Loss Of Normal Cervical Lo Lordosis

The hoax of global warming is used to accept high oil prices

What is the lie about global warming? In reality, to accept the high price of oil in particular, and hydrocarbons in general. And in fact it is even better. It is even to be desired by people who believe in this theory.

According to the model in question, the excess CO2 in the atmosphere which cause global warming. And the latter is presented as a phenomenon with catastrophic consequences. However, consumption of oil is the main cause of the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere. So, someone who cares about global warming will desire a lower consumption of these hydrocarbons. And what better way (apart from an authoritarian decision) to get that down a price increase?

So, this person will be happy that oil prices rise, since it will mean a drop in consumption and therefore lower CO2 production. This person will accept more readily the high oil prices. Either low case (if the person is moderately involved), it will find it hard, but she said that at least it will fight against global climate. Either high case (if the person is highly involved), the person will applaud the arrival of oil price increases. She ardently wish.

is even better than the theory of peak oil. It can present high prices of oil as a fatality. So it allows to accept the increase by the people. The theory of global warming, it allows outright desire to rising oil prices by the people. It is more passive and it eventually becomes active side of the oil industry. It is even harder. But hey, it's not so much to do even better but rather to have two theories that work together to accept the high price of oil.

course, in reality, those hopes are dashed. Rising oil prices will not lead to a decrease in consumption (the rise is of course carefully controlled and limited to such a thing does not happen). It will only result in huge profits for the oil industry.

course, it can lead to other developments, if we go further into hysteria on global warming. It can afford to accept draconian laws by citizens on behalf of the fight against global warming. So the hysteria to a potential which is not confined to the mere adherence of people to higher oil prices. Anyway, in fact, it already fits the kind of current climate of fear (fear of terrorism, fear of new diseases, fear of man-made disasters, etc ...) which is one of the elements allow to pass draconian laws to put safety first.

For more information on lies about global warming, see the blog http://www.climat-sceptique.com/

Coca Tea Legal In America 2010

Those who lie about the origin of Oil also seek to reduce the production of nuclear energy

The hidden power that lies at the origin of oil does, ultimately, to control people. If a nation decides to appoint headed by a leader who is not a representative of this occult power, it can cut the supply of oil and gas and thus make the knee economy. Moreover, a country that has more fuel is invading a country that can easily. So not only may cause unrest in the population due to the collapse of living standards, but it may be more militarily crush the country.

Nuclear power threatens this strategy . Indeed, it is possible, with nuclear, to have enough fuel for a few years. And it would be even more true with plants breeder. It would then be difficult for this occult power to collapse the economy. Especially with the Fischer-Tropsch process, it is possible for a country to use its coal resources (resources fairly well distributed worldwide) and nuclear power to produce oil.

So the clique that rules the world does not at all interested in what is developing nuclear power in the world. Instead, it has an interest in that it has an extremely small share in energy production.

It is therefore logical that we have witnessed the growth from thirty years of very strong criticism of nuclear power, and that these criticisms have led everywhere in Europe except in France (for moment), a trend away from nuclear power in countries with power, and its non-development in the country does not possess.

What leads the abandonment of nuclear power in reality? Well, its replacement by plants running on fossil fuels: coal, gas and possibly oil. If we take the example of Germany, the abandonment of nuclear power, voted in 2002, will lead the coming years to build 45 power plants and improved 200. Of course, at the same time, we create a smokescreen by pretending that pushes renewable energy. But ultimately, those are the power stations to oil that are favored most.

Obviously, that's all profit for the oil industry. Most importantly, the country becomes more dependent on outside with nuclear power plants.

All movements that lead to the abandonment of nuclear power are clearly paid by the occult power, as well as politicians (not environmentalists) who are receptive to this kind of discourse. As it is environmentalists who criticize mainly nuclear, we can say safely that their leaders are corrupt and paid by the occult power to encourage the replacement of nuclear power by electricity obtained through oil.

