This video appeared as a Facebook post in a group whose interests relate to self-sufficiency.
Although the relevance is indirect it is meaningfull.
Heading edited to introduce some controversy!
Are the claims and information legitimate? A great deal of political activity in Australia and other countries agendas support belief of the reality of a bleak future for Australians and the world in general, as depicted here.
Readers’ thoughts would be welcomed.
A paper published by –
Kelly MJ Department of Engineering, University of Cambridge, 9 JJ Thomson Avenue, Cambridge CB3 0FA, UK, in ‘Journal of Geography & Natural Disasters’, Feb 17, 2016.
It represents valid scientific research, data and realistic analysis proving the deliberate misleading of the public by the officially published and accepted media and involved personnel.
The beginning:
Abstract
It is widely promulgated and believed that human-caused global warming comes with increases in both the intensity and frequency of extreme weather events. A survey of official weather sites and the scientific literature provides strong evidence that the first half of the 20th century had more extreme weather than the second half, when anthropogenic global warming is claimed to have been mainly responsible for observed climate change. The disconnect between real-world historical data on the 100 years’ time scale and the current predictions provides a real conundrum when any engineer tries to make a professional assessment of the real future value of any infrastructure project which aims to mitigate or adapt to climate change. What is the appropriate basis on which to make judgements when theory and data are in such disagreement?
Keywords
Global warming; Weather; Climate change
Introduction
There have been many reports on the future impacts of humanrelated greenhouse gas emissions on a changing climate during the 21st century. Just two will suffice here: ‘Resilience to Extreme Weather’ [1] and ‘Climate Change: Evidence and Causes’ [2] were both published in 2014 by the Royal Society of London, the second report jointly with the US National Academy of Science. Both reports dwell on the expectation that in future, because of man-made global warming, we can expect extremes of weather to be both more intense and more frequent. By implication, one must allocate vast sums of money in mitigating and adapting to this future of more extreme weather.
The members of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change in Working Group I are clear that man-made global warming started in earnest in about 1960, so it is reasonable to see to what extent the weather has been getting more extreme more frequently over the last 55 years. That same report suggests that IPCC scientists have low confidence in recent extreme weather events being specifically attributed to global warming [3]. Further, an additional IPCC report on ‘Managing extreme events and disasters to advance climate change mitigation’, (known as SREX [4]), relies heavily on papers that only start with data in 1950 [5] and 1960 [6]. The graphical data is not shown in SREX, as it is here, but a one-phrase summary is incorporate. Furthermore, they chose definitions of extremes that represent the upper or lower deciles of occurrence, rather than treating extremes as extremes, as is considered here.
It is therefore surprising to discover that by all the various real world data considered here, the weather in the first half of the 20th century was, if anything, more extreme than in the second half. I have not found any data, including in SREX, that contradicts these trends. Furthermore there are no signs of this trend changing (i.e. lessening and reversing) in recent years. The lack of public, political and policymaker appreciation of the disconnect between empirical data and theoretical constructs is profoundly worrying, especially in terms of policy advice being given. For example the first report cited above is without empirical foundation, the second is misleading, and the already modest claims in SREX are further weakened when compared with the longer term data.
A comment on etymology is in order: I am using the word extreme in the same way that the authors of references [1,2] to mean events that are several standard deviations away from the average of the distribution by which they are measured and described. I am not referring to the ultimate extreme in recorded history, although these would also support my case.
The approach taken in this paper is wherever possible to list the original source research yielding the data, but where that is not available to use the earliest accessible details. Not all the relevant data is located in the regular scientific literature. Much of this data is on official government-backed meteorological websites, while other data is only available secondarily or appears in appropriately derived form in various web-sites devoted to critiques in the global warming debate. To my knowledge, this material has not before been gathered systematically in the manner it has here. By referring to a much broader base than temperature data only, I hope to avoid the continuing debate on the myriad of adjustments made to original data that has almost without exception exacerbated the trends being sought, particularly in rising temperature over the 20th century. These adjustments are such that in some places (e.g. New Zealand) the inferred temperature rise is entirely a result of these post-hoc adjustments.
The Conundrum Introduced: Where the Weather is shown to have been Less Extreme Recently
Figure 1 is a collage of data that make the case that weather was more extreme between 1900 and 1960 than since. It has been collected from the literature and from websites since the beginning of 2014. For each of these diagrams there are many more that make the same story with complementary detail, or with data from other parts of the world. This section is devoted to explaining the origin and content of each graph.
