Repubbilca, today, plays bass drum nth pippone environmentalist targato Al Gore. Former U.S. vice president returns to point the finger at the man guilty of murdering feel the Earth. It asks to replace Kyoto with another agreement. Worse.

Hence, my daily reflection.
I had already talked about days ago, but is just coming on, because the subject is a topical disarming. We are, every day, and haunted by attacks of part of the human race against another part of the human race. And we are constantly mentioned as the main cause of the ruin of the world in which we live.
But ittrue? Or is it just a ploy to gather consensus around an issue that can easily excite the minds of simple people and is able to deliver huge amounts of money by exploiting precisely the easy impressionability of the people?

Personally, the more time passes the more I realize that the second question is the one that leads to the answer right.
On the other hand it is science: cause and effect. Explain the effect by referring to a case. But when that effect can be attributed in several ways, here is that the certainty of a theory collapses, because the more certain it is not.
Not explained then why only one of these theories to explain the effect is collecting all this favor. Manco were all happy to know that the world is dying because of man. Or rather, the solution to the dilemma is easier than you think. It corresponds exactly to answer the second question from me just above formulata: there are political and economic interests behind global warming.
The proof? Lobby of political power that push you to the lobby of economic power find satisfaction in the green energy market!
In an episode of AnnoZero a few weeks ago, was the same Rutelli to comment about: the environmental industry invoice at least one billion euros per year!

Now, science is not democratic. And 'more than unfair, then, to use as a criterion of rightness of a theory than that in another 99 are in favor of one and only one is in favor of the other. Yet that's what we frequently say for too long now. If scientists say 99 to 100 there is a reason?! Well, those 99 count as one if they say the same thing over another in 100 that only science says another.
It works like this.
Should bring to the attention both theories, but ... nothing.
There persists asPender money to support one, stubbornly ignoring the other.
This may be explained only by the echo-environmental fear of being deprived of popularity and money when they were taken more into account the other theory, that of someone who does not see a cause of anthropogenic global warming, linking instead to activities such as all-natural sun (hence, also the theory of a future global cooling).

We should know that not all the nobel is favorable about global warming, but do not know. We should know that in reality is not just a scientist who is opposed to catastrophic theories of followers of Al Gore, but hundreds, and yet not know.
But we should know.
We should know, for example, that with the money spent and budgeted for to execute the useless Kyoto treaty we would be able to end, forever, world hunger and with the true scourges of humanitysuch as AIDS and malaria, we know that in order to account for the drafters of the Kyoto Protocol millions of people gathered on the street looking for a job that will no longer be achieved because the industry can no longer produce as they do now to limit their their emissions of carbon dioxide we should know, above all, to follow up warnings on global warming might reduce the prosperity that we have built over the centuries.
We should know that Kyoto is useless.
The so-called alternative energy sources are a real hoax. They all look good, in fact, from people to know that their presence does not guarantee the detachment from common sources of energy. No one then makes people know that in reality the sources of alternative energy is not the future, but rather a return to the past: solar, wind and headed by its limited number of natural factors which would use (the sun non there is always and everywhere with the same intensity, the wind ditto) and would still tied to old systems for producing energy for their development and transportation.
We should know that the only real source of useful energy to reduce CO2 emissions but is opposed by those who would like more of a cleaner world: Nuclear Energy! Plus that would liberate us from dependence on Middle East and with Russia for oil and gas.

We should know all these things, but nothing! Who could talk about it is relegated to a corner with a system of Soviet-style censorship. To which is accompanied by the ideological fiction of moral superiority: Yes! also spoken with who you like, which supports the concerns of Golab warming and you'll always get the same treatment: you will be looked upon as vile, as inferior, as the strontium (passatemi the term) that, unlike them, they have at heart the welfare of world! And there will be to try to explain that there are or other ways to explain global warming: we continue to look bad, pissed about how you can give credence to theories that do not end even in the newspapers.
And we are at the point of departure.
Error, ie, a theory that is more just than another just because more people talking about it.

Bullshit!

Today, Al Gore wants a new agreement. How much more insane than the first. Damaging as any solution adopted by the Eco-terrorism media of our time.
Who are anxious to frighten, but do not deal with the scientific explanation of the many deficiencies of their reasoning.
Whatever I can only give you a taste, but I refer you to where you can read it enough to make you a more complete and therefore correct. HERE!

Meanwhile, it would be fair to know that (for brevity, I quote my friend and sharesdelpensiero.blogspot.com/2007/06/unestate-di-patetici-ed-interessati.html "target =" _blank "> SALO):

- Global warming started in place since 1700, when the industries and automobiles did not exist;
- The tracking data show a mismatch between the absolute levels of greenhouse gases in the air and the temperature of the atmosphere (which means that gases like CO2 emitted by humans, little influence on earth's atmosphere, which receives much influence more "negative" by the solar seasons, with whom we have nothing to do!)
- Surveys of recent centuries prove that the increase of CO2 gas in the air is a consequence not a cause of temperature (!)
- Greenland is an area currently covered by perennial ice but the meaning of the name is literally "green earth", because until about 1300 the land was lush and temperate; historical sources testify that in Enghilterra until about 1200, will grow vines with excellent results, these two historical data confirm that the Earth has experienced in past seasons with much higher temperatures than at present ... yet humanity seems done well had run (maybe Al Gore and do not know that Shepherd Scanio in 1300, when the temperature was far higher now, the industry did not exist ...);
- In the '70s these same scientists "concerned", the apocalyptic for bread, had raised the alarm about a possible impending ice age (!!), organizing conferences and raising awareness among the various states (which of course even more lavishly financed in order to see clearly) This to understand what is reliable Codest alarmists by profession.

More than others, and others. But I stop here not to bore you too spread out unnecessary data to the discussion substantially.

That is, what is important is that we can learn about the alternative.
Costhat one can put a stop to this money-eating monster called environmentalism and founded on bases failed squanders huge amounts of money that would be more useful if used instead to fight and defeat the evils that now afflict humanity seriously: disease, hunger, lack of water in third world countries!

Regards.