* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
Download R.KUPPANNA General Manager Kuwait India International
General circulation model wikipedia , lookup
Climate change adaptation wikipedia , lookup
Effects of global warming on human health wikipedia , lookup
Climate change and agriculture wikipedia , lookup
Climatic Research Unit email controversy wikipedia , lookup
Climate change in the Arctic wikipedia , lookup
Soon and Baliunas controversy wikipedia , lookup
Myron Ebell wikipedia , lookup
Climate change in Tuvalu wikipedia , lookup
Climate change and poverty wikipedia , lookup
Mitigation of global warming in Australia wikipedia , lookup
Climate change denial wikipedia , lookup
Effects of global warming on humans wikipedia , lookup
Effects of global warming wikipedia , lookup
Climatic Research Unit documents wikipedia , lookup
Future sea level wikipedia , lookup
Climate change in the United States wikipedia , lookup
North Report wikipedia , lookup
Fred Singer wikipedia , lookup
Solar radiation management wikipedia , lookup
Global warming controversy wikipedia , lookup
Effects of global warming on Australia wikipedia , lookup
Instrumental temperature record wikipedia , lookup
Attribution of recent climate change wikipedia , lookup
Politics of global warming wikipedia , lookup
Physical impacts of climate change wikipedia , lookup
Climate change, industry and society wikipedia , lookup
Global warming wikipedia , lookup
Scientific opinion on climate change wikipedia , lookup
Surveys of scientists' views on climate change wikipedia , lookup
Media coverage of global warming wikipedia , lookup
Global warming hiatus wikipedia , lookup
Climate change feedback wikipedia , lookup
R.KUPPANNA General Manager Kuwait India International Exchange Company [email protected] November 7, 2009 Dear Customer, Friend and Well-Wisher of Kuwait India, "Contradictions do not exist. Whenever you think you are facing a contradiction, check your premises. You will find that one of them is wrong." .... Ayn Rand Global Warming? Or Cooling? In today's world, it is not fashionable to be politically incorrect. Who are we to go against the popular or majority view? Collective wisdom must be true because it is the collective view. One has to be pragmatic (viz. no principles; whatever works, works; short-range - yes; long range - just forget it) and go with the tide...whatever it be and whatever its direction. "Ad Hominem" imparts credibility to the views...not the truth or falsity of the facts/issues. The buzz, world over, being bandied about through every means by the mainstream media (press, tv, internet), various governmental/quasi-governmental/self-styled do-good organisations (of every hue!), is environmentalism - - in particular, global warming. Climate change is the hot topic in press rooms around the globe thanks, among the multitudes, to Al Gore's crusade on global warming..made all the more "seemingly credible" by his Nobel Prize. But let me tell you that the same mainstream, globally reputed media have been warning of impending climate doom four different times in the last 100 years...hemming and hawing. Only they can't decide if mankind will perish from warming or cooling. An analysis of the print media's climate change coverage since the late 1800s has been conducted by The Media Research Center's Business & Media Institute. Their Findings: Many of the same , current, mainstream media (now warning of global warming) said the world is facing an impending ice age (excessive global cooling) just 30 years ago. The New York Times, Time Magazine and Newsweek have reported on three or even four different climate shifts since 1895 ( "Scientists Ponder Why World's Climate is Changing; A Major Cooling Widely Considered to be Inevitable"--The New York Times, May 21, 1975) "Global Cooling" ( warned by several publications) posed a major threat to the food supply in the 1970s; now, remarkably warming is also considered a threat to the very same food supply. Glaciers are growing or shrinking -- the media continue to point to glaciers as a sign of climate change, but they have used them as examples of both cooling and warming. Global Cooling: 1954-1976 The ice age is coming, the sun’s zooming in Engines stop running, the wheat is growing thin A nuclear era, but I have no fear ’Cause London is drowning, and I live by the river -- The Clash “London Calling,” released in 1979 In all, the print news media have warned of four separate climate changes in slightly more than 100 years - global cooling, warming, cooling again, and, perhaps not so finally, warming. Some current