Figure 1: weather was more extreme between 1900 and 1960.
The first graph takes the HADCRUT4 data set and plots the time derivative of the globally averaged mean surface temperature from 1850 to the present day [7]. It shows that the periods of maximum warming or cooling rates are all in the 19th century or at the start of the 20th century. Since the recent period of global warming started in 1975 there has been a quiescent temperature profile. As the author states: (i) All the huge extreme changes took place over 40 years ago, with the great majority occurring prior to 1950. (ii) The huge CO2 emissions have not been associated with a single global warming acceleration extreme since 1951, over 60 years ago. (iii) Since the 1970’s, the climate extremes’ range appears to be narrowing, with each accelerated warming and cooling trend rate getting smaller. (iv) When major (minor too) extremes occur, the climate system does not hit a “tipping point” of positive feedbacks. Instead, the natural climate responds with negative feedbacks to bring the climate back to some level of short-term equilibrium. By contrast the SREX report on extreme temperatures is largely down to two key papers [5,6]. Warm maximum and minimum temperatures are expected to track with the overall average temperature [5] in the Americas, but the broadening is weak, and the extremes are eclipsed by data from the 1930s. Furthermore both positive and negative trends are present in the temperature extremes in different regions in the global data [6], so that the total extremes have some internal cancellation. The findings also were that the total precipitation was not changing but there was a weak tendency towards more extreme single incidents of precipitation. A separate study on precipitation comes to a similar conclusion, a 7% rise in daily precipitation maxima per degree C rise in temperature, but a result that masks different and opposing trends in different parts of the world [8]. Nonetheless, where extreme precipitation has actually been measured, nearly all the extremes predate this period for all periods less than one year [9]. Most recently, a report confirms that fluctuations in extreme weather events (especially temperatures) become less severe with rising average temperatures [10].
The second chart is a plot of NOAA monthly measurements of precipitation since 1895, through June 2014 [11]. The black dots represent the moving 5-year (60-month) average of atmospheric CO2 levels. The dark blue curve is the simple 60-month moving average of precipitation; the red line denotes the average monthly rainfall over the 1,434 months. The moving average and the average since 1985 are almost identical, and show that any recent suggestions of climate extremes from one-off events in the USA are not borne out by the accumulated data.
The third and fifth charts show the steady decline on average of both the frequency and power of hurricanes making landfall in the USA over the 20th century [12]. Other data, not shown here, shows a 30% step down in the frequency of tornados of strength 3 and above in the USA in 1975, the year that global cooling turned to global warming [13].
The fourth panel shows the fall in the annual cost of flooding in the USA as a function of the Gross domestic product of the USA [14]. The sixth panel shows that extremes of temperature in the USA were greatest in the 1930s, and much greater than anything different [15].
The seventh panel shows the actual decline in precipitation in Boston since 1935 compared with the predicted increase from the average of many models, showing a discrepancy in the sign of the change [16], which must be a contributory factor in the wider search for an answer to the question about whether or not extreme weather is on the increase.
The final panel summarises a key issue that is not often considered in the debate: the deaths from climate related severe weather events has been in steady decline since 1900, and if there is to be a change to an increase in future, a specific reason must be given for this to distinguish any such prediction from speculation [17]. There are multiple causes of this decrease – better warnings, more robust defences being just two.
Several points arise: (1) While some of the data is global, much of the detailed data is from the USA where the trends are all at odds with what is assumed to be happening globally. In the next section we describe data from many other places in the world showing that there has been no change in the frequency or severity of extreme weather events. Much of this is from the UK where, as for the US, has extensive networks exist for gathering relevant data over the whole period. A separate table is introduced below to summarise the scattered reports from other parts of the world. (2) It is noted that most of the data comes from official sources, but the way it has been presented and interpreted represents the added value as per the source from which the graphs were actually derived. (3) In some places we can get contradictory data as exemplified below in section 4.
The Conundrum Widens: There is much Evidence of No Change over 100 Years
(and much more).
If this raises your interest, you might find the complete paper worth reading.