PS: it is also quite clear that the power in question has sought to minimize the sources of uranium. Presumably, as with oil, there are exploitable uranium mines anywhere on earth. Similarly way, this occult power to believe that uranium mining resources are very limited (between 30 and 60 years at current rate of consumption). While it is likely that there is infinitely more, as for oil. Besides, of course, we can obtain uranium from the sea

Board Freeones Milena Velba

kerogen: the problem of the quantity of carbon necessary to its formation

By learning about the official theory about the transformation of plant oil and coal, it becomes clear that implies the presence of huge quantities of carbon in the Carboniferous era. Indeed, to obtain quantities of fossil carbon that already important is the form of coal, oil, gas, etc ..., the official theory says it should constitute a much more important fossil carbon in the form of kerogen.

1) The massive amounts of carbon present on earth in the carboniferous implied amount of kerogen present in soil

For the amount of kerogen present in the soil, the official oil theorists have already made a estimate. There would 10 million billion tonnes of kerogen in the crust (10 power 16). As kerogen is mostly carbon, we can say that it is almost the same in terms of quantity of carbon.

In the official model in question, the biomass was pumped into the air a quantity of carbon equivalent to the amount of kerogen formed: about 10 million billion tons of carbon. So, we are told that there were ten million billion tons of carbon from the atmosphere and soil were found in the crust via the burial of plants. Let

thus the amount of carbon currently present on earth, both in soil than in air.

39,000 Gt of carbon in the oceans
2000 Gt of carbon in the biosphere (plants and animals: including 600 Gt of living organisms and a priori 1400 GT consist of detritus)
750 Gt of carbon into the atmosphere

Total: about 42,000 Gt (gigatons)

Over 30 million Gt of carbon in the lithosphere (ie the earth's crust, it is mainly limestone)
And 10 million Gt of fossil carbon (kerogen, coal, oil, gas, etc ...)



So we are currently about 42,000 Gt of carbon by land, sea and air (excluding carbon fossil). Is already 238 times less than the carbon of the kerogen.

But in fact, remove the carbon from the oceans of the problem. Indeed, the carbon in the oceans and land, carbon is ultimately pumped into the atmosphere. These amounts are added to the mass of carbon lost by the atmosphere. This is in addition to the 10 million Gt of fossil carbon present in the earth. So ultimately, we have 10 million Gt of fossil carbon + 30 million Gt of carbon in rock + 39 000 Gt of carbon in the wonders pumped into the atmosphere. Consider that 39,000 Gt oceans are negligible compared to the carbon stored in the lithosphere. was therefore 40 million Gt of carbon from the atmosphere and stored in the crust.

Also, where does the carbon in biomass? CO2 from the air, primarily. So the source of renewal is in fact mainly CO2 in the air.

So, the source of carbon in biomass which could be pumped to form kerogen is only the atmosphere. So, more than 750 Gt

course, lithosphere rebroadcast via volcanoes, 0.1 Gt per year of carbon (carbon, according to the official theory is the one who ended up buried in the lithosphere. So , this is not an inflow). But as the balance is negative to the lithosphere (0.3 against 0.1 Gt Gt injected reissued), anyway, it's the atmosphere that provides carbon to the lithosphere and not the reverse.

This means that the kerogen contained about 13,300 times more carbon than the amount of carbon present on Earth that can serve as a source for biomass. If we add carbon to the lithosphere in the form of carbonate rock (30 Gt), that means there are 53,300 times more carbon in the lithosphere in the atmosphere.

So it causes a big, huge problem. It means Carboniferous say that there was in the atmosphere 53,300 times more carbon than now.

This is completely absurd. In fact, it seems that the official model, biomass, or invents the atmosphere of carbon. There would be creation ex nihilo of carbon. There would be 300 Mt of carbon that disappear each year in the land (according to the source Wikipedia). What should have resulted in hundreds of millions of years to tens of millions of Gt of carbon buried. And those 300 come from outer space Mt. biomass or the atmosphere would have a magic power to create carbon. And theorists would never occupied with the problem of the origin of carbon. Of course, under these conditions of total lack of reflection on this subject, the question of where do the massive amounts of carbon that was originally in the atmosphere does not arise (indeed, given that it seems that carbon goes only in one direction, from the atmosphere to the lithosphere, one wonders how anyone could have initially an equal quantity of carbon into the atmosphere).