warming stories, combine the concepts and claim the next ice age will be triggered by rising temperatures - the theme of the 2004 movie "The Day After Tomorrow". Just as the media have always relied on glaciers in climate change stories, they now rely on certain talking heads to make their points about global warming. Who better than Al Gore (with a Nobel boost!) as a pointsman for the environmental movement. He is brazenly advocating a larger and more intrusive bureaucracy to fend off global warming. Manking managed to survive three phases of fear about global warming and cooling without massive bureaucracy and government intervention, but aggressive lobbying by environmental groups finally changed that reality. The conclusion: 110 years' of conflicting media coverage and the weather changes are just as capricious . Public are taught to believe the news--four separate and distinct climate theories. But all four versions of the truth can't possibly be accurate! For people to judge the media's version of current events about global warming it is necessary to admit that journalists have misrepresented the story three other times. Yet no one in the media is owning up to that fact. You Choose. It's Your Take. In this context, it is pertinent to remind ourselves about the basic rules of journalism and set aside biases: * Support the open exchange of views, even if views are found repugnant * Give voice to the voiceless; official and unofficial sources of information can be equally valid * Distinguish between advocacy and news reporting. Analysis and commentary should be labelled and not misrepresent fact or context * Don't stifle debate (Most scientists do agree that the earth has warmed a little more than a degree in the last 100 years. That doesn't mean that scientists concur mankind is to blame. Even if that were the case, the impact of warming is unclear) * Don't ignore the costs * Report accurately on statistics (Source: Special Report, Media & Business Institute, "Fire and Ice", May 17, 2006) ********************* Scientific Shortcomings in the EPAs Endangerment Findings From Greenhouse Gases (Patrick Michaels & Paul Knappenberger Cato Journal, Vol. 29, No. 3. Fall 2009) In April of 2009, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued a finding of "proposed endangerment" from climate change caused by six geenhouse gases, with the largest contribution to warming resulting from emissions of carbon dioxide and methane.While I'll refer those interested to go to the original source, referred to above, let me briefly indicate the scientific shortcomings in the EPAs proposal. > Warming Due to Greenhouse Gases Overestimated > Estimates of Future Warming Rates are based on Falling Climate Models > Observed Responses of Decreased Mortality to Increased Heat Wave Frequency have been ignored The report also suffers from the following inadequacies: * Omission /dismissal of refereed scientific literature *Publication bias *Purposeful neglect of adaptation both to secular climate and climate change *Warming Due to Greenhouse Gases Overestimated (ignores recent important scientifc papers that, in aggregate, seriously challenge the assertion). For instance, a portion of net result of the error in early temperature measurement techniques entails the warming rate could be reduced by nearly 50%. *Some most important research (2008) that showed that the amount of warming caused by black carbon aerosols (not a greenhouse gas) has been underestimated and not assimilated in the EPA report. After factoring in this finding, the amount of reduction works out to about 25% The key finding in the Endangerment report of the EPA - that the build up of greenhouse gases is very likely to be the cause of most of the observed warming in the last 50 years - is wrong. While there is an outpouring ( verily a deluge!) of literature, scientific studies, data/analyses, reports, texts, journal articles, I've drawn upon the following for this article: > Global Warming: Correcting the Data - Patrick J. Michaels, Regulation, Fall 2008 > Climate Vulnerability and the Indispensable Value of Industrial Capitalism Keith H.Lockitch, Energy & Environment, Vol 20, No.5, 2009 > Scientific Shortcomings in the EPAs Endangerment Findings From Greenhouse Gases Patrick J. Michaels and Paul C. Knappenberger, Cato Journal, Vol 29, No 3, Fall 2009 > Fire And Ice, Special Report, Business & Media Institute, May 17, 2006 Because of the importance of fully understanding the nature of the environmentalist movement, I commend to your attention the following works Jay H. Lehr, ed., Rational