This supports my own understanding of the realities of climate change, as distinct from the widely accepted, highly promoted, so-called “climate change” that is substantially dependent on dubious “science” based on achieving a political agenda.
Source Article:
Related articles:
Academia is in the New Dark Age
[https://www.nas.org/articles/academia_is_in_the_new_dark_age]
Claim: Poor Countries Face $168 billion Debt Interest Bill because Climate Change
[https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/07/02/claim-poor-countries-face-168-billion-debt-interest-bill-because-climate-change/]
An email from a concerned activist, ‘Jeff Hays Films’, deserves further exposure to the public.
It is reproduced in full and is important reading.
(My bold emphasis highlight pertinent statements)
” Sudden Infant Death Syndrome: The term strikes fear into new parents, and for good reason. More than 2000 infants die of SIDS each year, and it’s the leading cause of death for babies between 1 month and 1 year of age. The loss is devastating to families who have experienced it, and the problem is compounded by the fact that there seems to be no way to predict when or who it will strike.
Sudden Infant Death is a diagnosis of exclusion, meaning that it strikes a once-healthy baby whose death can’t be explained by any type of illness, defect, accident or injury. There is simply no identifiable reason for these deaths. People often confuse SIDS with infant suffocation, because of public campaigns to remove blankets, padding, pillows and crib bumpers in an effort to lower the rate of infant deaths—but it should be noted that SIDS is not the same as suffocation and is not caused by suffocation. If a child has suffocated, their death is not recorded as being related to SIDS.
What does cause SIDS, if it’s not suffocation or an undiagnosed underlying health problem? One potential culprit is vaccines.
A disproportionate number of infants die of SIDS in the days and weeks after receiving scheduled vaccines.
“Prior to contemporary vaccination programs, ‘Crib death’ was so infrequent that it was not mentioned in infant mortality statistics,” a 2011 study published in Human and Experimental Toxicology states. In the 1960s, mandatory vaccination schedules were introduced and “Shortly thereafter, in 1969, medical certifiers presented a new medical term—sudden infant death syndrome. In 1973, the National Center for Health Statistics added a new cause-of-death category—for SIDS—to the ICD.”
That’s right—SIDS was not only not the most common cause of infant death before the introduction of vaccines…it was practically unheard of!
A separate study found that babies die at a rate 8 times higher than usual in the 3 days after being immunized with the DPT vaccine.
The United States continues to have a high infant mortality rate and continues to lead the world in the number of vaccines required by the age of five. Could there be a connection? The graph below shows the relationship between the number of vaccines given and the rate of sudden infant death—and the data is shocking.
[This image and relevant statistical data appears in the linked reference, Human and Experimental Toxicology 2011 Study, below.]
By the tender age of 12 months, American children have had three times the number of vaccines that are recommended in Sweden, Japan, Iceland, and Norway. These countries rank 2ed, 3ed, 4th, and 7th respectively in their infant mortality rates, while the US comes in a dismal 34th—our babies dying at over twice the rate of those in less vaccinated countries.
Japan took action in the 1970s when they saw that cases of death and severe injury were occurring after the DPT shot. Between 1975 and 1980, they raised the age of vaccination with DPT from 3 months to 2 years—and saw an immediate 80-90 percent decrease in injury and death.
How can we continue to put our children at risk, knowing that there is a real association between the rising number of inoculations we’re bombarding them with and Sudden Infant Death?
The only people benefitting from the inflated number of recommended vaccines are the big pharmaceutical companies. Our communities are less healthy, our people suffer from higher rates of autoimmune disease, our children are experiencing neurological problems at high rates, and our infants are dying.
It’s time to take action and follow the lead of countries whose health, infant mortality rate, and life-span all beat our own. Our children are paying a very high price for Big Pharma’s greed.
Best,
Jeff Hays
Jeff Hays Films
“Movies that Make Movements”
References:
Image Source
Human and Experimental Toxicology 2011 Study
Diphtheria-tetanus-pertussis “
Further information from NIH in the US, https://www1.nichd.nih.gov/sts/about/SIDS/Pages/SIDSisNot.aspx, is interesting in that it reveals the infant mortality from undetermined causes is a huge number. Their bold statement regarding vaccines represents the official medical opinion and, as suggested in this post, is absolutely questionable.
SIDS is not the cause of every sudden infant death.