2) The incredibly lucky to still have carbon in the atmosphere despite the loss it has been over the ages

So in fact, there would be a loss huge carbon from the atmosphere. This would tend to disappear into the earth. But, coincidentally, there is a time when we are lucky to still have enough carbon to there being life on earth.

calculate the amount of kerogen formed each year to obtain the total amount of kerogen present. There were 10 million billion tons of kerogen formed over 360 million years (early Carboniferous). It's been 10 billion tons lost every 360 years. Either 1 billion every 36 years. So about 28 million tons every year.

On the side of the atmosphere, there are 750 billion tons of carbon. So with the pumping of carbon from the atmosphere by plants required to obtain the amount of kerogen present, all 36 years, it loses 1 billion tons of carbon and therefore, after years 750x36 is to say, after 27,000 years, there will be more CO2 in the atmosphere .

short, we have a chance absolutely incredible. At about 27,000 years near, there was more carbon in the atmosphere and life on earth disappeared. It would have been enough that at times the pace was faster, so we're not here to talk about. Wow, what incredible opportunity. Because that 27,000 years, across the earth, there is nothing at all.

And in any case, the rhythm disappears when the carbon in 27,000 years, unless you reject a good amount in the atmosphere, there will be more carbon.

And in fact, maybe even less than that. Given that ultimately, there are 300 million tons of carbon sink into the ground as the official model (300 to form carbonate rocks, 100 to form the kerogen, which are less than 100 re-emitted by volcanoes from carbonate rocks ) was in reality 10 times less time than that before the carbon has completely disappeared the atmosphere. So in reality, it would only 2,700 years of carbon into the atmosphere before us.

All this is absolutely ridiculous.

3) The amount of carbon that implies it is compatible with life?

Conversely, it means that every 27,000 years preceding our era, the amount of CO2 increases the amount present . There are 0.036% of carbon into the atmosphere. So there are 270 million years ago, there were 10,000 times more. Or 360%. There were 3.6 times more carbon than all other elements contained in air (nitrogen and oxygen). And there are 360 million years ago, it was 479%, almost 5 times more. So, a priori, there was no one living thing on earth. Unless of course, that living beings can live with such a large proportion of carbon. A priori this is not the case. So one wonders how early dinosaurs may have occurred.

If one adds the amount of carbon in carbonate rocks, we multiply this figure by 4% or 1916 there are 360 million years.

And if we take the official figures of the annual transfer of carbon to the soil (10 times higher than the figure required to arrive at the amount of kerogen present) we arrive at the figure of 4790%.

Above that problem, we have official figures on the rate of CO2 into the atmosphere. There are 4.25 billion years, there have been 30% of CO2 in the atmosphere. And we would have had only 3% there a billion years. So the figures we can deduce the amount of kerogen (and carbonate rocks) does not fit at all with the official figures.

4) Why do not we see the amount of carbon decline over millions of years?

should also be noted that since the plant carbon into the earth, it would of attending a gradual decline in the rate of CO2 in the atmosphere on all of the 360 million years ago . And with a very precise amount of about 0.144% of the current atmosphere every 27,000 years (the amount of carbon lost in the lithosphere during this period; kerogen + carbonate rocks). See about 0.36%, using the figure of 300 million net tonnes of carbon lost annually in the lithosphere. But precisely this is not the case. CO2 levels remained relatively stable (with the addition of lifts at times) over time.

5) More than CO2, but climate colder

the way, if carbon was present as CO2, as we are told that CO2 is responsible for global warming, it would be a tremendous heat there are 360 million years. However, precisely the Carboniferous period is supposed to be a rather cold, with a portion of the continents under the ice (Africa and South America). He should know.

is probably the reason why the official theory says there were only 3% of CO2 in the atmosphere there is a billion years. Otherwise, yes, with a much higher rate, it would be a problem regarding the temperature of the climate, the official model, there are 360 million years.