Download R.KUPPANNA General Manager Kuwait India International

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