Each year in the United States, thousands of babies die suddenly and unexpectedly. These deaths are called SUID (pronounced Soo-id), which stands for “Sudden Unexpected Infant Death.”
SUID includes all unexpected deaths: those without a clear cause, such as SIDS, and those from a known cause, such as suffocation. One-half of all SUID cases are SIDS. Many unexpected infant deaths are accidents, but a disease or something done on purpose can also cause a baby to die suddenly and unexpectedly.
SIDS is not caused by vaccines, immunizations, or shots.
Wait, there’s more:
Also in other age ranges coinciding with many vaccinations,
from ‘NORD’ https://rarediseases.org/rare-diseases/sudden-unexplained-death-in-childhood/
Sudden unexplained death in childhood (SUDC) is the sudden death of a child 12 months of age or older that remains unexplained after a thorough case investigation, including performance of a complete autopsy, examination of the death scene, and review of the clinical history. These deaths elude our scientific understanding. SUDC cannot be predicted or prevented at this time. According to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, in 2015, 393 children between the ages of 1-18 years died suddenly without a clear cause of death determined. Most of these children were toddlers, aged 1-4 years; an incidence of 1.4 deaths per 100,000 toddler aged children. Research and awareness of SUDC remains limited.
” These deaths elude our scientific understanding. ” invites disbelief!
An article which came to my notice today!
(Thanks to the sender)
Adam Creighton THE AUSTRALIAN NEWS is an award-winning economics journalist with a special interest in tax and financial policy.
He spent most of 2016 at the Wall Street Journal in Washington DC.
He won the Citi Journalism Award for Excellence in 2015, and was runner up in the internationally recognised Bastiat Prize for Journalism in 2014
Perhaps the government wouldn’t need to crack down on sexual relations between politicians and their staff if there weren’t so many well-kept staff. The Barnaby Joyce saga has awkwardly revealed how the number and pay of political staff is out of control.
Vikki Campion was just one of 155 senior political advisers employed by the Turnbull government last year. Surprised journalists reported her salary of “up to $191,000” for her digital and social media strategy role. That’s actually a considerable understatement.
Such advisers receive a “private-plated vehicle” allowance of $24,600 and “parliamentary staff allowance” of $31,600 too. So the correct figure for senior advisers is a salary of up to $247,000 a year, excluding travel allowance of course, which for a non-Canberra-based adviser is about $18,000 (untaxed). Then there’s 15.4 per cent superannuation.
The Labor opposition and Greens have about 26 senior advisers as well, suggesting taxpayers have to pony up about $45 million a year for senior political advice alone. It’s the tip of the iceberg. All up there are about 540 advisers spread across the government (442), opposition (95), and other minor parties. These higher paid roles (all six figures) come on top of the four electorate staff each MP and senator receives.
In 2000 the Howard government had 345 advisers, according to the Parliamentary Library, suggesting growth of about 30 per cent. Australian federal politicians had no staff until 1944, when they were allowed a typist. Crossbenchers get advisers now. Last year they each enjoyed three on top of their electorate staff.
Salaries aren’t the whole story, of course. The Australian reported last year that airfares, taxis and untaxed “travel allowance” for the Prime Minister’s 50-odd ministerial staff exceeded $2.13m last financial year or $5840 a day, about 87 per cent higher than Tony Abbott’s staff spent two years earlier. The same documents obtained under freedom-of-information laws also showed the travel costs of the Opposition Leader’s 35-strong team had increased by 66 per cent to $2.34m, or $6,420.00 a day, over the same period.
Cost isn’t a big theme in Canberra, where even the taxis double the fare if they are carrying two or more passengers. And why not? As if anyone is using their own money!
In 2013, the last year the government published the aggregate figures, the total cost for advisers and electorate staff came to $230m. Back-of-the-envelope calculations suggest it’s above $300m. The Australian has repeatedly tried to obtain the latest figures.
Similar problems emerge in state governments, egregiously in South Australia, where Labor Premier Jay Weatherill had more than 43 full-time personal staff (not far off the PM), according to the government gazette, including 17 media advisers earning between $115,000 and $157,000 a year.
Ministers and politicians clearly need staff, and quite a few more than a generation ago, given the demands of media. But the question has to be asked whether the numbers and pay have become excessive, and potentially corrosive. If the pay is so good, why risk prosecuting change in the public interest? The highest priority becomes keeping one’s job.
