Dr. John Christy, director of the Earth System Science center and professor of atmospheric science at The University of Alabama believes the Jury is still out on the matter.
Iam in something of a unique position in the contentious, highly-politicised debate about global warming.
Although I publish data showing a long-term global warming trend, I have been labelled a global warming skeptic, in part because my research does not confirm the cataclysmic climate predictions produced by climate models.
Every month for 20 years, my colleague Roy Spencer and I have published global temperature data collected by the US weather satellites. This is the most comprehensive temperature data available, covering over 95 percent of the globe.
For about a decade, these data have shown no warming. Since late 1978, the data show a long-term warming trend of about 0.13 C per decade, but which is slower than models project. My skepticism about (among other things) the reliability of climate models has no bearing on the climate data and the peer-reviewed climate research that we publish.
Unfortunately, much (if not most) of the climate debate over the past two decades has been driven not by what we know about the climate system, but by what some people believe to be true. As a former Baptist minister, I understand the power of belief and faith. I understand the role of faith in a person's spiritual life.
As a scientist, however, I also understand that when it comes to the climate we must appeal to science — not depth of feeling or arguments from authority — if we want to know what is really happening to the climate and what our proper actions should be.
My research and that of others, suggests that we do not know as much about the climate as the public has been led to believe. There are claims, for instance, that all types of weather-related problems (droughts and floods, violent storms and so forth) are becoming more frequent and violent. Fortunately, scientists keep records of such things and a calm, systematic study of the climate history shows that while there are natural cycles there is no long-term increase in these events. The scientific numbers, for instance, show a slight decline in the number of tornadoes in the US since 1950.
In fairness, it should be noted that one significant problem in this debate is that scientists don't really know as much about the climate as we should. There are numerous gaps in our knowledge that cause some of us to advocate caution and "going slow” when actions mean reducing economic progress in places were it is desperately needed.
Given the inherent complexity of the task, there are fundamental limits to what climate models can do. There are so many chaotic, complex and poorly understood processes in the climate system that long-term climate predictions should always be suspect. Obviously, we need more observational research. (Easy for a scientist to say.) We need better systems for collecting data, so, we can do a better job of understanding the intricate interplay of the climate's many pieces, including how clouds and heating processes interact. This is a fundamental requirement for improving climate models. Understanding what the climate does will lead to a better understanding of why it does and what it does. Until that happens, we should all be cautious not to confuse what we believe with the little that we actually know about the climate.
Iam in something of a unique position in the contentious, highly-politicised debate about global warming.
Although I publish data showing a long-term global warming trend, I have been labelled a global warming skeptic, in part because my research does not confirm the cataclysmic climate predictions produced by climate models.
Every month for 20 years, my colleague Roy Spencer and I have published global temperature data collected by the US weather satellites. This is the most comprehensive temperature data available, covering over 95 percent of the globe.
For about a decade, these data have shown no warming. Since late 1978, the data show a long-term warming trend of about 0.13 C per decade, but which is slower than models project. My skepticism about (among other things) the reliability of climate models has no bearing on the climate data and the peer-reviewed climate research that we publish.
Unfortunately, much (if not most) of the climate debate over the past two decades has been driven not by what we know about the climate system, but by what some people believe to be true. As a former Baptist minister, I understand the power of belief and faith. I understand the role of faith in a person's spiritual life.
As a scientist, however, I also understand that when it comes to the climate we must appeal to science — not depth of feeling or arguments from authority — if we want to know what is really happening to the climate and what our proper actions should be.
My research and that of others, suggests that we do not know as much about the climate as the public has been led to believe. There are claims, for instance, that all types of weather-related problems (droughts and floods, violent storms and so forth) are becoming more frequent and violent. Fortunately, scientists keep records of such things and a calm, systematic study of the climate history shows that while there are natural cycles there is no long-term increase in these events. The scientific numbers, for instance, show a slight decline in the number of tornadoes in the US since 1950.
In fairness, it should be noted that one significant problem in this debate is that scientists don't really know as much about the climate as we should. There are numerous gaps in our knowledge that cause some of us to advocate caution and "going slow” when actions mean reducing economic progress in places were it is desperately needed.
Given the inherent complexity of the task, there are fundamental limits to what climate models can do. There are so many chaotic, complex and poorly understood processes in the climate system that long-term climate predictions should always be suspect. Obviously, we need more observational research. (Easy for a scientist to say.) We need better systems for collecting data, so, we can do a better job of understanding the intricate interplay of the climate's many pieces, including how clouds and heating processes interact. This is a fundamental requirement for improving climate models. Understanding what the climate does will lead to a better understanding of why it does and what it does. Until that happens, we should all be cautious not to confuse what we believe with the little that we actually know about the climate.