Readings on Environmental Concerns (New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold, 1992) Ayn Rand, Return of the Primitive: The Anti-Industrial Revolution George Reisman, Capitalism: A Treatise on Economics (Ottawa, IL: Jameson Books, 1996), pp 63-120 George Reisman, The Toxicity of Environmentalism ( an essay) Evidently, the list is by no means exhausitve. Finally, what does all this mean? We have seen media bias, confusions galore (warming, cooling, both or neither), incomplete and/or inadequate scientific backing, deliberate disregard of data/facts not conforming to the assumed or stated position, a lot of media hype, uncritical acceptance of mere assertions, gloom-doom scenarios, disregard of the potential benefits of global warming, political agendas, a clamour for greater statist interventions, an anti-industrial stance and underlying all this, a nihilistic philosophical viewpoint. For the environmentalists, the “natural” world is a world without man. Man has no legitimate needs, but trees, ponds, and bacteria somehow do. They don’t mean it? Well, heed their words, for the consistent environmentalists openly announce their goals. Writes philosopher Paul Taylor: Given the total, absolute, and final disappearance of Homo Sapiens, not only would the Earth’s community of life continue to exist, but in all probability, its well-being would be enhanced. Our presence, in short, is not needed. And if we were to take the standpoint of that Life Community and give voice to its true interests, the ending of the human epoch on Earth would most likely be greeted with a hearty “Good riddance!” (Respect for Nature: A Theory of Environmental Ethics, p. 115) In a glowing review of Bill McKibben’s The End of Nature, biologist David Graber writes: Human happiness, and certainly human fecundity, are not as important as a wild and healthy planet....[The ecosystem has] intrinsic value, more value to me than another human body or a billion of them....Until such time as Homo Sapiens should decide to rejoin nature, some of us can only hope for the right virus to come along. (Los Angeles Times) Such is the naked essence of environmentalism: it mourns the death of one whale or tree but actually welcomes the death of billions of people. A more malevolent, man-hating philosophy is unimaginable.The guiding principle of environmentalism is self-sacrifice: the sacrifice of longer lives, healthier lives, more prosperous lives, more enjoyable lives, i.e., the sacrifice of human lives And now on to something more mundane, less serious issues Why Did The Chicken Cross The Road? I am going down memory lane. During my induction programme in State Bank of India (1975), I chanced across this (great!) issue of : Why Did The Chicken Cross The Road. It was all in good fun and banter by the 75ers (as the batch of 1975 probationary officers styled themselves). These were the responses during the brainstorming session then - --Why did the chicken cross the road? --Because it wanted to get to the other side --Why did it cross the road again? --Because it was a double-crosser --Why did it roll in the mud before crossing the road again? --Because it was a dirty, double-crosser The Chicken's Crossing has come a long way since. Great men have applied their mind to this issue. Here are some more asides on the ponderous matter of the Chicken Crossing the Road. Why Did The Chicken Cross the Road? * Plato * Aristotle * Moses - For the greater good. It is the nature of the chickens to cross the road. And God came down from the Heavens, and He said unto the chicken, 'Thou shalt cross the road'. And the chicken crossed the road, and There was much rejoicing . * Hippocrates Becasue of an excess of phlegm in its pancreas. * Machiaveli The point is that the chicken crossed the road. Who cares why? The end of crossing the road justifies the means. * Karl Marx It was a historical inevitability. * Darwin Chickens,over great periods of time, have been naturally selected in such a way,that they are now genetically disposed to cross roads. * Einstein Whether the chicken crossed the road or the road moved beneath the chicken depends upon your frame of reference and relativity. * Martin Luther King - I envision a world where all chickens will be free to cross roads without having their motives called into question. * Richard Nixon The chicken did not cross the road. I repeat the chicken did NOT cross the road. * George Bush We are committed to establishing a democracy where chickens freely cross roads without oppression from terrorist organisations. * Tomothy Leary Because that's the only trip