Even ministers’ receptionists now earn up to $100,000 In political la-la land that’s considered a low salary, but it also happens to be 40 per cent higher than median full-time earnings in Australia. British and US political advisers are routinely shocked by the remarkably plush conditions of Australia’s political class.
In Britain only a handful of advisers earns more than 100,000 pounds a year, and there are far fewer of them. The British government employed 82 “special advisers” (32 in Prime Minister Theresa May’s office) in 2016; cabinet ministers were allowed a maximum of two. Cabinet ministers in Australia have between 12 and 20 each.
Some allowance needs to be made for the greater proximity of ministers to their departments in Britain. As “Yes, Minister” viewers well know, Sir Humphrey Appleby was just down the hall. In Canberra, ministers have their offices in the parliament, far away from their public servants down the hill.
Even so, it’s not clear the quantum spent on political advice would pass a cost-benefit test. The federal government has more than 150,000 public servants, some of whom are on eye-popping pay deals, to administer policy and provide advice.
We’ll never know how much worse the Nationals’ social and digital media strategy would have been without Campion’s efforts. But even if it were substantially worse, should taxpayers be paying for this anyway? To the extent many staffers are politicians in waiting (just look at the career history of so many MPs), the public is forced to pay costs that should really be borne by political parties themselves.
No one doubts many staff work long hours (I know, I used to be one), but that doesn’t mean the work has to be done in the first place, or paid for by taxpayers. The fact roles can be created, abolished and shifted so easily, as was Campion’s, should be a red flag in any audit.
Nothing much is likely to change. Politicians are reluctant to talk about this because both sides benefit so much. The real power of politicians, after all, is the power of appointment. The more appointments, the more power.
But there are some obvious places to make savings, and boost the public’s respect for the political class. For instance, must staff (and politicians) fly business class for the short flights between Sydney, Melbourne and Canberra? Or why not run a bus between Canberra airport and the parliament, saving many millions a year in taxi fares? The absurdity of separate vehicles and “parliamentary” allowances should be incorporated into salaries to make pay scales clearer.
A future government should also make a hard decision about whether having political advisers in their 20s earning more than some GPs is in line with community standards.
Does this not make one think about the homeless, student loans, understaffed hospitals, inadequate education facilities etc., etc.
Vaccine criticizers, especially against mandatory vaccinations, exist in huge numbers.
For valid scientific reasons.
1. The evidence that vaccines cause harm is massive. I highly recommend Miller’s Review of Critical Vaccine Studies by Neil Z. Miller. Dr. John Bergman’s vaccine talks (also here and here) on YouTube also go over portions of the research.
2. The vaccine companies are protected by the government from having to pay for the harm they cause. If you or your child is harmed by a vaccine, it is impossible to sue the corporation that produced it and make them financially responsible for their actions. The vaccine companies are no longer accountable for the harm they cause, and consequently, since this law has been in place, the production of vaccines has exploded. This is an artificial protection that allows medical products that cause so much harm they would not be financially viable in the free market to be administered to hundreds of millions of people. I recommend reading…
View original post 214 more words
An interesting opinion and information post.
This creates a picture of a probable reality, given the known history mentioned.
The USS Harry S. Truman Carrier Strike Group left the east coast Naval Station Norfolk, VA on 11th April.
The aircraft carrier is accompanied by the guided-missile cruiser USS Normandy, the guided-missile destroyers USS Burke, Bulkeley, Forest Sherman and Farragut, and the destroyers USS Jason and The Sullivans. The strike group carries 6,500 sailors and Carrier Air Wing One.
Recent announcements about Russia’s hypersonic Kinzhal (‘Dagger’) missile system having made these vessels effectively obsolete, this means that the ships and their crews are essentially being sailed into a bloody scrapyard.
Even without the recent upgrading of the Kinzhal system, the experience of the British fleet in the Falklands conflict illustrates the vulnerability of warships to low-flying missiles. In addition to the sinking of the HMS Sheffield and Sir Galahad, virtually every British ship was hit by at least one of Argentinian’s…
View original post 910 more words
A powerful Australian alternative media force.
Australia is a key part of the New World Order plan. Photo: SMPH
The world is changing, and is changing fast. A group of international business elites with oligarchic origins continue to manipulate society in hopes of transforming the world in to a vision from Orwell’s dystopia – with Australia seemingly positioned as test dummies for numerous aspects of this system.