I got orders from Delhi, but I couldn’t accept it as I don’t have enough manpower.” Even though many government officials have visited this place, no government support has come through for him or the thirty odd families involved in it. “This could be developed into good business with government aid. It could benefit the agricultural workers too for they’ll get to supply raw materials. Besides, these sarees are eco-friendly,” he reminds.
named Lewis Mumford stood out as one of the most vocal critics of urban automobile transportation in the United States. In particular, he saw the ever-increasing use of cars as one of the main factors deteriorating social life in cities and he posed a question that is as relevant today as it was almost a half-century ago: “Does the city exist for people, or for motorcars?” Mumford was certainly not the first person to call attention to the everyday problems associated with urban driving or the development of vast landscapes around the automobile, but as a prominent writer and intellectual in New York City he influenced a wide range of activists, scholars and city planners who have been instrumental in rethinking America’s collective obsession with the automobile.
1948 had already dealt a heavy blow to the newly-formed nation. The assassination of Pakistan’s first Prime Minister Liaquat Ali Khan on October 16, 1951, at a public meeting at Municipal Park, (now Liaquat Bagh), Rawalpindi, plunged the country into a serious constitutional, political and identity crisis. “After Jinnah, Khan was the only leader with nationwide standing. His murder shifted leadership to regional satraps. These leaders had their support base in one province or another. This leadership found it difficult to create consensus on constitution-making cutting across boundaries. Pakistani politics got fragmented as a result,” Dr Hasan Askari-Rizvi, Pakistan’s top defence analyst and a distinguished scholar told TSI. The uncertainty and chaos that engulfed Pakistan after Liaquat’s assassination under mysterious circumstances could be gauged from the fact that between 1947 and 1958, Pakistan had as many as seven prime ministers from different political parties and groups. Palace intrigues became the order of the day.
of the Indians. But then this Sunday marked a historical day for India. For the first time, the country was resilient against those who break the laws. India detained an American Boeing 767. News channels were busy flashing and discussing this unconventional step by Indian authorities. The plane was coming from Fujairah, UAE, Middle East and was headed towards Bangkok along with 205 American marines. And reasons for detaining the plane were that it didn’t follow the guideline of using Indian airspace, it was grounded by Indian authorities at Mumbai airport. The plane took permission from Indian airport authorities but didn’t bother to seek AOR consent and clearance from the Indian Air Force. As per the norms, any military charter plane of any country needs approval from Indian Air Force, necessarily, in order to use Indian airspace. This norm was ignored in this case and hence, detention was the consequence.
Some doctors, who were rendering free services to HIV positive victims, have stopped work because they allege that they are getting no help from the government. Dr I. S. Gilada, secretary of the AIDS Society of India, blames the state government for the sudden spread of HIV/AIDS in the state.
Maharashtra Navnirman Sena. The party has also won an astounding number of seats. This has given a fresh lease of life to conspiracy theories that seem to suggest that the Congress has deliberately encouraged Raj Thackeray to cut the Shiv Sena down to size — just as it had encouraged the Shiv Sena many decades ago to cut the trade union movement down to size. Back then, the Shiv Sena had unleashed mayhem in the streets of Mumbai, just as the storm troopers of Raj Thackeray are doing at the moment. This is clearly a dangerous and worrying trend because the assembly elections do reveal that a considerable number of Marathi speaking voters seem to think there is something right with the divisive slogans of Raj Thackeray.
megastar who has been weaving magic on the silver screen for close to half a century with the sheer range and depth of his performances. He’s been there and done it times without number, but the multi-talented actor manages to keep his enthusiasm for the medium alive. He still goes where few dare to – and all in a day’s work. Being a maverick comes easy to Kamal Hassan.
Posada directly reported – appealing consent to join the synchronizing junta for four violent exile factions, including an organisation called RECE that was operated by Mas Canosa. “I will give the Company all the intelligence that I can collect,” Posada had pleaded and promised. “I will gain a more solid position between the exiles and, because of that, I will be in a better position in the future to perform a good job for the Company,” he had convincingly added. Other documents reveal that Posada had been briefing CIA on the actions of Mas Canosa on the regular basis since mid 60s. For example, in July 1965, Posada informed CIA that he had finished the circuit for two ten-pound Limpet bombs that were to be used exclusively against USSR and Cuban ships that were temporarily stationed in the Mexican port of Veracruz. The bombs constituted of some eight pounds of Pentolite explosives each and a pencil detonator. The operation was planned by Mas Canosa.
index – Sensex was at a multi-year low of 8,509. On that day when Delhi-based Sahadev – who has been a keen follower of the market and an avid investor – was asked about his investment plans, he answered, “Are you crazy? The market is going through a real bad phase and if you don’t want to burn your money, just sit quiet. Wait till the bulls return to the market.” Today, the market is again on an upswing and the Sensex has climbed over 3,000 points in less than 50 trading sessions between July 14 and September 18 to come close to 17,000 from 13,800. This rally has given Sahadev enough confidence to return to the market. And he is not alone. Millions of retail investors who kept themselves away from the market after losing billions in the market mayhem of 2008 are now returning with renewed expectations. Probably, they all think the way Sahadev thinks. But the question remains, is it actually the right time to invest? Well, as some market man had once said, there is no right or wrong time to enter the market. It’s all about how and where you park your money!