the establishment would let it take. * Captain James Kirk- To boldly go where no chicken has gone before. (of Star Trek fame) * Bill Gates The newly released Chicken 2003, will not only cross roads, but lay eggs, file your important documents, and balance your checkbook. * Azharuddin I am totally innocent, you know, I am unnecessarily being dragged into this,you know, because I am from the Minority...I neither know the chicken nor the road, you know... * Mamatha Banerjee - Our policy will ensure the development of socially underprivileged chickens so that they can also cross railway tracks. * Sonia Gandhi I see the BJP hand in this. * Vatal Nagaraj No Tamil or ouside chickens will be allowed to cross our roads, our roads are meant only for Kannadiga chickens. * Laloo Prasad We are very sure of the fact that the chicken did not cross the road. It is a conspiracy by my opponents. The poor chicken has been made a scapegoat in this whole issue. * Communists We are adopting a wait and watch policy. We have convened a meeting of the Third Front. We will decide the future course of action after the chicken comes back. * Maneka Gandhi - Chicken crossed the road alone....!! If a vehicle had passed over it, we would have lost one of our dearest creatures. Ban all the vehicles from using the road. Protect our chicken. * Bal Thackerey Chickens crossing the road is against our culture. My followers will stone all such chickens that cross the road. * Karunanidhi From reliable sources I have got the information that the chicken belongs to Jayalalitha. She is making her chicken cross the road to create law and order problems. (What lofty thoughts!! I wonder what the poor chicken would be thinking of men) A Case for Equities/Short-Term Dollar View An interesting read from EquityMaster's 5 Minute Wrap (Nov 6, 2009) Stocks v/s Inflation Currency printing presses are working over-time and the interest rate scenario is lax the world over. It's not a surprise then that one of the foremost worries on investors' minds right now is of the threat of impending inflation. Gold has been much talked about in this respect and India too has not kept back with its recent purchase of 200 metric tonnes of gold from the International Monetary Fund (IMF) a couple of days back. But today's Chart of the Day shows how over the long term stocks comfortably beat consumer price inflation. It plots the yearly increase in the consumer price index against the yearly change in the Nifty. Even though the returns in the Nifty may not be correspondingly higher during times of inflation, you will do well to note that over the last 13 years, while the average annual inflation has been 6.2%, stocks have returned an annual average of over 15.5% during the same period. Source: Asian Development Bank, CMIE Prowess Dollar View The US dollar in recent times has been bashed left, right and centre. The reasons have been many; America's recession, its gargantuan debt and the rising power of emerging nations, particularly China which has questioned the status of the dollar as the world's reserve currency. But if Marc Faber and Elliot Wave analyst Robert Prechter are to be believed, the dollar may very well appreciate. Infact, Marc Faber has gone one step forward and said that the dollar could appreciate 10% against the euro during the next quarter. This is indeed an interesting view given by Faber considering that he has been the advocate of the dollar's collapse since a long time. As for us, we believe that while in the near term the dollar could rally because of the overly bearish sentiments towards it, from a longer term perspective, unless the US reduces its deficit the dollar could remain under pressure. In Lighter Vein: A WISE MAN A guy was invited to an old friends' home for dinner. His buddy preceded every request to his wife by endearing terms, calling her Honey, My Love, Darling, Sweetheart, Pumpkin, etc. The guy was impressed since he knew the couple had been married almost 70 years, and while the wife was off in the kitchen he said to his buddy, "I think it's wonderful that after all the years you've been married, you still call your wife those pet names." His buddy hung his head. "To tell you the truth, I forgot her name about ten years ago." A Note: Last week, I inadvertently omitted to send the punchline about the joke in the golf locker room. I made up for it by sending in the punchline, a few hours later. However, there were interesting feedbacks on that piece. A friend (who is also an avid golfer) mentioned that the piece (without the punchline), while iniitially it fluxxomed him, did