In the following piece, Ethan Nash explores Australia’s modern place in this unfolding plan, including the rapid expansion of intelligence communities in the last decade, advancements in smart technology used to develop the concepts and systems involved, and the continued suppression of free speech with topics such as vaccinations and political correctness.
SURVELLIANCE STATE:
The Australian intelligence community has been well-established over the course of the 20th century and has woven itself into the fabric of Australian society since advancements in modern technology during World War II.
However…
View original post 2,165 more words
Smart Lady !!!!
(with apologies for the self and program promotion, it gets a bit OTT)
There is a need to promote this post. A need for the public to be aware of the unscientific bases supporting the unsupportable claims from the top drivers of pseudo science that still is grimly clung to by political agenda mongols.
All their predictions are now shown to be incorrect, yet they still somehow have respect.
On June 24, 2008, Associated Press (AP) and the channels that distribute AP reported that Dr. James Hansen, NASA’s chief climate modelling expert, told Congress, “We’re toast if we don’t get on a different path.” And, “This is the last chance.” And, “The thing that I think is the most important is to block coal-fired power plants.”
“We see a tipping point occurring right before our eyes,” Hansen told AP. “The Arctic is the tipping point and it’s occurring exactly the way we said it would,” he said.
“Hansen, echoing work by other scientists, said that in five to 10 years, the Arctic will be free of ice in summer.”
U.S. Senator Ed Markey, Democrat of Massachusetts (a U.S. Representative in 2008) and head of the committee that heard Dr. Hansen’s testimony, added, “Dr. Hansen was right. Twenty years later, we recognize him as a climate prophet.”
As I write…
View original post 203 more words
Would be interesting to see the detailed financials. Reading the already many comments, many important factors need to be assessed.
Regarding the costs, Japan receives the energy output but at what costs and benefits to whom?CO2 generation, apparently the only ‘by-product’, is of course some sort of dilemma, but only if you believe the pseudo science of the alarmists. It might even be welcome if, as some believe, we are entering a little ice age period. and then, only if atmospheric CO2 actually does make a difference!
Hopefully, this energy production will have less of the subsidization required for solar and wind energies.
Guest essay by Eric Worrall
h/t Geoff Sherrington – Coal is being rehabilitated as an essential component of the clean energy future.
World-first coal to hydrogen plant trial launched in Victoria
ABC Gippsland By Kellie Lazzaro
Updated Thu at 2:03pmA world-first trial to use brown coal to make hydrogen has been launched in Victoria’s east as a pilot ‘clean energy’ project that is expected to create 400 jobs — but critics and coal industry experts alike said new measures will be needed to tackle the carbon emissions generated.
A demonstration plant will be built in the Latrobe Valley as part of the $496 million project to develop technology to produce hydrogen from the region’s vast reserves of coal.
The hydrogen would be shipped from the Port of Hastings to Japan under the deal with Kawasaki Heavy Industries, J-Power, Iwatani Corporation, Marubeni and the Japanese Government.
The Federal and Victorian…
View original post 283 more words
Where is the CO2 related warming?
Global UAH trend
I love CO2, it makes me breathe.
Noteworthy
Science based analysis of the North American health care system
One must begin somewhere.
He Said, She Said
Gold Coast Based Health Care Company
Rome, Italy April 22-23, 2019
View the latest health news and explore articles on fitness, diet, nutrition, parenting, relationships, medicine, diseases and healthy living at my health exercise.
Poetry and Prose by Ana Daksina
We're gonna build a dystopia, and we're gonna make Mexico pay for it
Towards a society that serves life
Mind🎋 Body 🎋Spirit 🎋 I.Q! 🎋What Is The Essence Of Existence? 🎋I Know That I’m Intelligent Because I Know That I Know Nothing! 🎋 Transforming Our Everyday Thoughts Into Great Realities!
MAKING A DIFFERENCE, ONE STEP AT A TIME
Health-2U.
This WordPress.com site is for insights, observations and commentary on various issues. We are part social critic, part philosopher, part dreamer, and part seeker after elusive truths.
Kavita Ramlal, Proudly South African
-Banasmita Pati
Academic Essays: Literature | General Issues
