” the panel’s chairman, Rajendra Pachauri, said. But if the Greenland ice sheet melts, the scientists said, they could not predict by how many feet the seas will rise, drowning coastal cities. Climate change imperils “the most precious treasures of our planet,” he said, and the effects are “so severe and so sweeping that only urgent global action will do. We are all in this together. We must work together.”

“The world’s scientists have spoken clearly and with one voice,” UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon said, “I expect the world’s policy makers to do the same.”

The world scientists that U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon refers to are apparently members of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. However, the Nobel prize winning IPCC is a political body appointed by the U.N. Many of the 3,000 members of this panel are not scientists, but are political appointees. The few real scientists on the panel have in the past disputed the panel’s findings and had their comments deleted from the reports. Several of these scientists have even asked to have their names removed from the panel’s report. Their requests have been denied. Some scientists have actually had to sue the panel to have their names removed.

So do the world’s scientists all agree and speak with one voice on the issue of global warming? Is global warming “unequivocal”? It does not look like those statements can be attributed to scientists connected with the IPCC. The talking point that all scientists speak with “one voice” on global warming has been heard in Al Gore’s global warming presentations and is now being used in comments by the United Nations Secretary General.

Certainly the comments from early last week from John Coleman (founder of the Weather Channel) don’t indicate a consensus of opinion on global warming. His comments went generally unreported by the mainstream press. Coleman stated: “It (global warming) is the greatest scam in history. I am amazed, appalled and highly offended by it. … Some dastardly scientists with environmental and political motives manipulated long term scientific data to create an illusion of rapid global warming. Other scientists of the same environmental whacko type jumped into the circle to support and broaden the “research” to further enhance the totally slanted, bogus global warming claims. Their friends in government steered huge research grants their way to keep the movement going. Soon they claimed to be a consensus. I have read dozens of scientific papers. I have talked with numerous scientists. I have studied. I have thought about it. I know I am correct. There is no run away climate change.”

Also consider the comments of Colorado State University’s Hurricane expert Dr. William Gray: “The only inconvenient truth about global warming is that a genuine debate has never actually taken place. Hundreds of scientists, many of them prominent in the field, agree. They’ve been brainwashing us for 20 years,” Gray says. “This scare will also run its course. In 15-20 years, we’ll look back and see what a hoax this was.” Gray acknowledges that we’ve had some warming the past 30 years. “I don’t question that,” he explains. “And humans might have caused a very slight amount of this warming. Very slight. But this warming trend is not going to keep on going. My belief is that three, four years from now, the globe will start to cool again, as it did from the middle ’40s to the middle ’70s.”

Then there are the opinions of highly respected climatologist, Roger Pielke Sr. at the University of Colorado: Pielke contends there isn’t enough intellectual diversity in the debate. He claims a few vocal individuals are quoted “over and over” again, when in fact there are a variety of opinions. “I think the media is in the ideal position to do that. If the media honestly presented the views out there, which they rarely do, things would change.”

The skeptical opinions of scientists Coleman, Grey and Pielke are not isolated. In fact, 19,000 scientists have signed a petition that states: “There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth.”

Global warming may well turn out to be the serious problem identified in the United Nations report. However, there is a ongoing debate in the scientific community about global warming and its effects. World scientists do not speak with “one voice” and do not all agree that long term global warming is “unequivocal”. The fact that there is a concerted effort to keep the scientific debate on global warming a public secret should make us feel as uncomfortable as the findings on global warming in the latest United Nations Report.

James William Smith has worked in Senior management positions for some of the largest Financial Services firms in the United States for the last twenty five years. He has also provided business consulting support for insurance organizations and start up businesses. He has always been interested in writing and listening to different viewpoints on interesting topics.

Visit his website at http://www.eworldvu.com .