make sense to golfers: golfers are so passionate and involved in their game that they wouldn't like to be bothered...so it made sense to the golfer to OK his wife's requests, just to be done with her, golf being more important at that time; evidently a rich golfer! Yet another feedback, from a customer, said that it sounded interesting..more like a TV serial..where the denouement is announced in the next episode! While I am glad at the interesting responses, I must confess that I had no such thoughts or intentions...it was mere sloppiness on my part. My aim is to provide fun to my readers and to use a 'Wodehousian" expression, "spread sweetness and light". Thank you all for your interest. POSERS Answers to Last Week's Posers: 1. You can take away the whole and still have some left. You can take away some and still have the whole left. What is it? The word WHOLESOME 2. What five letters can you add "und" to - at the beginning and end - to create a common English word? (und -----und) ERGRO 3. In these puzzles, a proverb is written with exactly one letter of each word replaced with another. Can you figure out what the original proverb is? a) Wetter mate that fever. BETTER LATE THAN NEVER b) Take hat white she sin whines. MAKE HAY WHILE THE SUN SHINES All correct responses came from: Mr. N.R.Sampath (my predecessor, former GM of Kuwait India), Mr. Rajeev Kumar, Mr. Imtiyaz (both my colleagues), Mr. Sanjiv Pabrai, Mr. Ramachandra Paleti, Mr.Murali Manohar Annadatha and Mr. Gigi George. Mr. Chinmaya (my colleague) and Dr. Abhay answered poser 3 (proverbs). Mr. Sampath was first off the block with his responses coming in first , a few hours after the mail was posted. Kudos and Cheers to all!! Posers for the Week: Based on use of lateral thinking. To illustrate: Consider a tennis knockout tournament with 128 players participating. How many matches in all will be played in the tournament? The standard way of answering this question would entail addition of 64 matches in the first round, 32 matches in the secound round etc. i.e. : 64+32+16+8+4+2+1 = 127 matches. Another way (the lateral or "out-of-the-box" thinking) would be: there's a loser in every match; of 128 players, one's a winner; hence 127 (128-1) losers; therefore 127 matches. Generalizing, if there are n players in a knockout tournament, in all n-1 matches would be played. Here are some posers for the week, to check out your lateral thinking power: 1. Two Americans are dining. One of them is the father of the son of the other. How are the diners related? 2. Acting on an anonymous phone call the police raid a house to arrest a suspected murderer. They don't know what he looks like but they know his name is John. Inside they find a carpenter, a lorry driver, a car mechanic and a fireman playing cards. Without even asking his name they arrest the fireman. How did they know they've got their man? 3. There was once a recluse who never left his home. The only time anyone ever visited him was when his food and supplies were delivered, but they never came inside. Then, one stormy winter night when an icy gale was blowing, he had a nervous breakdown. He went upstairs, turned off all the lights and went to bed. Next morning he caused the deaths of several hundred people. HOW? Thought For The Week The ideal world of environmentalists is not 20th-century Western civilization; it is the Garden of Eden, a world with no human intervention in nature, a world without innovation or change, a world without effort, a world where survival is somehow guaranteed, a world where man has mystically merged with the “environment.” Had the environmentalist mentality prevailed in the 18th and 19th centuries, we would have had no Industrial Revolution, a situation environmentalists would cheer—at least those few who might have managed to survive without the life-saving benefits of modern science and technology. The expressed goal of environmentalism is to prevent man from changing his environment, from intruding on nature. That is why environmentalism is fundamentally anti-man. For, in reality, man as such is an “intrusion” on the status quo of nature. Only by intrusion can man avoid pestilence and famine. Only by intrusion can man project long-range goals and control his life. Intrusion improves the environment, i.e., man’s surroundings. Man’s life requires productive work, which, as Ayn Rand described it, is a process of “shaping matter to fit one’s purpose, of translating an idea into physical form, of remaking the earth in the image of one’s values” ------Dr. Michael Berliner Happy Reading! Best Wishes R.Kuppanna